EDIT: I had linked the wrong article. All fixed.

I often see the argument that harassment doesn't exist or "isn't that bad" because the person doesn't witness it or hear about it in their circles. I find this to be annoyingly solipsistic rationalizing. I also hear the argument that harassment is equally as common against men.

This article uses specific, documented examples, as well as studies and statistics from third parties

When I refer to "isn't that bad," I'm referring to the quantity of harassment. I'm not talking about whether or not harassment is emotionally damaging, nor the level of the damage. Attempting to argue about another person's level of emotional trauma is pointless, narcissistic, and is just as solipsistic as arguing that harassment doesn't exist because you don't see it.

I'm asking if it's pointless to debate harassment that is anecdotal, and if the only way to avoid "pics or it didn't happen" arguments is if we discuss Internet harassment a little more. Or perhaps feminists ought to stick to documented sources to avoid having it used as an ad hominem attack to completely invalidate and detract from everything else?