General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: 'Men's Rights' Trolls Spam Occidental College Online Rape Report Form [View all]The "offense" might have been equating the viewing of fictional rape porn with the outright attack on a system designed to facilitate the reporting of actual rape. I can see where some might perceive that as effectively accusing those who view porn of launching those attacks. Personally I don't see it that way, but at least four people (the alerter and the three "hide" voters) apparently do.
Comparing the two (viewing porn and attacking a support website) is one thing, but equating the two (i.e., stating that they are the same underlying issue) is very different. Perhaps this false (or at least unsubstantiated) equivalence is what generated the alert?
Consider a statement like this:
"Whether you're watching violent war movies or you're spamming a site intended to help wounded veterans, the underlying issue is the same: the total dismissal of the victim."
Structurally it's very similar to your statement, and the equivalence is asserted by fiat, rather than by logical support. It's possible that you can demonstrate the equivalence, but your post in this case didn't do so, and instead it simply equated a legally permissible activity with the willful vandalism of a resource for rape victims.
I don't now. I can tell you that I didn't alert on the post, and I wouldn't have voted to hide it anyway, but beyond that I can't say how the alerters or jury might have been seeing it.