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 “Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me”. That is true except for slander and libel. To continue with the cliches, “People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”.
I am not tolerant of any PHYSICAL abuse. I’m not sure virtual abuse is real. No one I know is going to some lady’s 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 aren’t 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 “abuse”, and what would you might label as “abuse” occurs on both sides. But on reddit and 4chan only one side has been censored. That is fine, but “free speech” v.s. “only politically correct pro-gender-feminist speech” 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 don’t have to ride a motorcycle. And if you run barefoot, you need to develop a thick skin - callouses - there.
I don’t think oversensitivity and fear on someone’s part makes ordinary aggressive and even tough discussion “abuse” toward them. Victims don’t get to define the crime, the law, the rules, must be objective and enforced equally.
Here is a case of “if a Man said it…” 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 “abuse” 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 don’t 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 “polite”, 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.