[diana_eva]

 onoway, on 2014-January-16, 05:52, said:

... only has the power over you that you give him....

This pretty much sums it IMO. As usual Helene beat me to upvote this

[GreenMan]

 onoway, on 2014-January-16, 05:52, said:

He doesn't know who you are in "real life" so really only has the power over you that you give him.

I think we have completely different understandings of power.

You're saying that a simple step one can take to protect herself is contrary to some spirit of BBO or something and therefore must NOT be allowed. That's you exerting power over the woman being harassed. Why do you get to decide?

[helene_t]

 GreenMan, on 2014-January-16, 13:17, said:

I think we have completely different understandings of power.

You're saying that a simple step one can take to protect herself is contrary to some spirit of BBO or something and therefore must NOT be allowed. That's you exerting power over the woman being harassed. Why do you get to decide?

Huh? She was just giving advice, wasn't she?

[diana_eva]

I think it's pretty much a "don't feed the trolls" approach. Stalker is happy to see women upset by him, hence do not allow him to upset you. I don't know how you took it, GreenMan, but as a woman I haven't found anything offending in Pam's post. I don't think she was trying to combat your suggestion either.

Edit: OK, she was trying to combat your suggestion, sorry I was too charmed by the last part of Pam's post and completely forgot she started by quoting you.

This post has been edited by diana_eva: 2014-January-17, 08:03

[GreenMan]

 diana_eva, on 2014-January-16, 13:56, said:

I think it's pretty much a "don't feed the trolls" approach. Stalker is happy to see women upset by him, hence do not allow him to upset you. I don't know how you took it, GreenMan, but as a woman I haven't found anything offending in Pam's post. I don't think she was trying to combat your suggestion either.

"this idea would definitely be letting the bad guys win" definitely feels like combating my idea. Perhaps you can explain how it's not?

People who haven't experienced the level of harassment that the OP has should NOT NOT NOT be lecturing them (or anyone else, but especially them) on how they should feel about it. That's a form of trolling in itself.

When the trolls are already feeding themselves, and you could stop them but you don't, you're perpetuating the problem.

[diana_eva]

 GreenMan, on 2014-January-16, 18:02, said:

"this idea would definitely be letting the bad guys win" definitely feels like combating my idea. Perhaps you can explain how it's not?

People who haven't experienced the level of harassment that the OP has should NOT NOT NOT be lecturing them (or anyone else, but especially them) on how they should feel about it. That's a form of trolling in itself.

When the trolls are already feeding themselves, and you could stop them but you don't, you're perpetuating the problem.

What exactly makes you feel I or someone else posting in this thread didn't experience that level of harassment? Why the heck do you think I'm all over this thread? Because I feel i do know exactly what it can be like and how to escape.

[GreenMan]

 diana_eva, on 2014-January-16, 19:18, said:

What exactly makes you feel I or someone else posting in this thread didn't experience that level of harassment? Why the heck do you think I'm all over this thread? Because I feel i do know exactly what it can be like and how to escape.

You have suggested nothing resembling the level of terror that the OP described. If you've simply been keeping it to yourself, then I apologize.

It still doesn't mean you or anyone else ought to dismiss her concerns by saying that her well-being is beside the point and she needs to just look after herself. If that is indeed how BBO operates, then that's sad.

[onoway]

I don't know where GreenMan gets his idea that I am saying not to protect herself. Nor did I or anyone else ever suggest her wellbeing was not a concern. I AM saying that to have BBO set up a way for people to hide from the general BBO population by restricting any communications from anyone other than yellows or already established friends would be a sad thing and would indeed mean that the stalker "won".

Women who allow such things to restrict their lives unnecessarily are choosing to remain a victim, allowing someone else's problems to limit their freedom. I'm sure GreenMan will feel I am being unsympathetic but that's the reality. Live with it. Hiding without valid reason is demeaning and destructive to self respect.

I posted about my background and have come back and deleted it, I don't owe GreenMan or anyone else any explanation as to how I "qualify" to give my opinion, suffice to say I do. In any case it seems the height of arrogance for a man to tell ANY women who themselves have experienced the same problems, that they have to have experienced a certain degree of harrassment, presumably which meets his criteria, in order to give an opinion on the matter. It would seem he feels that somehow he is more of an expert on such things than people who have shared the experience of being targetted by a predator.

Also, overreacting is not helpful. To use the term "terror" in this situation is absurd. Upset, yes, shocked, embarrassed, angry, frustrated, many things but not terror. The guy is known to live halfway around the world from her, doesn't know who she is or where she lives and has no way to contact her in real life, this is entirely online. Several of us have given her ways to prevent him from being able to contact her or even know who she is or when she is online. He cannot affect her if she chooses not to let him,

To define this as being terrifying trivializes the anguish of people who are living with people who are predatory and abusive, and who are in daily danger of being hurt or even killed by the person abusing them, or those who are unfortunate enough to physically encounter one of these subhumans on the prowl. Her solutions are simple and easy, theirs are not.

I might also point out that she knows the country where the stalker originates and suggested in one of the other threads she started about this that she contact the police there. She could offer documentation from her BBO chat log. Most countries now have some sort of law about cyberbullying and this certainly qualifies.

Women ( or men for that matter) who take steps to help themselves in a situation are more likely to walk away stronger than those who count on others to do it all for them. Encouraging them to feel helpless, misunderstood and "hard done by" if anyone suggests they do what they can for themselves is a very destructive thing to do.

[onoway]

 GreenMan, on 2014-January-17, 02:59, said:

You have suggested nothing resembling the level of terror that the OP described. If you've simply been keeping it to yourself, then I apologize.

It still doesn't mean you or anyone else ought to dismiss her concerns by saying that her well-being is beside the point and she needs to just look after herself. If that is indeed how BBO operates, then that's sad.

I find I am upset about your posts and since I am not a yellow so don't represent BBO, I can say what I think. I think that your posts show a neanderthal attitude possibly reflecting a Walter Mitty point of view of yourself as some sort of knight defending a lady in distress, or more darkly, reflecting a preference for women to stay feeling helpless and out of control. The latter is early stages on the same continuum as the predator's behaviour, so I hope that they come out of the first. I'm generously assuming so, and hoping they reflect simple ignorance rather than intention, though your energetic attacks on the women posters here make me wonder.

They most certainly reflect a truly astounding arrogance.

[Scarabin]

 onoway, on 2014-January-19, 11:54, said:

I find I am upset about your posts and since I am not a yellow so don't represent BBO, I can say what I think. I think that your posts show a neanderthal attitude possibly reflecting a Walter Mitty point of view of yourself as some sort of knight defending a lady in distress, or more darkly, reflecting a preference for women to stay feeling helpless and out of control. The latter is early stages on the same continuum as the predator's behaviour, so I hope that they come out of the first. I'm generously assuming so, and hoping they reflect simple ignorance rather than intention, though your energetic attacks on the women posters here make me wonder.

They most certainly reflect a truly astounding arrogance.

I normally agree with your posts but I feel you are unfair to Greenman. Like him I feel sad that BBO and posters cannot be more helpful in these instances. I would suggest, as an arrogant, misunderstanding male, that victims of harassment first need relief from harassment as a short term measure and then, ideally some sort of long term remedy.

I do not think Greenman makes "energetic attacks on the women posters"; if anything he seems supportive. Fair?

[diana_eva]

FWIW I didn't think Greenman was rude either. It bugged me that he assumed we'd be posting just to "lecture" OP, but other than that I fully accept that *my* way is not the only way Online harassment is a real issue. On BBO though there are very few true lunatics. There is the occasional fisher who drops a pickup line and if it doesn't work so be it. I don't consider those "stalkers", although it's definitely annoying to be asked intimate questions by a stranger. I think BBO overall is much nicer and safer than many other sites. And people who try something funny don't know who we are in real life, so there is no real threat. That is why blocking them and reporting to abuse should be good enough. Most of the offenders clear their act after being banned or warned. Again, there are only a few true stalkers. Given how big BBO is, I still feel safe and happy here.

[onoway]

Fair enough. I consider being equated with a troll because I suggest that taking steps to help herself is a good thing or being yelled at that we (the women who responded) had no right to suggest that HIS idea of restricting interaction from the general population wasn't the optimum solution, (unless we were somehow "qualified", a restriction he himself was immune from) is being something other than helpful or supportive. If others disagree that's certainly their right. I stand by what I said.

[aguahombre]

Let's make it perfectly clear: There was only one troll in this thread; it was me; and, my feeble attempt at humor in no way represents lack of empathy for the victims of this serious problem.

I perceive nothing insensitive in the intent of other posters.

[Elianna]

 onoway, on 2014-January-19, 17:16, said:

Fair enough. I consider being equated with a troll because I suggest that taking steps to help herself is a good thing or being yelled at that we (the women who responded) had no right to suggest that HIS idea of restricting interaction from the general population wasn't the optimum solution, (unless we were somehow "qualified", a restriction he himself was immune from) is being something other than helpful or supportive. If others disagree that's certainly their right. I stand by what I said.

I think that it's a two-edged sword:

People (like you) are trying to be helpful by giving the OP advice on things she can do to try to minimize the pain that she is feeling. However, sometimes advice can sound like "if you didn't/don't do this, then you deserve whatever you get", which sentiments I think that we can all say we would disagree with.

I don't have a solution to this, because tone is hard to read online, but I do wonder if GreenMan is reading the second thought into what you said, whereas you intended the first.

[onoway]

 Elianna, on 2014-January-20, 22:25, said:

I think that it's a two-edged sword:

People (like you) are trying to be helpful by giving the OP advice on things she can do to try to minimize the pain that she is feeling. However, sometimes advice can sound like "if you didn't/don't do this, then you deserve whatever you get", which sentiments I think that we can all say we would disagree with.

I don't have a solution to this, because tone is hard to read online, but I do wonder if GreenMan is reading the second thought into what you said, whereas you intended the first.

ok I am likely to bring the wrath of everyone down on my head, but to some extent I do believe that if someone doesn't do what she or he can to rectify a situation then they do indeed take some responsibility for continuing to be in that situation.

An analogy would be someone in a burning house waiting for a fireman to come in and carry her out when she was perfectly able to walk out on her own, and complaining to people that the firemen were taking too long, or had soot on their clothes. I don't expect them to put out the fire but I do expect people to take some responsibility for themselves.

This appears to be a politically incorrect way of viewing things these days when it seems that no matter what it's always someone else's fault or someone else's responsibility. I was raised to think otherwise and still do, for any number or reasons. This is not to blame anyone for getting INTO a situation in the first place, just that they do hold some responsibility for doing what they can..it may be nothing or it may be a lot..to get out of a bad one.

I once worked with a woman who had been so badly hurt by her boyfriend that she had been in intensive care for some time with the outcome in doubt. It was not the first time she had landed in hospital because of his attentions, but it was the latest, and worst. She was living with her mother, who was also working in camp. She was frequently talking about/trying to justify going back to her boyfriend.

There are so many people who can make positive use of help that I personally don't have the energy/time to spend on people who can't or refuse to help themselves or even make use of the help they are given. There are professionals who are paid to help such people, and I suggest to such people that they find a professional to help them. T'aint me, and frankly, I don't know how to sympathize with those people without in some way validating their disfunction. I've no interest in trying to help someone who will try to drown me in the process of rescuing them.

Luckilly, such people are very much in the minority, and most people can/do benefit from help that's offered, and will make use of whatever help is appropriate to help themselves.

[Scarabin]

 onoway, on 2014-January-21, 15:15, said:

ok I am likely to bring the wrath of everyone down on my head, but to some extent I do believe that if someone doesn't do what she or he can to rectify a situation then they do indeed take some responsibility for continuing to be in that situation.

An analogy would be someone in a burning house waiting for a fireman to come in and carry her out when she was perfectly able to walk out on her own, and complaining to people that the firemen were taking too long, or had soot on their clothes. I don't expect them to put out the fire but I do expect people to take some responsibility for themselves.

This appears to be a politically incorrect way of viewing things these days when it seems that no matter what it's always someone else's fault or someone else's responsibility. I was raised to think otherwise and still do, for any number or reasons. This is not to blame anyone for getting INTO a situation in the first place, just that they do hold some responsibility for doing what they can..it may be nothing or it may be a lot..to get out of a bad one.

I once worked with a woman who had been so badly hurt by her boyfriend that she had been in intensive care for some time with the outcome in doubt. It was not the first time she had landed in hospital because of his attentions, but it was the latest, and worst. She was living with her mother, who was also working in camp. She was frequently talking about/trying to justify going back to her boyfriend.

There are so many people who can make positive use of help that I personally don't have the energy/time to spend on people who can't or refuse to help themselves or even make use of the help they are given. There are professionals who are paid to help such people, and I suggest to such people that they find a professional to help them. T'aint me, and frankly, I don't know how to sympathize with those people without in some way validating their disfunction.

I never thought you insensitive, merely thought you misunderstood Greenman

[barmar]

While I agree that people should take responsibility for protecting themselves, isn't there a limit to how much they should allow someone else's misbehavior to govern their lives?

If you go to a restaurant, and another patron starts harassing you, there are two ways you can try to get out of it: leave the restaurant, or ask the management to throw him out. If you leave, you've deprived yourself of the nice meal that you planned to have. And the perpetrator has gotten away with it. While you've put a stop to the harassment, it's not very satisfying. Should people really have to live their lives just running away?

I'm not saying you should call the management or cops immediately. First, you try to defuse the situation yourself -- they's taking responsibility. But if that doesn't work, calling for reinforcements is appropriate.

There's no one-size-fits-all answer to this kind of thing, it really depends on the circumstances.