Straight Dope Message Board

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

My post didn't attribute any motivations to her.

because they thought it might help their side in a political squabble

351

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

My post didn't attribute any motivations to her. It was silent on her intent, motivations, and whether her claims were true or false.

Ah, then "because they thought it might help their side in a political squabble" is silent on intent.

Well, that's a new one to me. 352

[iiandyiiii]

Asserting a motive (especially a malicious motive, as worded) other than "to tell her story", "speak truth to power", or similar, is directly implying dishonesty. 353

[Atamasama]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

My post didn't attribute any motivations to her. It was silent on her intent, motivations, and whether her claims were true or false.

No it wasn’t. What you are stating right now is not true. You attributed a political motivation, specifically to help Democrats, which contradicts her claimed motivation of wanting to prevent the nomination of a man she insists assaulted her sexually (which is not a partisan motivation).

Your own words are on this board for everyone to read. You can’t keep pretending you didn’t say what you said. 354

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Atamasama

Your own words are on this board for everyone to read. You can’t keep pretending you didn’t say what you said.

Weird, isn't it? I could understand it somewhat in the early days of this board, which were also the early days of the Web: people were still used to thinking in terms of verbal conversations, where you couldn't reach back and pull up what someone had said twenty minutes earlier in the debate. So it sometimes caught people off guard when you'd say, "no, that's not what you were saying earlier in this thread," and quote their post.

But in 2019?? Very weird. 355

[drad dog]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Weird, isn't it? I could understand it somewhat in the early days of this board, which were also the early days of the Web: people were still used to thinking in terms of verbal conversations, where you couldn't reach back and pull up what someone had said twenty minutes earlier in the debate. So it sometimes caught people off guard when you'd say, "no, that's not what you were saying earlier in this thread," and quote their post.

But in 2019?? Very weird.

"...in 2019?? Yup" Fixed that for ya. 356

[Budget Player Cadet]

I mean, it's 2019 and TPTB still haven't cottoned on to the concept of a troll, so... 357

[TubaDiva]

This is going to sound really simplistic and I don't mean for it to. I hope it is a signpost for betterment.

Women hold up half the sky.
And we should act accordingly.

I cannot redress what has gone before. But we can strive to do better going forward.

Jenny
your humble TubaDiva
Administrator

358

[madmonk28]

Starting now? 359

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Will this mean active recruitment of female mods?

I wouldn't mind seeing Elections and GD having only female mods for a year or so, coming in jackboots a-stompin and banhammer a-swingin, to make some needed changes. Let Tom and JC take a break or take on a different forum. 360

[TubaDiva]

Stay tuned for further developments.

Jenny
your humble TubaDiva
Administrator
I can say no more. 361

[iiandyiiii]

That... sounds positive, I suppose. Hopefully the results will be for the better. Please keep the board updated as to the progress. And I hope we will get a judgment on this particular instance, even if it's just for information and education rather than for disciplinary purposes. 362

[MrDibble]

I'll credit it when I see it. We've heard this tune before... 363

[RaftPeople]

nm (dup of other poster) 364

[madmonk28]

Originally Posted by MrDibble

I'll credit it when I see it. We've heard this tune before...

Exactly, and not that long ago. 365

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by TubaDiva

Women hold up half the sky.

Oh we quoting Mao now ? Fucking finally. I'll get started on the Molotovs.



(I kid, I kid. You know how it is - no one cared who I was until I put on the Marx...) 366

[iiandyiiii]

Is this still under discussion? Is it just under the broader topic of "We're trying to make the Dope better"? Or something else? I'm still interested, and I don't think it's been adequately resolved, for what it's worth. 367

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

Is this still under discussion? Is it just under the broader topic of "We're trying to make the Dope better"? Or something else? I'm still interested, and I don't think it's been adequately resolved, for what it's worth.

Good question. Because the specific problem of misogyny on the Dope really overshadows whatever other problems we have, AFAIAC. I'm concerned that if it gets rolled into some broader "making the Dope better" agenda, it likely won't get addressed in anything near a sufficient manner. 368

[Manda JO]

This is a really good point. Our problems are racism and sexism. Trying to abstract that isn't necessary nor helpful. 369

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Manda JO

This is a really good point. Our problems are racism and sexism. Trying to abstract that isn't necessary nor helpful.

Transphobia/transmisogyny are in there, too. I think the underlying problem is how the board deals with bigotry, which is why, in all of those "make the board better" posts, I keep bringing it up.

Even the "settled topics" stuff is about bigotry, in my opinion. Those are the topics that are settled. The fact that sexism, racism, transphobia, etc. are incorrect is settled.

Misogyny is the first thing to deal with, because it affects the most. Then probably racism. Then likely transphobia before homophobia, as there is more of the former. By that point, I'd expect that we'd have a general idea of how to deal with bigotry, and could then use that same framework (with tweaking) for any other form of bigotry.

Combine that with "you can't use someone's trauma to attack them" which deals with the worst of the anti-mentally ill bigotry, and you have a workable solution. 370

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by BigT

Transphobia/transmisogyny are in there, too. I think the underlying problem is how the board deals with bigotry, which is why, in all of those "make the board better" posts, I keep bringing it up.

Even the "settled topics" stuff is about bigotry, in my opinion. Those are the topics that are settled. The fact that sexism, racism, transphobia, etc. are incorrect is settled.

Misogyny is the first thing to deal with, because it affects the most. Then probably racism. Then likely transphobia before homophobia, as there is more of the former. By that point, I'd expect that we'd have a general idea of how to deal with bigotry, and could then use that same framework (with tweaking) for any other form of bigotry.

Combine that with "you can't use someone's trauma to attack them" which deals with the worst of the anti-mentally ill bigotry, and you have a workable solution.

Seconded. 371

[Manda JO]

Originally Posted by BigT

Transphobia/transmisogyny are in there, too. I think the underlying problem is how the board deals with bigotry, which is why, in all of those "make the board better" posts, I keep bringing it up.

Even the "settled topics" stuff is about bigotry, in my opinion. Those are the topics that are settled. The fact that sexism, racism, transphobia, etc. are incorrect is settled.

Misogyny is the first thing to deal with, because it affects the most. Then probably racism. Then likely transphobia before homophobia, as there is more of the former. By that point, I'd expect that we'd have a general idea of how to deal with bigotry, and could then use that same framework (with tweaking) for any other form of bigotry.

Combine that with "you can't use someone's trauma to attack them" which deals with the worst of the anti-mentally ill bigotry, and you have a workable solution.

I agree. I was mentally lumping all gender issues under "sexism". 372

[iiandyiiii]

So, mods... can we at least get some sort of status on this -- i.e. "yes, this issue is still under discussion among the staff" or "no, we consider this resolved", or even "we're not sure what to do about this but once we've hired more moderators we're going to come up with a plan"? 373

[TubaDiva]

In our everyday actions here we are working on improving things.

We appreciate the ongoing discussions that are helping to shape our choices.

We hope users take at least some of this to heart. Change needs to come from all participants.

All any of us can do is to strive to do better. It takes time and effort to lift a culture.

It likewise takes a minute or two to bring new moderators on board. We don't just read an application, approve them on the spot, grant them privileges, and throw them on the board to figure it out themselves. There's a process and it's ongoing.

Jenny
your humble TubaDiva
Administrator 374

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by TubaDiva

In our everyday actions here we are working on improving things.

We appreciate the ongoing discussions that are helping to shape our choices.

We hope users likewise take at least some of this to heart. Change needs to come from all participants.

All any of us can do is to strive to do better. It takes time and effort to lift a culture.

It likewise takes a minute or two to bring new moderators on board. We don't just read an application, approve them on the spot, grant them privileges, and throw them on the board to figure it out themselves. There's a process and it's ongoing.

Jenny
your humble TubaDiva
Administrator

Thank you. To be clear, my post was not meant as a criticism of the moderator approval process at all. I'm eager to see the staff's (existing and future) views on how we can improve the board WRT misogyny in general as well as some determination about the specific case that sparked this discussion, even if it's just for informational purposes without a warning or other disciplinary action. 375