> The panelist, having been harassed and dogpiled for many years by the racist misogynist attendee ... which is, of course, not true. > sat on the front row w

> The panelist, having been harassed and dogpiled for many years by the racist misogynist attendee ... which is, of course, not true. > sat on the front row with many of his fellow harassers Who also didn't harass her. Honestly, this isn't rocket science. If I make a video calling someone an idiot, asshole, etc. That in no way is harassment. They don't need to see it. It's not directed at then. The same goes for other form of communication. Were these people sending harassing messages directly to her? The answer is "maybe once or twice, but there was absolutely no pattern of harassment". I think you (and her supporters) are misconstruing criticism, and hostile criticism for outright harassment. It's not. In contrast, there is no question that her behavior violated the rules of vidcon. There is no question that the behavior of the alleged harassers did not violate the rules of vidcon, while they were at vidcon. > because he is a verifiable shithead Uh.. is THAT against the rules of vidcon? No?