Abuse seems also to be a very general term. In a deminimus way, your post is abusive to me. Random, anonymous, amorphous threats are also abusive, but still just talk. Or as children are taught āSticks and Stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt meā. That is true except for slander and libel. To continue with the cliches, āPeople who live in glass houses shouldnāt throw stonesā.
I am not tolerant of any PHYSICAL abuse. Iām not sure virtual abuse is real. No one I know is going to some ladyās Facebook page where she has uncontroversial pictures and discussions on things like kitchen utensils and party decorations and making death threats.
However there are men and women who arenāt merely trying to discuss #GamerGate, but they want to sling not just mud but stones (virtual stones?). Some enter into the discussion, and they ought to be wearing appropriate attire. It is something like playing paintball, then complaining your clothes get dirty and you get a small bruise from a direct hit. I know of no one who has not intentionally entered the fray who has been subject to āabuseā, and what would you might label as āabuseā occurs on both sides. But on reddit and 4chan only one side has been censored. That is fine, but āfree speechā v.s. āonly politically correct pro-gender-feminist speechā are different policies, and they seemed to change toward the latter recently.
This even applies to something purely technical. Code reviews can be brutal, and maybe ought to be. If you will be reduced to tears when someone finds a critical bug, then the problem is with you, not with the reviewer.
If you wish to do battle, you should wear armor and shield. Many places require helmets when riding a motorcycle. You donāt have to ride a motorcycle. And if you run barefoot, you need to develop a thick skin - callouses - there.
I donāt think oversensitivity and fear on someoneās part makes ordinary aggressive and even tough discussion āabuseā toward them. Victims donāt get to define the crime, the law, the rules, must be objective and enforced equally.
Here is a case of āif a Man said itā¦ā http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/11170286/Why-Britains-women-are-allowed-to-sexually-objectify-men.html It cannot be equality, the rule of law, or āabuseā if it is only wrong if men do it to women, but not when women do the IDENTICAL thing to men. And that is my problem - I donāt tolerate or am intolerant of anything different based on the sex, gender, race, creed, or whatever of the person. Either the act itself is abusive or it is not. If the place is supposed to be āpoliteā, then rudeness on the part of anyone and everyone should not be tolerated. Instead, I find excuses being made for one party or the other party, persons, not actions.