It is unclear to me why a few people receiving a disproportionate amount of hate invalidates my "thick skin" proposal. I don't think 100x more hate would materially affect my experience beyond wasting a few more minutes of my time deleting it.
Because I think both of your premises are incorrect. It's not "a few people", it's 50% of the population. It's not "100x" more hate, it a completely different kind of hate, one that is very threatening and personal, attacking people's core identity.
It would be helpful if you explained the relevance of the distinctions you are making rather than simply their existence. Not to mention the relevance of this entire derailing of the underlying conversation.
The delete button works just as well for "I hate your core identity" as "I'm looking for a javascript spetznatz".
So when prominent women receive specific death threats (see links below), they're just supposed to delete them? I don't understand why you think this isn't relevant; you said "just grow a thick skin" and I'm attempting to show why it's much more complicated than that.
>But disappear is exactly what she did next. Andrew "weev" Auernheimer, a well-known provocateur, hacker, and anti-Semite, circulated her home address and Social Security number online. He also made false statements about her being a battered wife and a former prostitute. Not only did Sierra find herself a target for identity theft, but all the people who had threatened to brutally rape and kill her now knew where she lived.
I agree that for serious threats of violence, contacting the police or buying a gun is the correct response. For personal attacks/etc, including ones that "attack your core identity" (whatever that means), I do believe that a thick skin is the right answer. I was implicitly (though not explicitly) describing the latter situation.
Could you explain why you think otherwise?