fnef

I agree that it's a powerful tool. It's a short-circuit for logic that, at times, can be useful to apply (such as, for example, wartime when debate can be deadly). I don't think this is one of those times.

If we release our energy as hate and disparagement of harassers without fixing the problem at its core (or even finding out what that is), then all we've done is used exaggeration to make ourselves feel better, and add more poison and fear to the world.

That's why I'm against calling things "misogyny" which aren't. Mind you, I do think misogyny is a real thing and a real problem, but I think it's quite buried in the social media and you'll rarely hear about it.

Real hatred isn't funny, rational, or outrageous enough to be viral, and real hatred doesn't get off on reactions. That's the difference.

> Considering that it appears to disproportionally target women

That's a pretty big [citation needed]. All I see is that misogyny is a disproportionally popular news item, which is not at all the same thing.

And if it's just an expression of people's mental disorders, that's not hate, and it's not productive to fixing the issue to call it hate when it's not.

I challenge the notion that online trolls are genuinely hateful, almost regardless of their target. They're just sadists who find pleasure in other's suffering.

I think it's horrible and these people deserve rehabilitative punishment by law, but it's silly to label it as hate, or, when the target happens to be female, misogyny.

All I see is a comment about being careful about where you upload your naked pictures. I don't see any mention of gender at all.

I'm not sure where you see a suggestion of hatred, of women, or psychopathy.