Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 01-21-2020, 05:43 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chingon View Post
Did we just become best friends?
And here I thought Idle Thoughts was the only member who wanted to be my friend...

~Max
  #52  
Old 01-21-2020, 05:44 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,979
Cut-and-dried sealion gotcha. A bad-faith question intended to insinuate something rather than learn something. The warning was proper.
  #53  
Old 01-21-2020, 05:49 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
That's not even close to what the OP asked.

In fact, it wasn't even obvious that he was talking about transgendered people until he said so in the OP of this thread.
I took that to be his question/gotcha in the thread as soon as I read it. In the spirit of fighting ignorance (either way) we should be a little more tolerant when it is appropriate, and as I said I agree with Chronos (yes, I will squirt bleach up my nose forthwith. ) that it seems that this wasn't so much a question as a gotcha, so I do not have outrage mode on.

But, let's back off on having SWJ hat on at all times...
  #54  
Old 01-21-2020, 06:08 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
squirt bleach up my nose
Is this a phrase? I've never heard it before and my search results were highly NSFW.

~Max
  #55  
Old 01-21-2020, 11:14 PM
Green Bean is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: NJ, Exit #137
Posts: 12,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I would also like to add that this is the logical consequence of opening up the Pandora's Box or letting the cat out of the bag. Once you've cracked open the lid to the notion that things aren't as clear-cut as "men are men and women are women," you've now invited a whole new angle of trollery or hijacking.
Calling it a “pandora’s box” is inflammatory and offensive. Pandora’s box was a full-scale disaster. The greater visibility and acceptance of transgenderism is hardly a disaster. What’s the big deal? Some apparent girls are really boys, and some apparent boys are really girls. A few people genuinely aren’t sure whether they’re a boy or a girl, and a few people feel like they’re a little of both. Just sack up and accept that and you’ll be fine.


I don’t know whether the OP was trolling, sealioning, dog whistling, or standing on his head spitting wooden nickels. It doesn’t matter. He was being blatantly insincere because of some ulterior motive or another and that got a deserved warning.

Last edited by Green Bean; 01-21-2020 at 11:16 PM.
  #56  
Old 01-21-2020, 11:53 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Bean View Post
Calling it a “pandora’s box” is inflammatory and offensive.
I think Velocity meant a Pandora's box of trolling.

~Max
  #57  
Old 01-22-2020, 12:19 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,520
While I do think the post could be construed as trolling, I am not sure if that was the intent, so perhaps a Note instead?
  #58  
Old 01-22-2020, 01:58 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,374
Naah, not when there's a history of transphobia by the poster in question.. That Warning was earned.
  #59  
Old 01-22-2020, 08:50 PM
Irishman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Denton, TX, USA
Posts: 12,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina View Post
Since the thread starts with the (correct in my point of view) presupposition that men and women are different at least in the mass-shooting sphere it made me wonder if he was saying that men are women ARE different enough, because if men qua men are more prone to mass-shooting (which is true) then the logical conclusion is that they can be different in other areas.

There was not attempt at trolling.
I love how you explain exactly how you are trolling and then claim it is not an attempt at trolling.
  #60  
Old 01-23-2020, 12:11 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishman View Post
I love how you explain exactly how you are trolling and then claim it is not an attempt at trolling.
In what universe is that trolling? You might as well say that taking any conservative position is trolling because one has to know that it will get a rise out of people on this board.
  #61  
Old 01-23-2020, 10:17 AM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 35,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
You might as well say that taking any conservative position is trolling because one has to know that it will get a rise out of people on this board.
Only the ones who obviously don't argue in good faith or appear to be taking cues from Russian propaganda.

Last edited by Skywatcher; 01-23-2020 at 10:19 AM.
  #62  
Old 01-23-2020, 12:24 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 44,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
In what universe is that trolling? You might as well say that taking any conservative position is trolling because one has to know that it will get a rise out of people on this board.
You've already said it was a "gotcha," which implies that it was framed in a manner to get a rise out of people. So you've already identified it as a form of trolling yourself.
  #63  
Old 01-23-2020, 01:05 PM
Sailboat's Avatar
Sailboat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 12,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
Out of 434 mass shootings in 2019 (some of which included multiple shooters), or 0.2%. (The incident did qualify as a mass shooting, which is based on the number of people shot, not the number of fatalities.)
At the risk of a hijack, I'll note that said transgender shooter claimed to have been bullied. I'll hazard a guess that bullying is a much larger statistical factor in shootings than trans issues are.
  #64  
Old 01-23-2020, 04:00 PM
Leo Bloom is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 13,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Bean View Post
...

I don’t know whether the OP was trolling, sealioning, dog whistling, or standing on his head spitting wooden nickels. ...
Is "sealioning" your own verb--because why not--or am I slow on Netspeak?

I like it a lot, and propose it as (yet another) in-group word: "trolling on SD.”
  #65  
Old 01-23-2020, 04:59 PM
road_lobo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo Bloom View Post
Is "sealioning" your own verb--because why not--or am I slow on Netspeak?

I like it a lot, and propose it as (yet another) in-group word: "trolling on SD.”
6 years old.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sealion

(Internet, slang) To intrude on a conversation with disingenuous questions in an attempt to engage in unwanted debate as a form of harassment.
  #66  
Old 01-23-2020, 05:21 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 44,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo Bloom View Post
Is "sealioning" your own verb--because why not--or am I slow on Netspeak?

I like it a lot, and propose it as (yet another) in-group word: "trolling on SD.”
There has been considerable discussion here recently of the term.
  #67  
Old 01-23-2020, 06:02 PM
Leo Bloom is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 13,613
Well I'll be dipped. Thanks road and Colibri.

Last edited by Leo Bloom; 01-23-2020 at 06:03 PM.
  #68  
Old 01-23-2020, 06:53 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,866
So if a sealion constantly says "I'm just trying to understand your position," does a sealioness constantly say "I'm just trying to understand why your position is wrong" ?

I'm just trying to be woke, here.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #69  
Old 01-23-2020, 08:56 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,339
By way of analogy, one might ask the intriguing question, "why do only men play in the NHL?" A rational poster might make the following comments. The NHL actually has no rules against women players, and at one point in 1992 one woman was actually an NHL player briefly for the Tampa Bay Lighning, playing goalie in just one exhibition game in 1992 and another in 1993.

But pro hockey at that level is a fast tough aggressive game dominated by large muscular men, and rules that allow aggression such as bodychecking against an opponent in possession of the puck. Bodychecking is a play that essentially involves getting up to speed and then slamming your body into the opponent, with the intention of knocking him off his feet and onto the ice or into the boards, sometimes with considerable force, sometimes with injuries. I believe this sort of play doesn't even exist in women's hockey. For any relatively diminutive player, being hit in this way by a heavy player would be like getting hit by a Mack truck. Men's hockey is also dominated by other forms of violent legal checking and of course the occasional fighting. There are other practical reasons, but in a nutshell, that's why the NHL is in practice pretty much limited to men. Women have banded together into their own capable teams, and have done Canada proud in the Olympics, the Canadian women's national ice hockey team bringing home medals from all six of the last Olympic winter games: four gold and two silver medals.

Now that's more or less what a reasonable person would say, though some might disagree or add some innocent digression. Now if someone out of the blue asked the following:

"How do you define male?
Are you implying that men and women are different?"

Seeing that in this context, I would assume that the person was just drunk and threadshitting, or, given the poster's history, might consider it trolling on a pet topic like transphobia, and report it as such. But innocent this ain't, and deserving of a warning it is.
  #70  
Old 01-24-2020, 05:43 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
You've already said it was a "gotcha," which implies that it was framed in a manner to get a rise out of people. So you've already identified it as a form of trolling yourself.
I don't disagree that the post was trolling. I was responding to the poster who said that the explanation was an admission of trolling. The explanation itself seemed pretty reasonable. If what was claimed in the explanation was what happened (which I disagree that it did) they there is no way that is trolling.
  #71  
Old 01-24-2020, 05:47 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,444
So what about this thread, posts #4 and #13 https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=888864

It seems to me that this is very similar to what the OP here did. If he is modded, those should be modded.

Short version: We have a thread talking about probability where someone says it is a 50/50 chance that two men could have a baby. People threadshit to make a point about transgender men. Do I understand that to be forbidden like what the OP did? I mean, its obvious the thread was talking about two biological men and two posters had to interject with a political point in GQ.
  #72  
Old 01-24-2020, 06:12 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 37,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
So what about this thread, posts #4 and #13 https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=888864

It seems to me that this is very similar to what the OP here did. If he is modded, those should be modded.

Short version: We have a thread talking about probability where someone says it is a 50/50 chance that two men could have a baby. People threadshit to make a point about transgender men. Do I understand that to be forbidden like what the OP did? I mean, its obvious the thread was talking about two biological men and two posters had to interject with a political point in GQ.
No such assumption is warranted. The OP only asks about a quote. Making sense of said quote is part of the question, and bringing up trans men is one way to make sense of it.

Heck, I would argue that the guy (if he exists) very likely was considering trans men, as he assumed that men giving birth was possible. Sure, he doesn't understand probability and got that wrong. But the fact he think's it's possible at all for men to have babies means he must believe people who have the parts necessary for childbirth can be men.

People who accept men can have uteri usually also accept that trans men are men. People who do not accept this tend to believe in a rigid gender binary.
  #73  
Old 01-24-2020, 07:04 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
It seems to me that this is very similar to what the OP here did.
Naah. Nice try, though.
  #74  
Old 01-24-2020, 07:11 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
No such assumption is warranted. The OP only asks about a quote. Making sense of said quote is part of the question, and bringing up trans men is one way to make sense of it.

Heck, I would argue that the guy (if he exists) very likely was considering trans men, as he assumed that men giving birth was possible. Sure, he doesn't understand probability and got that wrong. But the fact he think's it's possible at all for men to have babies means he must believe people who have the parts necessary for childbirth can be men.

People who accept men can have uteri usually also accept that trans men are men. People who do not accept this tend to believe in a rigid gender binary.
It is clear from the thread that nobody was talking about transgender men. Much like how the prior topic about men being mass shooters was not referring to transgender men. There would be no question regarding if men could bear children if one assumes that a pre-surgery biological female was the topic of conversation.

The introduction in both topics of transgender status was either acceptable or not. I fail to see the difference between the two.
  #75  
Old 01-24-2020, 08:30 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
It is clear from the thread that nobody was talking about transgender men. Much like how the prior topic about men being mass shooters was not referring to transgender men. There would be no question regarding if men could bear children if one assumes that a pre-surgery biological female was the topic of conversation.

The introduction in both topics of transgender status was either acceptable or not. I fail to see the difference between the two.
One was an attempted gotcha and landed like a turd in the thread and the other was an interesting exploration of the question. It's interesting and new information to me that about 1 transman has a child per week. So, while it's still nowhere near 50/50 chance that a man would have a child, and it's a zero chance that a cismale would have a child (well, in 2020 anyway), there is a small chance that the next baby you come across could have genetic parents that are both men.
  #76  
Old 01-24-2020, 09:01 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
One was an attempted gotcha and landed like a turd in the thread and the other was an interesting exploration of the question. It's interesting and new information to me that about 1 transman has a child per week. So, while it's still nowhere near 50/50 chance that a man would have a child, and it's a zero chance that a cismale would have a child (well, in 2020 anyway), there is a small chance that the next baby you come across could have genetic parents that are both men.
I don't disagree, but I think we should take a step back before we make simply bad posts against the rules. The probability thread wasn't even about that. It was in GQ and the example used was that someone had said the chances of a man having a baby was 50/50 because it was either possible or not. The OP wanted to explore where such an absurdity of logic came from. The example could have been that a unicorn walks through my front door (50/50, either the unicorn does or does not).

Inserting transgender discussions in that thread was equally hijacky in my opinion, even though it was done in a less trollish way that the OP here.

I'm just saying that, respectfully, it is the subconscious bias showing through. Transgender rights are accepted as gospel here. So therefore if you point out that "men" can have babies: transgender men, then you are doing the world a public service. If you mention it, especially in not a very good way, in a "why are men mass shooters thread" then that is perceived as a negative that needs to be modded. We all have these subconscious biases and it is not wrong to point them out.
  #77  
Old 01-24-2020, 09:43 AM
Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Transgender rights are accepted as gospel here.
You say this like it's a bad thing.
  #78  
Old 01-24-2020, 09:45 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Inserting transgender discussions in that thread was equally hijacky in my opinion, even though it was done in a less trollish way that the OP here.
Hijacking a thread with an interesting discussion is not a warnable offense, unless it was done maliciously. That hijack can be modded, and the discussion moved to a new thread.

Hijacking a thread with a trollish attempt to score points against posters who don't agree with your point of view, is a warnable offense. The difference is that this person is being a jerk, and the other person isn't.
  #79  
Old 01-24-2020, 10:05 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
Hijacking a thread with an interesting discussion is not a warnable offense, unless it was done maliciously. That hijack can be modded, and the discussion moved to a new thread.

Hijacking a thread with a trollish attempt to score points against posters who don't agree with your point of view, is a warnable offense. The difference is that this person is being a jerk, and the other person isn't.
And that view is influenced by your biases. I don't think it is an "interesting discussion" in a thread about a bad probability assessment which uses the example of "a man having a baby" when the example could have been unicorns, to shit all over that thread with the transgender aside. I could view that as "scoring points" against a poster who didn't "properly" respect transgender status and the poster was therefore "being a jerk" by saying it in a thread which had nothing at all to do with transgender status.

That's the accusation of liberal bias on this board. Not that anyone/the mods are being purposefully biased, but it is easy to see/think/say that your opponents are being jerkish trolls while your side is merely beginning an "interesting discussion."
  #80  
Old 01-24-2020, 10:26 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I could view that as "scoring points" against a poster who didn't "properly" respect transgender status and the poster was therefore "being a jerk" by saying it in a thread which had nothing at all to do with transgender status.
Those posters aren't setting up a gotcha against other posters on this board, and they aren't trying to start an argument with anyone on the board. It's nothing more than a side discussion, no more of a hijack than the lottery discussion in the same thread.

You and I both know that Aji wasn't trying to discuss anything in good faith.
  #81  
Old 01-24-2020, 10:43 AM
you with the face is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Laurel, MD
Posts: 12,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludovic View Post
Recognizing the reality of transgendered individuals is recognizing that men and women are different. If they weren't, then we would have "gender based on choices" rather than fundamental differences so severe that they cause some individuals trauma.
"Gender based on choices" appears to be where the trans community is right now. Gender dysphoria is no longer a requirement for people to be transgendered. If tomorrow, you suddenly decided you wanted to be "she", then that makes you a woman according to the prevailing view. It would be transphobic to still consider you a man. No, I'm not bullshitting you; I have been told this on this very board.

Quote:
That's the whole reasoning behind the TERF schtick is that it undermines the idea that there aren't any differences between genders.
Lately I've been doing a lot of research into the warring opinions on transgenderism and this looks like a false statement. So-called TERFS believe there are differences between sexes.Men don't get pregnant; women do. So-called TERFS don't want to pretend otherwise. They also believe there are gender differences, but they ascribe these differences to nurture as opposed to nature (i.e. "brain sex").

Trans advocates take the opposite view from the above: Sex differences don't exist because they believe men and women can get pregnant. And they believe gender differences come from "brain sex", so if someone's feels like a woman then that makes them so.


I think the OP's warning was deserved, but I'd be lying if I didn't see where they coming from. Our current discourse on gender feels very surreal as of late.
  #82  
Old 01-24-2020, 10:43 AM
Ají de Gallina's Avatar
Ají de Gallina is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lima, Perú
Posts: 4,570
To end the discussion.
When is the men-means-xy-and-penis the default when is it more flexible? Which topics?

Do we agree that men (traditional definition) and women (trad def) are inherently different and that these differences express themselves in different life-choices regardless of culture?

Last edited by Ají de Gallina; 01-24-2020 at 10:44 AM.
  #83  
Old 01-24-2020, 10:45 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
Those posters aren't setting up a gotcha against other posters on this board, and they aren't trying to start an argument with anyone on the board. It's nothing more than a side discussion, no more of a hijack than the lottery discussion in the same thread.

You and I both know that Aji wasn't trying to discuss anything in good faith.
Again, it is all from your viewpoint. The lottery discussion was right on point (I have a 50/50 chance of winning the lottery because I either win or don't win). The transgender issue was not at all relevant to anything in that thread. Nothing at all.

I've already agreed that Aji was not acting in good faith. I don't think these other posters were either. There was nothing about those comments that helped anyone understand why some people would view winning the lottery or a man having a baby as a 50/50 chance. It was purely a dig at the OP who did not properly account for some men being transgender men.

Now, if you take Aji, in a thread where we are asking why are all the mass shooters male, that might be, IMHO an "interesting discussion" to see if it is confined to biological men versus transgender men. But he is smacked down for it because (something to the effect of) we have no data on that as of yet and "yes" it was a bit shitty the way he said it. But we don't apply that standard across the board.
  #84  
Old 01-24-2020, 11:08 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Again, it is all from your viewpoint. The lottery discussion was right on point (I have a 50/50 chance of winning the lottery because I either win or don't win).
It was NOT on point, because the question was about whether a specific instance of that type of argument happened, not about the concept of the 50/50 argument as a whole. Even so, I freely admit that the transgender discussion was a hijack.

Quote:
Now, if you take Aji, in a thread where we are asking why are all the mass shooters male, that might be, IMHO an "interesting discussion" to see if it is confined to biological men versus transgender men. But he is smacked down for it because (something to the effect of) we have no data on that as of yet and "yes" it was a bit shitty the way he said it. But we don't apply that standard across the board.
He wasn't smacked down because we don't have data, he was smacked down because he didn't ask the question you are now presuming he asked. He said
Quote:
How do you define male?
Are you implying that men and women are different?
That isn't an effort to start an interesting discussion about behavioral differences in biological vs transgender men. He didn't just accidentally phrase his otherwise interesting question in a poor way. He isn't interested in that discussion, he's starting an argument, trying to score points, or trying to rules lawyer himself around the rules set in place by the mods. Even now, he wants someone to say that men are inherently different than women so he can point to it the next time someone calls him out on something.
  #85  
Old 01-24-2020, 11:22 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
It was NOT on point, because the question was about whether a specific instance of that type of argument happened, not about the concept of the 50/50 argument as a whole. Even so, I freely admit that the transgender discussion was a hijack.
I think we largely agree. My whole point was that threads about "Why do men leave the toilet seat up?" and the like do not require a post #4-7 hijack about how not all men are biological men and therefore do not leave the toilet seat up.
  #86  
Old 01-24-2020, 11:24 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina View Post
To end the discussion.
When is the men-means-xy-and-penis the default when is it more flexible? Which topics?
When it matters.

Consider:

Quote:
Originally Posted by hypothetical post in a different reality
The question of why most mass shooters are men is complicated by transgenderism. Of the mass shooters who are women, 54% of them are trans women, compared to 0.3% of the total population of women being trans. Of the mass shooters who are men, 0% are trans men, compared to 0.2% of the total population of men. It looks like gender may be less important than testicles.
Now, if any of those numbers were true, it'd be relevant to bring up transgenderism in the thread.

But they're not. There's absolutely no way that bringing up transgenderism added anything to the topic at hand.
  #87  
Old 01-24-2020, 11:49 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I don't disagree, but I think we should take a step back before we make simply bad posts against the rules. The probability thread wasn't even about that. It was in GQ and the example used was that someone had said the chances of a man having a baby was 50/50 because it was either possible or not. The OP wanted to explore where such an absurdity of logic came from. The example could have been that a unicorn walks through my front door (50/50, either the unicorn does or does not).

Inserting transgender discussions in that thread was equally hijacky in my opinion, even though it was done in a less trollish way that the OP here.

I'm just saying that, respectfully, it is the subconscious bias showing through. Transgender rights are accepted as gospel here. So therefore if you point out that "men" can have babies: transgender men, then you are doing the world a public service. If you mention it, especially in not a very good way, in a "why are men mass shooters thread" then that is perceived as a negative that needs to be modded. We all have these subconscious biases and it is not wrong to point them out.
That statement about the probability of men having babies being 50% has two components -- the main component is, does it make sense to say that if something will happen or it won't, that the chances are equal? Obviously not, unless you have no other information. The lottery discussion is not about men having babies but is about the probability question. The men having babies discussion is not about the probabilities, it's about whether men can have babies. Both were much more germane to the discussion than the OP's (of this thread) attempted gotcha.
  #88  
Old 01-24-2020, 11:56 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
When it matters.

Consider:



Now, if any of those numbers were true, it'd be relevant to bring up transgenderism in the thread.

But they're not. There's absolutely no way that bringing up transgenderism added anything to the topic at hand.
You almost have me on your side. Almost.

What this rule seems to require is a certain quality to the post. Many posts don't add "anything to the topic at hand." Some posts are great, some are shitty, and most are average. Nobody gets modded for a post because its quality is poor....except when it deals with touchy issues.

Let's take Mr. Dibble's post upthread which consisted of "Naah. Nice try though." (Just as an example). Didn't really contribute much, but it is not a violation of the board rules. It seems like you only get nailed (at least under your interpretation of the rules) if your post is of poor quality AND it deals with a touchy issue.
  #89  
Old 01-24-2020, 12:01 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
That statement about the probability of men having babies being 50% has two components -- the main component is, does it make sense to say that if something will happen or it won't, that the chances are equal? Obviously not, unless you have no other information. The lottery discussion is not about men having babies but is about the probability question. The men having babies discussion is not about the probabilities, it's about whether men can have babies. Both were much more germane to the discussion than the OP's (of this thread) attempted gotcha.
I read it again. The OP in that thread used an example to clearly illustrate the probability logical fallacy. I took it to mean that it is clearly impossible for men to have babies, but the person he was referring to did not take that into account. The person simply took the two states (a man can have a baby or he cannot) and assigned a 50/50 value to it. It was clearly meant only for biological men, much like the mass shooter question was clearly about biological men.

If I read that wrong, I will retract and apologize, but it seems pretty straight forward to me.
  #90  
Old 01-24-2020, 12:03 PM
Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
It seems like you only get nailed (at least under your interpretation of the rules) if your post is of poor quality AND it deals with a touchy issue.
Making a pithy remark to make a point uh n a way that dehumanizes a segment of the population that's already heavily discriminated against does seem like it would fall under the umbrella of "being a jerk", yes. Again, this seems like a feature, not a bug.
  #91  
Old 01-24-2020, 12:21 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
You almost have me on your side. Almost.

What this rule seems to require is a certain quality to the post.
When someone who's got a history of posting transphobic nonsense posts about transgender issues, there's a pretty high probability that they're posting more transphobic nonsense. When they're doing it in a thread that has nothing to do with transgenderism, there's a pretty high probability that they're trolling/hijacking/being a jerk.

In this case, a substantive point relevant to the thread is a defense against the T/H/BaJ charge. If they don't have a substantive point, they don't have a defense.

If someone isn't T/H/BaJ, there's no charge they need a defense against.

It's the difference between being asleep in your bed, and being asleep in my bed. You don't need to explain yourself if you're asleep in your bed. But if I find you in mine, you better start talking fast.
  #92  
Old 01-24-2020, 01:26 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
You almost have me on your side. Almost.

What this rule seems to require is a certain quality to the post. Many posts don't add "anything to the topic at hand." Some posts are great, some are shitty, and most are average. Nobody gets modded for a post because its quality is poor....except when it deals with touchy issues.

Let's take Mr. Dibble's post upthread which consisted of "Naah. Nice try though." (Just as an example). Didn't really contribute much, but it is not a violation of the board rules. It seems like you only get nailed (at least under your interpretation of the rules) if your post is of poor quality AND it deals with a touchy issue.
Right, but this is a different forum and it is specifically set up to allow discussion of contentious issues (relating to how the MB is managed). GQ is not like that. In fact, I think it is true that you're supposed to have higher quality posts in GQ than any other forum. I would say that the post quality is something like: GQ, Thread Games, GD/P&E, IMHO, Game Room/CS, MPSIMS, BBQ Pit in terms of quality of the contributions and requirement to be on topic. So, yes, post quality matters in GQ.
  #93  
Old 01-24-2020, 02:59 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Let's take Mr. Dibble's post upthread which consisted of "Naah. Nice try though." (Just as an example). Didn't really contribute much
Of course it contributes. You made an assertion of similarity, I made a statement of disagreement.You expected a deeper analysis of why they weren't similar? That's not a must for this forum, I believe bare opinions on moderation are also allowed.

I then made a sarcastic comment on your very obvious diligence at attempting to come up with evidence of hypocrisy from your ideological enemies as some sort of, I guess, attempt to sway the current tides of moderation? That's also a comment on moderation, or at least, a comment that I don't agree with your take on how it should go.
  #94  
Old 01-28-2020, 07:00 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
The NHL actually has no rules against women players, and at one point in 1992 one woman was actually an NHL player briefly for the Tampa Bay Lighning, playing goalie in just one exhibition game in 1992 and another in 1993.
Sorry to everybody who thinks this thread should die, but I feel compelled to name this woman. Manon Rhéaume was the first woman to play in the NHL, or any major North American professional sports league, although she was brought in "largely as a publicity stunt" for Tampa Bay's new team. She ended up holding her own and blocked seven out of nine shots from the Blues.

Interesting 2012 interview on NHL.com linked below.

https://www.nhl.com/news/part-1-manon-rheaume-shatters-the-gender-barrier/c-642005
https://www.nhl.com/news/part-3-rheaume-first-woman-to-play-in-nhl-game/c-642007

~Max
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:04 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017