(you wouldn't even have thought to make this accusation here if SilasBarta was female and Eliezer was the target)

Agreed, and I think that says something interesting and useful. Symmetry is not a useful tool here.

If there's broader interest in seeing some attempt at a rationalist view of privilege I'm keen to get whatever help is available, and take it to a separate Discussion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTJLFgKoWk&feature=player_detailpage#t=109s

I suspect if I were LW-high-status, I could politely point out that while we've both argued from assertions, one of us has expanded on their assertion, and one of us has not.

Unless you mean "that linked post does not discuss LW or any of the individuals you reference, so claiming it specifically discusses exactly this scenario is trivially false"? I have no objection to curbing my hyperbole with an edit.

I take from your vehemence that your disagreement is more fundamental though. Do you have more words there you're willing to add, here or in PM?

Hounding someone, even if there are no threats, can turn an online group into no fun for them.

I'm not convinced it's true that all female fury at male inappropriate attention is based in fear of physical harm. However, large amounts of inappropriate attention can be a huge attention and energy drain-- mental cpus are a limited resource.

Just confirming: are you disagreeing because link posited risk of escalation to assault which I agree seems impossible in a purely online context?

I drew the analogy because it called out the toxic effects on a community, and that in many ways the toxicity is not that there was a creeper, but that there is much signalling in their support that has follow-on effects.

Assuming those claimed signalling secondary losses are correct, I don't see anything specific to an online context that would be immune. The "risk of escalation" discussed there seems severable from its other points.

No way. Hounding users on an internet site can cause a lot of annoyance and status problems, but it's not creepy, i.e. it entails no shared threat of bodily harm.

I disagree with your definition of "creepy". However, whether we define the word that way or not, would you agree that it is behaviour worth discouraging?

It is one thing to disagree with a view that someone is expressing. It is quite another to follow that person around, disproportionately, in order to find opportunities to disagree specifically with them, (whether that's in order to make them feel unwelcome and drive them out, or whether via some twisted logic the hounder feels it gains them dominance or even sees it as courting behaviour).