Cobber’s Morning Herald
October 8, 2020
Women of colour are a truly toxic faction of, ‘people,’ currently existing in Australia. Luckily, they are crying and complaining now because they keep getting dunked on for being annoying. This is a great sign and more dunking is still to come!
As a Masters student passionate about gender equality and diversity, Angelica Ojinnaka spends a lot of time on social media and she’s come to anticipate the worst.
“Often when you’re someone like me who is a black woman, who is sharing things in the area that they are passionate about, the types of comments that can come through are about my features or about my identity as a woman,” she said.
No shit. Of course Australians are going to react negatively to some stupid black bitch complaining about their country. This is a foreigner (clearly, just look at her), whining on the internet about her host country. So yeah, we will comment on your features and your identity as a dumb bitch Angelica – because they render your opinions invalid.
“They can be very racist in nature, you just have to come with an expectation that that’s going to happen.”
For Ms Ojinnaka, social media is an essential tool for research and advocacy — she’s active on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and Instagram.
“I love to make sure that I’m engaged with what’s happening in the academic world online, as well as areas of social justice that I’m passionate about, too,” she said.
But she has plenty of experience that shows being online has a cost, like the time she shared some research on how Australia was moving forward with racial justice.
“I got a comment under that piece that was calling me obscene things like an ape, monkey,” she said.
“As a black woman, that’s the type of thing that we encounter.”
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHA! Ape monkey’s btfo’d.
In all seriousness however, this whole concept that the article hints at is completely retarded. First of all, the idea that being online has a cost (because of racism or bullying or something). Just log off bitch, haha. Problem solved. In fact we’re not going to stop calling you ape monkey until you do log off. It’s for your own good!
She is far from alone. A new report from the charity Plan International found online harassment and abuse is a common experience for girls and young women.
Plan surveyed 14,000 girls and young women aged 15-25 in 22 countries around the world. Of those surveyed, 1,000 were in Australia.
In the report, Free To Be Online, the charity found 58 per cent reported being exposed to harassment online, including insulting language, body shaming, and threats of sexual violence.
In Australia, the results were worse than the global average — 65 per cent of girls and young women reported being harassed or abused online.
This ABC article is an advertisement for that organisation, Plan International. It could not be more clear. Our taxpayer funded outlet is giving us an advertisement dressed up as a news article. Kinda cringe.
I should also say that this report is bad. The results are useless because of the way that the data was gathered. The methodology is available in the report (which you can read for yourself here by the way), but it is somewhat vague. I will elaborate.
The report draws on two means of data collection and analysis – quantitative and qualitative. The quantitative data was collected through online surveys and computer assisted telephone interviews. The report states that respondents were selected from a, “pre-arranged pool,” but there is no explanation for how the pool was arranged or who it consists of. For all we know, the respondents may all have been Plan International employees.
Though there is no explanation for how the pool of respondents were pre-arranged, I believe it is safe to assume that responses were submitted by people who self-selected. They may have individually expressed interest in participation, or possibly responded to a prompt of sorts, such as an email with a link to the survey. It really doesn’t matter, the point is that participants almost certainly self-selected.
Self-selection in a study like this is a major limitation that almost entirely invalidates the results. The reason is that response rates are of course going to be higher amongst people who are already engaged in the topic. This means that the population responding to the survey is probably not an accurate representation of the actual population.
Simply put – someone who has no experience of being bullied online, is very unlikely to participate in a survey about being bullied online. So through your selection criteria, you have already targeted a population that will respond in a certain way.
This same selection problem existed as a part of the Australian Human Rights Commission’s 2017 report on sexual harassment. You may remember the one that found one in five students had been sexually harassed? Yeah well the respondents for that study self selected by clicking through to the survey from a link sent to their student email. (Sexual harassment also included hearing a joke that made you feel uncomfortable lol).
You might think that this is some unintentional limitation of conducting these studies, but it is not. Self-selection is a tool used to achieve the results that the organisation conducting the study wants to achieve. Once a study has been conducted, these people can say, “woah look at these results, we were right all along, women are oppressed and men are really terrible.”
There are many reasons for why an organisation might want to rig a study like this, but the most important are:
- Achieving results that show your organisation is necessary. If you are an organisation that runs on advocating for women who get cyberbullied or sexually harassed, you obviously want people to think that many women are being cyberbullied and sexually harassed. Then you can get those sweet sweet government subsidies and also your organisation will be spoken about in the media for many months.
- Deconstructing western nations by turning the women against the men, and the weak men into poofters and simps. Organisations often do this if they are run by annoying liberals or jews. In this case, Plan International is just run by some annoying liberal woman.
AND I HAVEN’T EVEN TALKED ABOUT THE QUALITATIVE DATA YET!
Get this cobs, the subjects that contributed qualitative data were, “a varied group of young female activists with intersectional characteristics.” Jeez Louise! Yeah they sure aren’t going to have a bias are they? Lmao.
Anyway, what is the point of all of this data that they have been collecting?
Well, they want to force social media companies to start banning people who are too epic.
Maya Ghassali, 19, from Melbourne is one of those who’d like to see social media companies do more to stop online harassment.
Go back to Syria Maya. Australia is full already.
Two years ago, Ms Ghassali was excited when an older man she’d met at a professional event wanted to connect on Instagram.
She thought it would help her with her activism on refugee rights and other issues.
“As a young person, I felt that was a really cool experience because he works at a place that I want to be at in the future,” she said.
“He ended up sending me some inappropriate personal messages that I didn’t expect and that made me feel really uncomfortable.”
Eventually she deleted him off all of her social media.
SAD! This silly girl got played by some degenerate old poofter. Basically any man who is virulently left wing and over 35 is a creep and a poofter by the way. I conducted a study that found 100% of leftist men over 35 are poofters and/or creepy pedo’s.
Now look, I wish that this ABC article was more accurate. I wish I could tell you that there are all of these based kings out there, patrolling dishwashers of colour daily. It would, however, be a lie.
There are not enough kings yet. Australia depends on each and every one of you. Please, dear reader, patrol women of colour online. Patrol them all.