Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 7th Feb 2012 17:55 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y Let this be a lesson. After posts by John Gruber and Shawn King, this happened to Violet Blue. "The misinformation gave a significant number of people fuel to stalk me, attack me for hours at a time, malign, insult me in disgusting ways, threaten me with weapon-specific violent death (an axe), and lead social media attempts to force me to lose my job over the matter. Many referenced John Gruber, and/or his post as they did this. Plans were openly made to make media to attack me - another Angry Mac Bastards podcast." Disgusting story, and sadly enough, this isn't the first time this has happened, as Blue notes in her article. I don't like talking about these matters (you don't want to know the kind of crap that gets thrown my way at times), but I can assure you my inbox has seen its share of pure vitriol after Gruber links to an OSNews piece. It ain't pretty.
Thread beginning with comment 506277
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

I certainly have. What I find interesting here is you're not confronting the fact that someone is assigning a mood to someone else based upon the fact she's not smiling. Or the very notion that it's okay to assign descriptors as a matter of 'fact' just because a woman is endowed.

Do you have any idea how often women are told to 'smile' because they look 'glum' if they're not smiling? Seriously, you need to really consider how you assign values to someone based upon a single photo without context.

I also find it funny you called me dude automatically.

Edited 2012-02-08 00:22 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

Shkaba Member since:

I also find it funny you called me dude automatically.

And just what did you expect with a nickname like that? Your highness??

I would suggest you clear in your mind the difference between sexist and stereotype. There is a simple reason for this, namely when you attribute someone's function based on the looks is called stereotyping regardless of sex. Lets se what a stereotype of a "booth babe" is:
- Attractive (Check)
- Dressed in a way to emphasize appearance (Check)

As for the "sad" speculation, it is assumed that on an exhibition people participating smile and look upbeat for the purpose of inviting interaction, therefore when someone doesn't smile and looksdejected one makes an assumption that person in question is sad. Nothing sexist about being sad, is there? What would be sexist is claiming that women can anly be booth babes. Notice any difference.

How come you are not reacting to the fact that gruber & king fabricated the swan story. After all they launched their attack based on the fact that blue didn't do her due dilligence and yet they did far worse then her???

Reply Parent Score: 2

Aristocracies Member since:

Right off the bat here:
- Dressed in a way to emphasize appearance (Check)

You seriously can't see the sexism in what you're saying here? You genuinely believe that a moderately tight long-sleeved shirt is 'stereotypical' booth babe attire?


Gruber and King taking a comment someone else left misidentifying a person as fact is indeed 'wrong' (and something they both acknowledged once the person was properly identified), however it doesn't detract from the actual situation that Violet took a photo of someone she didn't even bother to speak to then posted a bit in an article assigning 'sad' and 'booth babe' to her based upon her physical endowments and the fact she was not smiling at that exact moment. She could not even be bothered to properly photograph the subject in question and I'm not surprised someone misidentified her.

The fact of the matter is, Violet was acting as a journalist at this event. She didn't even speak to the person. She didn't bother to get a name. She saw someone not smiling, sitting in a booth next to other vendors and took a quick little snap and expanded it with conjecture later.

That's totally bullshit, end of story.

Reply Parent Score: 1