Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 12-04-2018, 09:26 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 16,317
I am having trouble thinking threadshitting as a no-no in the Pit. People drop in all the time there and say "weak pit and you suck more than what you're pitting". If you want to topic ban a few assholes, ok, but "no threadshitting in the Pit" is bullshit.
  #102  
Old 12-05-2018, 02:16 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
That thread is in the Pit so the protocols are different. A thread about FGM that excludes male circumcision is fine with me in GD. I'm a dude but I think I'm capable of moderating it - I'm sure folks will let me know if I'm missing something.
At this point we might as well allow anonymous guest posters in the pit and rename it PitChan.
__________________
If you want to vote for people who will attack the rights of me and those close to me, we cannot be friends, and I will not accept that you're a good person.
  #103  
Old 12-06-2018, 05:15 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 51,990
And they're STILL doing it. A new thread was just started to discuss the male circumcision hijacks. They don't care. COME ON.
  #104  
Old 12-06-2018, 05:39 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
At this point we might as well allow anonymous guest posters in the pit and rename it PitChan.
In a forum where a person can post a topic and the very first response can be to tell them that their topic sucks and they suck and everything they ever do will suck until the end of time, it seems quite strange to me to object to hijacking and threadshitting.

Here is a trivially easy solution - post topics where hijacking and threadshitting are not allowed. Like, every other forum on the board.

Last edited by Bone; 12-06-2018 at 05:39 PM.
  #105  
Old 12-06-2018, 05:42 PM
Ramira's Avatar
Ramira Ramira is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
And they're STILL doing it. A new thread was just started to discuss the male circumcision hijacks. They don't care. COME ON.
the answer to them from now on
Faisez bien gaffe parce que moi j'ai mon super gilet jaune
  #106  
Old 12-06-2018, 08:16 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 39,664
That's veering into quarry-throwing territory, but to save other folks time, the Google translation is, "Be careful because I have my super yellow vest."
  #107  
Old 12-06-2018, 08:38 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,513
Mods, please read this piece by an eminent Yale bioethicist specifically arguing that it is wrong to segregate discussions of male and female genital cutting. If you judge discussing one gender in a thread nominally about another to qualify as “hijacking”, he very persuasively argues, you are implicitly taking a stance. And not one that looks very likely to be judged well by history.

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk...uble-standard/

Last edited by SlackerInc; 12-06-2018 at 08:39 PM.
  #108  
Old 12-07-2018, 04:23 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 24,126
It is possible to consider circumcision as barbaric a practice as FGM* and still object to hijacking of discussions of FGM because it's not about the similarities between FGM and circumcision, it's about MRAs using it as a transparently obvious tactic to drown out discussion of women issues on this board.

Just like you can think men are disadvantaged in divorce courts, as I do, and still not man-jump into every discussion about how terrible patriarchy is for women with "what about the men..."


*I know I do, but perhaps it's because I come from a country where one set of cultures still does circumcision to teenage boys with rusty spears in a makeshift brush hut without painkillers or antiseptics and counts a score of needless deaths every year as par for the course. And I don't really see a moral difference between that and doing it to a baby anywhere

Last edited by MrDibble; 12-07-2018 at 04:27 AM.
  #109  
Old 12-07-2018, 04:45 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 35,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
In a forum where a person can post a topic and the very first response can be to tell them that their topic sucks and they suck and everything they ever do will suck until the end of time, it seems quite strange to me to object to hijacking and threadshitting.

Here is a trivially easy solution - post topics where hijacking and threadshitting are not allowed. Like, every other forum on the board.
The problem with that: All rants go in the Pit.

There is no forum where we can complain about FGM and also not allow people to hijack it. If you make a rant outside the Pit, it will either be closed or moved there.

There is no other forum that the FGM Pit thread could have gone in, since it is most certainly a rant.

I can think of two possible solutions: The first is to allow there to be Pit threads where hijacking and threadshitting aren't allowed. The second is to allow rants in MPSIMS.

Well, there is a third: treat hijacks of women's topics differently. Say that the rule about not allowing that applies in the Pit as well.
  #110  
Old 12-07-2018, 04:49 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,513
Terrible idea. The carve-out itself is unwarranted (and genital cutting is not just a women’s issue, that’s the whole point the Yale bioethicist is trying to make). But more broadly, anyone who knows anything about tax or trade policy knows that if you carve out an exception for one group, every other group is going to start bleating for their own safe harbor and decry the unfairness (and narrowly speaking, they will be right).
  #111  
Old 12-07-2018, 04:57 AM
Ramira's Avatar
Ramira Ramira is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
That's veering into quarry-throwing territory, but to save other folks time, the Google translation is, "Be careful because I have my super yellow vest."
from the current GQ: Faisez bien gaffe...
  #112  
Old 12-07-2018, 05:03 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 35,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
My preference would be to craft general rules, rather than specific ones about FGM.
I'd say the general "rule" would be to more heavily moderate hijacks where you turn a women's issue (e.g. FGM) into a men's issue. Crack down before they take over the thread, at the first attempt.

Your post made it sounds more like people need to make a special request in the OP. Like an FGM debate thread would have to explicitly say, "Male circumcision is off topic." I think that should just be the default.

Note that this is in addition to my previous post, not a substitution.
  #113  
Old 12-07-2018, 05:15 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,513
So could someone then start a thread about female rape victims and explicitly state that discussion of the rape of transwomen is not allowed, or maybe only allowed if they are postoperative and no longer have penises?
  #114  
Old 12-07-2018, 05:49 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 24,126
Yeah, we should totally allow hypothetical transphobic misogynists to get to define what "female' means, good thinking, the parallels are so starkly obvious...

Last edited by MrDibble; 12-07-2018 at 05:50 AM.
  #115  
Old 12-07-2018, 06:25 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick Broomstick is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 27,309
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
So could someone then start a thread about female rape victims and explicitly state that discussion of the rape of transwomen is not allowed, or maybe only allowed if they are postoperative and no longer have penises?
Only if you consider transwomen to NOT be women... if you view transwomen as women then of course the rape of transwomen would be on topic in a thread about women being raped.

Seriously, can we STOP being obsessed with the state of peoples' genitals? Between the penis-worshippers and the folks wanting minute details about whether not some other people have this or that equipment and the other folks wanting to change whatever equipment they or someone else have... don't these people have something else important to think about, like working to pay the bills, what's for dinner, or the time of sunset in their area?

Last edited by Broomstick; 12-07-2018 at 06:26 AM.
  #116  
Old 12-07-2018, 06:26 AM
Blalron Blalron is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 6,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Terrible idea. The carve-out itself is unwarranted (and genital cutting is not just a women’s issue, that’s the whole point the Yale bioethicist is trying to make). But more broadly, anyone who knows anything about tax or trade policy knows that if you carve out an exception for one group, every other group is going to start bleating for their own safe harbor and decry the unfairness (and narrowly speaking, they will be right).
To use a legal analogy, let's compare the concepts of "colorable claim" versus a "frivolous claim." A colorable claim is:

Quote:
A plausible legal claim. In other words, a claim strong enough to have a reasonable chance of being valid if the legal basis is generally correct and the facts can be proven in court. The claim need not actually result in a win
This is in contrast with a frivolous claim:

Quote:
A frivolous claim in legal terms refers to a lawsuit or motion in a lawsuit motivated by an intent merely to harass, delay or embarrass the opposition. In order to be found frivolous, the claim must have no arguable basis in law or fact.
SlackerInc linked to an article by Brian Earp, an Associate Director of the Yale-Hastings Program in Ethics and Health Policy at Yale University. Mr. Earp argues that male and female genital cutting are sufficiently similar to be compared with one another. Even if Earp is ultimately shown to be wrong, his arguments should have sufficient gravitas to be considered a colorable claim and not dismissed as frivolous. He is precisely the type of authority that might be called to testify in court over this issue.

Last edited by Blalron; 12-07-2018 at 06:27 AM.
  #117  
Old 12-07-2018, 09:31 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blalron View Post
To use a legal analogy, let's compare the concepts of "colorable claim" versus a "frivolous claim." A colorable claim is:



This is in contrast with a frivolous claim:



SlackerInc linked to an article by Brian Earp, an Associate Director of the Yale-Hastings Program in Ethics and Health Policy at Yale University. Mr. Earp argues that male and female genital cutting are sufficiently similar to be compared with one another. Even if Earp is ultimately shown to be wrong, his arguments should have sufficient gravitas to be considered a colorable claim and not dismissed as frivolous. He is precisely the type of authority that might be called to testify in court over this issue.
And yet, nobody cares, because you're still making a thread about female genital mutilation all about circumcision. The fact you can find a bioethicist to make a pathetically weak argument for you doesn't change that fact. That you didn't post that until page 8 of an ongoing thread, a thread where your first post was on page 3, talking about circumcision, makes it even worse. You made 22 off-topic posts in a thread about female genital mutilation, ending with a really weak defense of why you were constantly threadshitting! SlackerInc was right - I didn't read the post the first time around. Because why should I? It's off topic, and I can tell that from the first fucking line! Really, I could tell by the time I was done reading the postbit.

And yes, I do say really weak. It's a terrible fucking argument. Putting it in a spoiler here...

SPOILER:
I'm going to get into this not because I want to drag up the FGM/Circumcision debate, but because it's entirely germane to the question "was that threadshitting" (it was). Brian Earp's blog post is long and winding, but one important point to justify all of his further arguments is this:
So it depends on what you’re talking about. Do those who oppose FGM (and that includes me) think (as I do) that even certain “minor” or “medicalized” forms of such cutting—done without consent, and without a medical indication—are inconsistent with medical ethics, deeply-rooted moral and legal ideals about bodily integrity, the principle of personal autonomy, and a child’s interest in an open future? Or is it only the wholesale removal of the clitoris – with a broken piece of glass – that inspires such condemnation?
His argument is based in the context of comparing like and like. FGM is bad, but a lot of male circumcision is done in brutal and unclean contexts, which is similarly bad. Also, some FGM isn't really all that bad, and is comparable to circumcision. That's a necessary premise to even continue arguing about this. And in the context of the thread, that's not the case. Several of the girls in question had their entire clitorises removed. Meanwhile, your argument against circumcision is entirely general and based on the concept of basic human rights. Which is all well and good, but removing your foreskin is not the equivalent of cutting off your clitoris. That's why the law against FGM has never faced any serious challenge in court on the basis of "discrimination" - because these things are tangibly different in ways that matter.

This painfully bad argument was not responded to in the thread because by that point it was already page 8 and people were sick and tired of dealing with this nonsense. It may have something to do with the fact that, of your previous 16 posts in the thread, exactly one was on-topic, and some of them were absolute fucking howlers:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blalron View Post
I'm wondering why we don't circumcise animals. If it's good enough for humans, why not our pets?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blalron View Post
That's the problem with identity politics gone amok. Instead of viewing people as individuals, they view people as members of either the Oppressed or the Dominator classes. In that framework, men as a class dominate women as a class. Whites as a class dominate People of Color. This has been going on for too long, and the tables need to be turned. There are some on the Left that don't want true equality. They want revenge. A world where the social hierarchy is inverted, and men (especially white men) are on the bottom of the hierarchy instead of on the top. Thus the suffering of men is considered completely unworthy of their attention. Men have had it too good for thousands of years, so fuck it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blalron View Post
Let's be clear about this: it's possible for FGM victims, even those with infibulation, to have orgasms through the g-spot or nipple stimulation. It eliminates the ability to have a particular type of orgasm (via the clitoris). This is no way justifies the practice of course, but it's not neccesarily true that infibulation victims completely lose the ability to enjoy sex.
(Bolding mine. Holy shit, dude. I'm stupid enough to hit on my polyamorous girlfriend's sister and not realize this is an obvious no-go, and even I can tell that that's about as tactful as Trump's twitter feed!)

And you have the unmitigated gall to say, "Now that I actually am talking about female anatomy and moving on from penises, I'm still getting complaints." Geez, I cannot imagine why.


In short: virtually every post you made in that thread was off-topic threadshitting. And since it's clear that, despite our urging, you're not going to stop doing that, it would be nice if the moderators would encourage you to do so.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 12-07-2018 at 09:35 AM.
  #118  
Old 12-07-2018, 09:39 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
So could someone then start a thread about female rape victims and explicitly state that discussion of the rape of transwomen is not allowed, or maybe only allowed if they are postoperative and no longer have penises?
Also, this guy probably isn't going to stop threadshitting in FGM threads either. So we're left with two options:

1. The moderators fix the problem
2. The problem continues

Can we please, please fix the problem?

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 12-07-2018 at 09:39 AM.
  #119  
Old 12-07-2018, 09:42 AM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 21,903
The basic rule is pretty much always the same. Report the post, make your case in the report. Moderators will make the call. Happily, in a forum with more than one moderator, you only need to convince one of us.
  #120  
Old 12-07-2018, 09:44 AM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 21,903
Or hell, start a thread, report it yourself and ask for an early intervention where a moderator states that such discussion is for FGM only. If we agree, we can state it early and leave it be. There are no guarantees of moderator action, but it's an approach that might work.
  #121  
Old 12-07-2018, 10:00 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Also, this guy probably isn't going to stop threadshitting in FGM threads either. So we're left with two options:

1. The moderators fix the problem
2. The problem continues

Can we please, please fix the problem?
Yes. Post 104.
  #122  
Old 12-07-2018, 10:08 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Yes. Post 104.
As BigT pointed out, barring a rules change on where rants go, this solution is entirely inadequate. In other words, we're going with door #2.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 12-07-2018 at 10:09 AM.
  #123  
Old 12-07-2018, 10:25 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 16,317
I don't see why a rant on FGM couldn't go in IMHO or MPSIMS under the current rules. Rants that get moved to the Pit are generally political in nature and are moved out of GD or Elections.

Last edited by CarnalK; 12-07-2018 at 10:27 AM.
  #124  
Old 12-07-2018, 10:49 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
As BigT pointed out, barring a rules change on where rants go, this solution is entirely inadequate. In other words, we're going with door #2.
I suppose if you only want to rant then sure. If however there is interest in actual discussion, then not so much. If you want a space to curse everyone out, disparage their lineage, but also put sharp lanes around specific topics, then that's a different animal.

The thing is, hijacking and threadshitting are par for the course in the Pit.
  #125  
Old 12-07-2018, 11:47 AM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 21,903
And pretty much allowable. Deciding you want to rant AND be protected somehow is just silly.

If you want discussion, you know where it goes. I fail to see how The BBQ Pit can live up to your expectations.
  #126  
Old 12-07-2018, 02:18 PM
Blalron Blalron is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 6,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
And yet, nobody cares, because you're still making a thread about female genital mutilation all about circumcision. The fact you can find a bioethicist to make a pathetically weak argument for you doesn't change that fact.
Again, an argument being merely wrong is not the same thing as an argument being frivolous.

Last edited by Blalron; 12-07-2018 at 02:19 PM.
  #127  
Old 12-07-2018, 04:22 PM
Misnomer's Avatar
Misnomer Misnomer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 7,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
So we're left with two options:

1. The moderators fix the problem
2. The problem continues
3. People stop feeding the damned trolls and start ignoring hijackers/threadshitters.
  #128  
Old 12-07-2018, 04:24 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misnomer View Post
3. People stop feeding the damned trolls and start ignoring hijackers/threadshitters.
How's that working out for you thus far?
  #129  
Old 12-07-2018, 04:59 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 16,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
How's that working out for you thus far?
Well, since people like you keep feeding the trolls and refuse to ignore hijackers, it's probably not going to work out.

Last edited by CarnalK; 12-07-2018 at 05:01 PM.
  #130  
Old 12-07-2018, 07:04 PM
Misnomer's Avatar
Misnomer Misnomer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 7,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
How's that working out for you thus far?
Beautifully, thanks! Itís actually exactly what I do. Or at least try to do, but if I fail and wind up letting myself get sidetracked I certainly donít blame the mods.

(Oh wait, were you calling yourself a troll/hijacker/threadshitter??)
  #131  
Old 12-07-2018, 07:47 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misnomer View Post
Beautifully, thanks! Itís actually exactly what I do. Or at least try to do, but if I fail and wind up letting myself get sidetracked I certainly donít blame the mods.
Yeah. We all try. And almost inevitably, someone fails, and then more people fail, and the thread goes to shit. This is how trolling works. This is how trolling is supposed to work. "DNFTT" is all well and good in theory; in practice, it does very little to actually fix things unless everyone agrees on who is trolling and everyone coordinates on not responding to them.

And there is not a forum on the internet where you get that.

Especially here, on a forum with a motto of "Fighting Ignorance Since 1973", you have people basically hardwired to offer good-faith defenses of their positions, even towards bad-faith actors. Especially towards bad-faith actors, as they're more likely to defend their positions badly, which invites correction.

"Do not feed the troll" is a good personal ethos. But it does not actually solve the problem of trolls disrupting discussions, because even if every active member can do it 99% of the time, there's a whole lot of active members.
  #132  
Old 12-07-2018, 08:29 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 35,250
If DNFTT actually worked, moderated discussions wouldn't need rules against trolls. We'd simply ignore them.

It has limited utility. Sometimes you can get everyone to ignore them, and then sometimes they go away.

One time in particular when it doesn't tend to work is when bigotry is involved. Not only does that compel people to respond to correct the issue, it is usually at least partially believed by the troll, even if their exact language is designed to provoke a response or piss people off.
  #133  
Old 12-07-2018, 09:06 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 35,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
And pretty much allowable. Deciding you want to rant AND be protected somehow is just silly.
Why is that? You state your opinion, but you don't back it up with reasoning.

Why can't we have a place where you can rant about an issue without also allowing other people to come in and hijack it to be about another topic? Why is that silly? Ranting is a separate concept to hijacking and threadshitting. It is entirely separate from the ability to personally attack people (the reason the Pit exists).

So then, there is no inherent link that makes it where, to allow ranting, one must also allow threadshitting and hijacking. There is no inherent link. However, on this board, rants are either locked or moved to the Pit.

That is why I made my suggestions. the more I think about it, the more I think the MPSIMS idea is the best. It even has precedent, as Gfactor's old rule list said that things that everyone agrees are bad should be put in MPSIMS.

It seems an easy solution. Allow rants in MPSIMS again. Don't move all rants to the Pit. Allow someone to make a thread about how bad FGM (or other nearly inarguable barbaric concepts). Then MPSIMS rules apply, and hijacking, threadshitting, flaming, and personal attacks are not allowed.

Can anyone tell me what is wrong with my idea? BPC, do you object? Any MPSIMS mods?

Last edited by BigT; 12-07-2018 at 09:11 PM.
  #134  
Old 12-07-2018, 09:20 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 35,250
What about Czarcasm, who started the thread? Or any other posters who agree with the premise of the OP? I admit I don't necessarily remember the gender of all posters, but I know several women have posted in this thread. What do you think?

It seems that allowing people to complain about women's topics in MPSIMS and not allowing any female topics outside the Pit to be hijacked to be about men would be a good solution to the problem stated in the OP. Just say you won't move those threads to the Pit or close them.

And if you want to tell me that is already current practice, then great! It doesn't seem so to me, but maybe I'm wrong. I've seen rants moved to the Pit, but never to MPSIMS.
  #135  
Old 12-08-2018, 12:03 AM
galen ubal galen ubal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Central VIC Australia
Posts: 2,321
Overall, I think we've learned that the Mod team feels that discussion of women's issues are of far less import than those of men.
After all, a thread on FGM can be subjected to relentless harrasment by Slacker, and they just shrug their shoulders and say "It's the Pit."
So far as I can tell, strictly to ruin the discussion, Slacker has posted far more times in that thread than any other single poster. He could have made up his own thread to protest...whatever the hell his problem is with male circumcision, yet he chose a thread on a different topic entirely to vent his spleen. Why did he choose to do so? I believe it's because he cannot stand to believe that any woman can have a concern that is of more worth than the concerns of any male.
  #136  
Old 12-08-2018, 12:44 AM
coffeecat's Avatar
coffeecat coffeecat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 1,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blalron View Post
To use a legal analogy, let's compare the concepts of "colorable claim" versus a "frivolous claim." A colorable claim is:



This is in contrast with a frivolous claim:



SlackerInc linked to an article by Brian Earp, an Associate Director of the Yale-Hastings Program in Ethics and Health Policy at Yale University. Mr. Earp argues that male and female genital cutting are sufficiently similar to be compared with one another. Even if Earp is ultimately shown to be wrong, his arguments should have sufficient gravitas to be considered a colorable claim and not dismissed as frivolous. He is precisely the type of authority that might be called to testify in court over this issue.
Okay, believing that circumcision is analogous to FGC doesn't make someone a crackpot. Peter Singer shows animal rights isn't just for crackpots, but if you were in a circumcision thread, and a few posters started going on and on about debeaking chickens until everyone was arguing about the poultry industry, I think you'd want them to start their own thread. That's what happened in the FGM thread: You and SlackerInc made it about circumcision, and those who still wanted to talk about FGM said, "Guys, start your own thread!"
  #137  
Old 12-08-2018, 01:54 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by galen ubal View Post
Overall, I think we've learned that the Mod team feels that discussion of women's issues are of far less import than those of men.
After all, a thread on FGM can be subjected to relentless harrasment by Slacker, and they just shrug their shoulders and say "It's the Pit."
So far as I can tell, strictly to ruin the discussion, Slacker has posted far more times in that thread than any other single poster. He could have made up his own thread to protest...whatever the hell his problem is with male circumcision, yet he chose a thread on a different topic entirely to vent his spleen. Why did he choose to do so? I believe it's because he cannot stand to believe that any woman can have a concern that is of more worth than the concerns of any male.

Do you understand that you and many others who agree with you (like coffeecat) are begging the question every time you claim that MGM (circumcision) is ďa different topic entirelyĒ? You state at as an evident truth, when at least four of us in that thread have strenuously disagreed that itís a different topic, and we have provided support for that position from an eminent Yale bioethicist.

Furthermore, this is not just an abstract point. I donít think you realize how much you actually undermine your own cause by segregating the issues. By doing so you implicitly endorse the idea that MGM should *not* be banned. This provides an opening for those who advocate FGM to medicalize it by analogy to circumcision, in order to preserve its legality. Is this what you want? Puzzlegal has said she is fine with this, but I doubt many of the rest of you agree. None of this can be sorted out while pretending MGM is an unrelated issue.
  #138  
Old 12-08-2018, 07:51 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Do you understand that you and many others who agree with you (like coffeecat) are begging the question every time you claim that MGM (circumcision) is ďa different topic entirelyĒ? You state at as an evident truth, when at least four of us in that thread have strenuously disagreed that itís a different topic, and we have provided support for that position from an eminent Yale bioethicist.
That's not begging the question, that's just you being wrong and the rest of us moving past the question that's already been answered to the question that is more interesting.
  #139  
Old 12-08-2018, 12:49 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,513
Right, the four of us and the Yale bioethicist are just so unambiguously, incontrovertibly wrong that our perspective is not even worth consideration.
  #140  
Old 12-08-2018, 04:58 PM
galen ubal galen ubal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Central VIC Australia
Posts: 2,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Right, the four of us and the Yale bioethicist are just so unambiguously, incontrovertibly wrong that our perspective is not even worth consideration.
Well...yes.
Four people in a thread with dozens of respondents who disagree is hardly evidence that the four are right.
By the way, about the Yale bioethicist...
  #141  
Old 12-08-2018, 06:33 PM
Irishman Irishman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Denton, TX, USA
Posts: 12,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Do you understand that you and many others who agree with you (like coffeecat) are begging the question every time you claim that MGM (circumcision) is ďa different topic entirelyĒ? You state at as an evident truth, when at least four of us in that thread have strenuously disagreed that itís a different topic, and we have provided support for that position from an eminent Yale bioethicist.
Do you not see that your position is itself a controvertible point that is not widely accepted, that it needs to be argued itself? By inserting your topic into FGM threads, you are begging the question that they are the same thing? That you are doing your argument a disservice, because you come off like a whiny "men's issues are more important than women's" jerk rather than someone with a valid debate to be made? That your arguments won't be taken seriously?

Quote:
Furthermore, this is not just an abstract point. I donít think you realize how much you actually undermine your own cause by segregating the issues. By doing so you implicitly endorse the idea that MGM should *not* be banned. This provides an opening for those who advocate FGM to medicalize it by analogy to circumcision, in order to preserve its legality. Is this what you want? Puzzlegal has said she is fine with this, but I doubt many of the rest of you agree. None of this can be sorted out while pretending MGM is an unrelated issue.
Sounds like a great argument for your thread, the one where you advocate that MGM is just as bad as FGM.
  #142  
Old 12-08-2018, 06:46 PM
galen ubal galen ubal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Central VIC Australia
Posts: 2,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishman View Post
Do you not see that your position is itself a controvertible point that is not widely accepted, that it needs to be argued itself? By inserting your topic into FGM threads, you are begging the question that they are the same thing? That you are doing your argument a disservice, because you come off like a whiny "men's issues are more important than women's" jerk rather than someone with a valid debate to be made? That your arguments won't be taken seriously?



Sounds like a great argument for your thread, the one where you advocate that MGM is just as bad as FGM.
Yes, but if he starts his own thread, he won't be drowning out somebody else's thread. How can he show his masculine superiority?

Besides, there would be about four people, apparently, possibly supplemented by a Yale bioethicist. But don't worry, if he puts half as much work into his own thread as he did in hijacking the FGM thread, it'll keep going.
  #143  
Old 12-08-2018, 07:07 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Right, the four of us and the Yale bioethicist are just so unambiguously, incontrovertibly wrong that our perspective is not even worth consideration.
Yes. Exactly. Please stop. (Also, Johnathan Chance, that thing you recommended? It didn't work. I reported this post for threadshitting, it's not in the pit, when the fuck are you going to do something about it?!)

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 12-08-2018 at 07:09 PM.
  #144  
Old 12-08-2018, 07:32 PM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 21,903
BPC. I want you to get this through your head.

You deciding something is threadshitting, or trolling or whatever does not make it so. You must stop, right now, making that assumption. If you can't, I suggest you step back and think about your positions.

We decide what counts as an infraction. You do not. You never will. Your sole responsibility, as a poster, is to report things you think might violate the rules. I continue to encourage you to do that. But we are - not at all - required to act on your reports. Adapt to that fact. Embrace it. Know it.
  #145  
Old 12-08-2018, 08:05 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,156
You're right, I'm sorry, you clearly have better things to do, like warning me for calling out redpill ideology as toxic.

Question - if we made a thread on misogyny on the dope and made it explicitly clear that SlackerInc was not welcome, would that be enforceable? Could we make that a thing?
  #146  
Old 12-08-2018, 08:11 PM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 21,903
Hmm. Speaking for myself - and only for myself - I'd say no. Trying to set a specific topic and asking a moderator to say that only that topic is acceptable? Yeah, I can see that. And I've done it, I think.

But asking for a specific person to be outlawed? No, that wouldn't fly with me at all.
  #147  
Old 12-09-2018, 02:50 AM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 51,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
Hmm. Speaking for myself - and only for myself - I'd say no. Trying to set a specific topic and asking a moderator to say that only that topic is acceptable? Yeah, I can see that. And I've done it, I think.

But asking for a specific person to be outlawed? No, that wouldn't fly with me at all.
So why the constant hijacks in threads about FGM, even if we've asked them not to? Mods, would you please do something about THAT?
  #148  
Old 12-09-2018, 02:52 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
So why the constant hijacks in threads about FGM, even if we've asked them not to? Mods, would you please do something about THAT?
Because hijacks are normal in the pit.
  #149  
Old 12-09-2018, 03:37 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,513
They aren’t hijacks just because you would like to think they are. I guarantee any national blanket ban of FGM is going to ultimately be challenged in the courts on the basis of sex discrimination if male circumcision is not included in the ban. You can’t just plug your ears and say “LA LA LA, DOESN’T APPLY” and make that reality go away.
  #150  
Old 12-09-2018, 04:06 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
They arenít hijacks just because you would like to think they are. I guarantee any national blanket ban of FGM is going to ultimately be challenged in the courts on the basis of sex discrimination if male circumcision is not included in the ban. You canít just plug your ears and say ďLA LA LA, DOESNíT APPLYĒ and make that reality go away.
Is this addressed to me?
Closed Thread

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 03:58 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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 © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017