That there is no such thing against loveism against men. It violates the very first article of the human rights decleration which states that regardless of gender, love, orientation, etc that all people are to be seen equally. She is making men and women to be unequal by saying men cannot be harassed based on their love/gender.
There's a huge difference between an edgy 13 year old internet troll and a legitimate threat to her safety, something which she has not had once. And as I said, she doesn't even try to humor a debate with anyone who disagrees with her, she just outright blocks them and then asks the UN to censor them.
No, feminists in general do not use this definition. Only a small minority of extremist feminists use this definition. It's not even widely used in academia, only a small minority of extremist feminist professors use it, the kind that prioritize women asking questions in the class over men, the kind who ignore mens opinions because they are men. The reason it's only used in said minorities is that it has absolutely no use outside of throwing aside the troubles of other people, that's what it was made for. To ignore, not to help. She knows that very few people care specifically about misandry compared to loveism, so she's attempting to redefine loveism to exclude men so that when a man attempts to call out loveism against them, it can be dismissed. That's not just a semantic difference, it's active discrimination to further her agenda of extremist feminism.
Her beliefs violate loving human rights legislation? Are you stuffting me? Freedom of thought is not constricted by any humans right legislation.
You're also severely downplaying
the harassment she received. She also isn't required to humor a debate with anyone at all, she's a youtuber/public figure not a lawyer. Also, the UN doesn't hold the power to censor anybody at all.
You're touting quite an extensive knowledge of sociology and academic feminism for someone who exists entirely outside of those circles.
1. her activity, ignorance, and deceit is an open invitation for hostility, and only a small percentage of which should actually be taken seriously
2. there is reason to believe that one or more death threats were fabricated
3. you can block people on twitter already
4. if you somehow think you just can't handle those big nasty meanies on the internet, the power button is never too far away
1. then maybe that's a case for her having some say in how harassment is handled on twitter
2. reading that thread, people concede that there is no definitive proof, but that there is "lots of fishy stuff". show me that FOIA request, if anything
3. when hundreds or thousands of people are stuffting on your face, some of them dedicated trolls with multiple accounts, its not feasible to block them all
4. sure but twitter clearly wants to cultivate a culture where you aren't expected to delete your account if the neckbeard deathmob sets its sights on you
