Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 08-11-2019, 01:44 PM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
Okay, what if instead he had written “All I can think about is how I just wanna grab that ass and get all up in there”?
  #152  
Old 08-11-2019, 02:01 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
The difference between "n-bombs" and "hit that" is one of degree, not type--in both cases, it's a matter of language being inherently dehumanizing and serve to make it impossible for members of the group to participate on an even footing: the well has already been poisoned. I'll happily concede that the n-word's legacy of violence and oppression makes is especially dehumanizing, but that doesn't mean it is a special case and it and it alone can be moderated.
How are women unable to participate in that thread? Argue that the OP (in that thread)'s problem is that he views women he meets as sex objects. Perhaps that is why he cannot have a conversation with his wife, etc. How are you in any way unable to fully participate simply because you are insulted? I participate in all sorts of political threads where posters insult my strongly held beliefs or my motives.

Also you keep throwing around "insulting." That's never been the standard here unless it is a direct insult at a poster.

Hate speech has always been the standard. I'm not going to list them, but those words that are commonly and indisputably understood to be hate speech. "Hit that" is not hate speech by any measure of that term. It's a pretty shitty thing to say, but the mods will be busy indeed if that is the new standard.
  #153  
Old 08-11-2019, 02:10 PM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,331
I cannot fully participate because I can't talk about the topic before I first establish that I even have standing to participate in the conversation. I've been excluded by the whole thing.

And the moderator already WAS busy, did post. He posted a good solid paragraph avoiding the central issue, when he could have just said "knock it off with the objectifying expressions. They are offensive and don't serve to move the conversation forward".

Why must mods be NEUTRAL on someone being a gross, objectifying jerk?
  #154  
Old 08-11-2019, 02:23 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
I cannot fully participate because I can't talk about the topic before I first establish that I even have standing to participate in the conversation. I've been excluded by the whole thing.
What does that even mean? What part of the topic made it off-limits for women? If anything, the thread would be helped by women participating.

At most, you could say that the thread made you uncomfortable therefore you could choose not to participate. There is no requirement of participating in every thread. If you find it distasteful, why not let those who would chose to participate to have at it while you move onto other threads that you like? Why the need to eradicate these threads that offend you when you have the full power to avoid them? It's not like this is happening in your living room or something.
  #155  
Old 08-11-2019, 02:23 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 28,724
Manda Jo, I respect your views and opinions and I'm pretty sure at this point I know where you are coming from and how you feel about this...

... but I disagree with you. While I agree that some moderation is necessary I feel that you are just this side of too restrictive here.

Silencing an viewpoint on this board does not make it go away in the larger world. I would prefer such attitudes to be voiced and countered on this forum. YMMV. These sorts of jerks need to hear that their attitudes are NOT the norm instead of us driving them away, at which point they might wind up on a forum that just acts as an echo-chamber for them.

As far as gross... what with threads about prehensile rectums, frying semen, placenta recipes, various medical conditions and skin infections, and so forth "gross" is CLEARLY not a disqualifier around here.
  #156  
Old 08-11-2019, 02:25 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
Manda Jo, I respect your views and opinions and I'm pretty sure at this point I know where you are coming from and how you feel about this...

... but I disagree with you. While I agree that some moderation is necessary I feel that you are just this side of too restrictive here.

Silencing an viewpoint on this board does not make it go away in the larger world. I would prefer such attitudes to be voiced and countered on this forum. YMMV. These sorts of jerks need to hear that their attitudes are NOT the norm instead of us driving them away, at which point they might wind up on a forum that just acts as an echo-chamber for them.

As far as gross... what with threads about prehensile rectums, frying semen, placenta recipes, various medical conditions and skin infections, and so forth "gross" is CLEARLY not a disqualifier around here.
And just in case I wasn't clear, I abhor such descriptions of women. I do not support them in any way.
  #157  
Old 08-11-2019, 02:34 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
And that totally makes it okay?
No, but earlier there was a bunch of gender-biased talk. Which, by the way, would also be infractable if the rules were tightened. "The moderation on this board isn't women-friendly because only men are still moderators". "Only men are man-splaining in this thread".

Arguably quite biased, a person of any gender should be able to make fair and reasonable decisions and if we truly wanted a world of equality, it would not matter how many men or women were in a discussion.
  #158  
Old 08-11-2019, 02:44 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 35,949
She’s not talking about silencing a viewpoint. She’s talking about rejecting demeaning expressions.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #159  
Old 08-11-2019, 02:45 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Hate speech has always been the standard. I'm not going to list them, but those words that are commonly and indisputably understood to be hate speech. "Hit that" is not hate speech by any measure of that term. It's a pretty shitty thing to say, but the mods will be busy indeed if that is the new standard.
Ultravires, aren't you a practicing attorney? Don't you make your living by arguing over the exact interpretation of statutes, among other things like the meaning of a verbal statement by a witness? If so, you're a far more credible source as to what "is is" and what hate speech is.

Last edited by SamuelA; 08-11-2019 at 02:45 PM.
  #160  
Old 08-11-2019, 02:51 PM
Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
I cannot fully participate because I can't talk about the topic before I first establish that I even have standing to participate in the conversation. I've been excluded by the whole thing?
Not my forum, of course, but that’s absolute nonsense. If one requires validation before one can speak then one is ceding one’s right to be heard at all. That’s your choice, certainly. But don’t use it as an excuse to dodge an issue.

It’s pithy, I know, but I’ve long been fond of the saying, “If you take what they give you, you get what you deserve.”

You want to effect change? You want to see new paradigms? Speak loudly and firmly. No one can give you the authority to be self-actualized and possess your own agency. Only you can do that. If you choose not to, then fine. That’s your call and I’ll support you in it. But don’t tell me you need someone else’s permission to speak.

Last edited by TubaDiva; 08-11-2019 at 03:36 PM. Reason: Fixed quote.
  #161  
Old 08-11-2019, 02:58 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 35,949
Is that what you’d say to a non-white person faced with a thread in which racial epithets and hate speech are being freely tossed around and unmoderated?

Change isn’t just about the determination of the oppressed group being willing to face hate speech. It’s also about the society at large making it socially unacceptable.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.

Last edited by Acsenray; 08-11-2019 at 02:59 PM.
  #162  
Old 08-11-2019, 02:59 PM
Blank Slate's Avatar
Blank Slate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Ultravires, aren't you a practicing attorney? Don't you make your living by arguing over the exact interpretation of statutes, among other things like the meaning of a verbal statement by a witness? If so, you're a far more credible source as to what "is is" and what hate speech is.
Ooh, ooh, Mistah Kottah.
  #163  
Old 08-11-2019, 03:02 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Ultravires, aren't you a practicing attorney? Don't you make your living by arguing over the exact interpretation of statutes, among other things like the meaning of a verbal statement by a witness? If so, you're a far more credible source as to what "is is" and what hate speech is.
I'm not sure I follow you. With such amorphous concepts like "hate speech" or "dehumanizing language" I don't think anyone is more qualified than anyone else to answer what those terms mean because they are inherently subjective and therefore not really conducive to any meaningful policy without a further limiting principle.
  #164  
Old 08-11-2019, 03:03 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Is that what you’d say to a non-white person faced with a thread in which racial epithets and hate speech are being freely tossed around and unmoderated?
Those speeches are saying that a person of another race is worth less as a person simply because of their race. Or that they must be <insert racial stereotype here>.

Examples: a criminal is caught, and they are a particular race.

Acceptable speech: "what a stupid individual. I hope they receive the punishment they deserve".

Hate speech: "what a <racial epithet>. We should lock up all the <members of that race>."

Nate isn't saying a woman is worth less as a person. Just that as a man, when he sees a 'hot' one, his brain inserts sexual fantasies for the obvious evolutionary reason to encourage him to act on them. This seems like something you would expect a lot of men to experience, whether or not they admit to it, because this would be an obvious trait that would get selected for by evolution. People denying it seem uncredible - it's like a fat person claiming the reason they are fat is because they have a slow metabolism.
  #165  
Old 08-11-2019, 03:04 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I'm not sure I follow you. With such amorphous concepts like "hate speech" or "dehumanizing language" I don't think anyone is more qualified than anyone else to answer what those terms mean because they are inherently subjective and therefore not really conducive to any meaningful policy without a further limiting principle.
You didn't answer the question. Yes or no, are you a practicing attorney?
  #166  
Old 08-11-2019, 03:22 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
. Why is objectifying language such a sacred thing? How is it NOT being a jerk?
Maybe I'm exhibiting just a touch of devil's advocate here, Manda JO, but in my view there's an answer to that -- and I say this while understanding your position (I think) and certainly respecting it. And the answer is that language -- objectifying or not -- is essential in all its variations and nuances to express ideas, and in that sense language **is** damn near sacred. Because the consequence of prohibiting certain words or expressive vernaculars outright is the Orwellian consequence of trying to stamp out ideas, even when there is a valid reason to express those ideas because one wants to condemn them.

One example I could give is the editorial policy of the New Yorker, acclaimed for the quality of its writing, which permits words and phrases that would send most mainstream editors straight to the fainting couch. The condition under which they are permitted is simply that they must be relevant, and not simply gratuitous -- whether the relevance is serious social commentary or just satire and sarcasm. And this is the sense, I believe, in which the OP of the thread you object to is using such phrases. I'm not sure if he ever actually says "I'd hit that" or if that was inferred, but he certainly says equivalent things like "damn, I'd like to f**k the hell out of that". But note: he is trying to accurately express his mental state in a particular circumstance. He is not using the term gratuitously, as would, say, someone who just randomly blurts it out. If he were to write, instead, "I found that woman extremely attractive", he is not only failing to express the pertinent emotion, such a banal description isn't even expressing the same idea!

As I said, I found the OP of that thread and the poster's subsequent comments to be stupid and puerile and didn't read much of it, but my objection to it is entirely different from yours. It's not the particular words that I object to, because they're actually part and parcel of the idea being expressed; it's the idea itself that I find immature and annoying. Expressing the fact that one is a testosterone-infested horndog obsessed about sex is objectifying women every bit as much regardless of how bland the particular phraseology is.
  #167  
Old 08-11-2019, 03:25 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 28,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Nate isn't saying a woman is worth less as a person. Just that as a man, when he sees a 'hot' one, his brain inserts sexual fantasies for the obvious evolutionary reason to encourage him to act on them. This seems like something you would expect a lot of men to experience, whether or not they admit to it, because this would be an obvious trait that would get selected for by evolution. People denying it seem uncredible - it's like a fat person claiming the reason they are fat is because they have a slow metabolism.
Actually, some people DO have a slow metabolism and while they don't have to be fat they are more likely to be fat because it really is harder for them to stay thin than for other people.

Anyhow, reducing men to just one drive (sex) is pretty ludicrous (or even insulting, but I don't get to answer on behalf of men for that question). Humans are complicated and raising baby humans is complicated - evolution selected for much more than just "fuck early and often" in the case of human beings. A man's sexual urges compete with all the other inherited urges and acts that keep him alive long enough to have sex in the first place, then all the inherited urges and acts that keep him alive and providing for his offspring. Then there's the fact that individual men do not seem to have inherited equal portions of all of the above - some men are love-'em-and-leave-'em r-selection strategists and others are K-selection guys who stick around to provide their offspring with protection and resources. And all sorts of guys in between those two extremes.

So when a guy "admits" he thinks about banging every woman around him all the time I don't really have a reason to doubt him. I would certainly prefer he exercise some tact when discussing it, and that he respects women as full people in their own right regardless of whether or not he actually gets to bang them or thinks about banging them all the time. And when a guy says he's not continually distracted by the women around him (even if he, too, would like to bang more or all of them) I will take him at his word. Because for damn sure men are individuals just as women are, they're going to vary in the level of their sex drive, and also in how well they handle their urges.

Remarkably, there are even men who are either asexual (it happens) or aren't distracted by sexy women (or just women in general) because they're thinking about banging other men - because, clearly, natural selection hasn't eliminated homosexuality, either.
  #168  
Old 08-11-2019, 03:27 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
You didn't answer the question. Yes or no, are you a practicing attorney?
Yes.

Further, a little more than 25 years ago I was on the Student Council at my local University when the first "hate speech" code was debated.

The issue at the time was that college students were adults and insults were not policed. If you called another student an asshole or a dickhead, well, as long as no laws were violated, then all was fair. And, at the time, if you called a black person a "nigger" that fell under the same rule of no punishment.

At that time the popular thing to do was to ban "hate speech" on campus whereby a student could face internal discipline for calling a black student such a racial epithet. There was not a person on the council or any faculty advisor that thought such speech was good or positive. Several people thought it might pose a constitutional problem as it was a state run university, and some thought that people should be free to use the slur under a wide belief in free speech.

However, the overwhelming majority of members and advisors wanted to have at least a modest punishment for using such slurs. However, how to write the proposal to make it understandable and fair caused issues. What is "hate speech"? The slurs were easy fruit to ban. However, what if a white student told a black student that the only reason he was there was because of affirmative action? Is that hate speech? Many said yes and others said no.

What if a student, even in class, proposed that blacks were better off under segregation? Hate speech? Some said yes, some no. Would a research paper that concluded, with citations that blacks were better off under segregation be an acceptable topic? Most said yes it would, but a strong minority said it would not. Therefore a few people would have banned the class discussion, but the paper would be okay. That seemed silly.

Then there was a debate about how we were now discussing making research topics off limits when we started out wanting students to have a learning environment without racial slurs. Some minds were changed and others changed back.

The measure did not pass when I was there because of these concerns. A few years later it passed by ignoring the real problem of constraints by just banning "hate speech" without definition. When I talked to faculty, they said many of the same things the mods said here, that they needed a broad rule to prevent "rules lawyering" and "we know it when we see it."

What is defined as hate speech now is so far afield of the original intention behind the policies that would be laughable if people were not being punished for it. Now, of course, this is a simple message board and the downside is that a poster might wrongfully get banned and have to get a real life, but the principle is there.

It cannot just be an ad hoc, the most vocal minority sets the policy, and people get dinged in these threads for things that are not generally applicable to similar situations. Yes, a law can be general and outlaw a general course of conduct, but such a thing should at least be applied across the board with that same generality.

I do not like if anyone feels insulted or denigrated, but such is a necessary thing to have open debate without the disfavored side having to choose words very carefully or else be punished. As Slacker said above, what started as a laudable goal has devolved into preserving ideological purity.
  #169  
Old 08-11-2019, 03:39 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Yes.

Further, a little more than 25 years ago I was on the Student Council at my local University when the first "hate speech" code was debated.
No further questions. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, clearly the witness is a qualified speaker on the dividing line between "hate speech" and the matter at hand. I rest my case.

Also, I appreciate the following speech you made on the difficulty of defining hate speech. I also might note that those specific examples are cases where a specific student is being told that he doesn't belong because of his or her race. If segregation (or slavery) resulted in overall improvements to the well being of black people vs the current situation (something that some have argued and produced credible seeming statistics, at least in the case of slavery, that appear to support their argument), is that hate speech? You're not directly saying any given black student should be re-enslaved or re-segregated, just pointing out the cruel irony of unintended consequences or something.

Last edited by SamuelA; 08-11-2019 at 03:43 PM.
  #170  
Old 08-11-2019, 03:41 PM
thorny locust is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 980
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Okay, what if instead he had written “All I can think about is how I just wanna grab that ass and get all up in there”?

What is the point of even bringing that up? That language reduces a human to a body part; which shouldn't even need saying.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
You want to effect change? You want to see new paradigms? Speak loudly and firmly.
That's exactly what Manda JO's been doing.
  #171  
Old 08-11-2019, 03:46 PM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
Super interesting about that campus debate.

And there are BTW policy preferences I find deeply offensive. A couple that come to mind:

—That we should continue to support the blood-soaked, oppressive regime in Saudi Arabia because their arms purchases profit American companies and create jobs

—That the federal government should go back to the rapacious policy of regarding unspoiled wilderness as valuable only for the resources that can be extracted from them, therefore lifting bans on drilling and open pit mining

But I am also strongly opposed to saying someone cannot argue vociferously in favor of those policies.
  #172  
Old 08-11-2019, 03:55 PM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
What is the point of even bringing that up? That language reduces a human to a body part; which shouldn't even need saying.

Because if it’s not about “hit that”, what you really want is for the nature of those “intrusive thoughts” not to be explained. I can assure you that they are not along the lines of “My, what a lovely human being. Time spent with her in mutually rewarding intimacy would be welcome indeed.”
  #173  
Old 08-11-2019, 04:03 PM
Skypist is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Being a horndog means you like women, just that you dont express that in a mature way.
No, being a horndog is not the same thing as "liking" women.

Misogyny includes "liking" women for what their bodies offer (eye candy, sex, production of offspring) but not valuing them for anything else.
  #174  
Old 08-11-2019, 04:07 PM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
And if you like them for both, or either, depending on the woman in question and the context?
  #175  
Old 08-11-2019, 04:09 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skypist View Post
No, being a horndog is not the same thing as "liking" women.

Misogyny includes "liking" women for what their bodies offer (eye candy, sex, production of offspring) but not valuing them for anything else.
Not necessarily. It's entirely possible to also like other things about women than their potential for satisfying sex. But each of us has a finite amount of time for social encounters - why not spend as much of it as possible with hot women rather than unattractive ones? That is a completely reasonable thing to do. Similarly, if you meet two women, and one is physically unattractive but great to be around, and the other is less interesting but hot, it makes perfect sense to invest more time into a friendship with the latter person.

Finally, regarding this - like any real setup, actual relationships and decisions are more complicated. The most optimal thing is to invest your time into women you feel you have a chance with - that hot acquaintance who is out of your league is a waste of your time just as much as that unattractive acquaintance .

Is it right or fair that it works this way? Eh. We're all just trying to get the most out of our lives.

Last edited by SamuelA; 08-11-2019 at 04:12 PM.
  #176  
Old 08-11-2019, 04:29 PM
thorny locust is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 980
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Because if it’s not about “hit that”, what you really want is for the nature of those “intrusive thoughts” not to be explained. I can assure you that they are not along the lines of “My, what a lovely human being. Time spent with her in mutually rewarding intimacy would be welcome indeed.”
More than one person, me included, has pointed out both that and how the subject could be discussed without going into that sort of detail, in any form. I don't see why we should have to keep giving repeated examples, over and over, of how to do so.
  #177  
Old 08-11-2019, 04:45 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
And if you like them for both, or either, depending on the woman in question and the context?
I think this is important as well. If I see a woman walking down the street in revealing clothing and very attractive, I don't have any other information about her at the time to make any sort of judgment about her other qualities.

If I comment on her appearance, and even if I am a vulgar person who uses vulgar terms to comment on said appearance, it is not because I believe that women are only sex objects created to serve my own sexual pleasures. It is because the only information I have about this particular women is her attractiveness.

And for most strangers on the street, that will be all of the information I ever have about her. I think the test is when I do know things about her and dismiss them because she is a woman and want her only for her sexual attractiveness.

The attitude of, sure, she might be the CEO of a company, but I'll bet she could suck a good dick is pretty good evidence that you are disregarding her human qualities and reducing her to a base level of sexual pleasure. But if you know nothing about her, then I don't think there is anything you know to discount.
  #178  
Old 08-11-2019, 04:50 PM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
More than one person, me included, has pointed out both that and how the subject could be discussed without going into that sort of detail, in any form. I don't see why we should have to keep giving repeated examples, over and over, of how to do so.

Apparently you mean post 55, and no: that does not convey even the gist of what the thoughts are like.
  #179  
Old 08-11-2019, 05:17 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
I cannot fully participate because I can't talk about the topic before I first establish that I even have standing to participate in the conversation. I've been excluded by the whole thing.
I mentioned in the other thread how there’s a thread about menopause. Your criticism could apply there, too. There’s literally a disclaimer about half way through that OP that encourages men to stop reading.

I don’t think it’s objectionable. Not every thread has to be inclusive (although being exclusive on some topics can limit the value of responses and conversations).

Respectfully, you’ve consistently misquoted that other OP (I don’t believe he actually wrote “hit that”, although the distinction is minor). I read him talking to women in parts of the OP. I fully understand that you read it differently, but I disagree that it’s as much of a “just us guys” thread as you do.
  #180  
Old 08-11-2019, 05:30 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
You didn't answer the question. Yes or no, are you a practicing attorney?
Kentucky Fried Movie:


Hornung : Mr. Grunwald, in addition to your occupation as a spoon, is it not true that you are a driving instructor?

Grunwald : No.

Hornung : Then it is true.

Grunwald : Yes.

Hornung : That you're not a driving instructor?

Grunwald : No.
  #181  
Old 08-11-2019, 05:32 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
More than one person, me included, has pointed out both that and how the subject could be discussed without going into that sort of detail, in any form. I don't see why we should have to keep giving repeated examples, over and over, of how to do so.
I don't think it is appropriate for you or anyone else to tell a poster the proper way to discuss a topic or "how to do so."

Hey, here's the proper way to debate in Trump threads: You should always refer to Trump as Mr. President and you can avoid being moderated. See how that works?

Maybe he didn't need to say that the hypothetical woman had her butt cheeks hanging out, but he did. Does he need your permission to do so? Do we need a drafting or stylistic committee to help posters draft threads? Or is it only in threads about women? Does he need permission from a minority of posters who form a group for this purpose?

If a father tells his daughter, "You aren't wearing those pants out of this house because your butt cheeks are hanging out!" does he hate his daughter? All women?

I would say that in only a liberal utopia would your views be satisfied, but even in a liberal utopia there would be debates about the proper terms as they evolve daily. Or could we just go a different way and say that unless something is deliberately and universally recognized as insulting do we moderate it and let everyone else feel as they may because that is the cost of living in society and especially being a part of a debate or discussion?
  #182  
Old 08-11-2019, 05:48 PM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Do we need a drafting or stylistic committee to help posters draft threads?

I love this. It is snarkily funny, yes, but there is a serious point to be gleaned. These kinds of aims really were the exact (well meaning) impulses behind the way things were done in Jacobin France under Robespierre, in the Stalinist USSR, in Maoist China (and still to an extent today).
  #183  
Old 08-11-2019, 05:52 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I would say that in only a liberal utopia would your views be satisfied, but even in a liberal utopia there would be debates about the proper terms as they evolve daily. Or could we just go a different way and say that unless something is deliberately and universally recognized as insulting do we moderate it and let everyone else feel as they may because that is the cost of living in society and especially being a part of a debate or discussion?

Don't forget that the worst ethnic slur of all is perfectly permissible to use so long as you are the same minority.
  #184  
Old 08-11-2019, 05:56 PM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Don't forget that the worst ethnic slur of all is perfectly permissible to use so long as you are the same minority.

This is kind of a canard, one I wish to emphatically disassociate myself from since we have been sort of on the same “side” elsewhere ITT. I don’t understand why this fact bothers some white conservatives so much.
  #185  
Old 08-11-2019, 06:09 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 28,724
It bothers white conservatives because they resent being told what they can or can't do or say by other people even though they themselves have a long history of barging in uninvited to tell other people what they can or can't do or say. How dare [fill the blank] tell them THEM what to do!
  #186  
Old 08-11-2019, 06:09 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
This is kind of a canard, one I wish to emphatically disassociate myself from since we have been sort of on the same “side” elsewhere ITT. I don’t understand why this fact bothers some white conservatives so much.
Because "hate speech" thus requires context, not just a clear set of no-no words and phrases. And this makes it harder to tell what it is. Even worse, legitimate scientific inquiry may or may not be hate speech. All the "races" (in quotes because there are so many edge cases) are clearly different in average height and body proportions. And appear to have different peak athletic abilities. And might have different inherent talents at specific mental tasks, though this is really hard to tease out causation on. (is the reason "asians", a small minority of all Americans, are the overwhelming majority of students admitted by merit to Caltech because they are actually smarter and/or more talented at STEM? This is a valid interpretation of the data, albeit not the only one)

Anyways, this is "hate speech" to even declare that people might be different from each other from the very start and that the hypothesis "everyone is equal in every way" appears to be false.
  #187  
Old 08-11-2019, 06:26 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 35,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
I mentioned in the other thread how there’s a thread about menopause. Your criticism could apply there, too. There’s literally a disclaimer about half way through that OP that encourages men to stop reading.

I don’t think it’s objectionable. Not every thread has to be inclusive (although being exclusive on some topics can limit the value of responses and conversations).

Respectfully, you’ve consistently misquoted that other OP (I don’t believe he actually wrote “hit that”, although the distinction is minor). I read him talking to women in parts of the OP. I fully understand that you read it differently, but I disagree that it’s as much of a “just us guys” thread as you do.
Her issue is not literally about whether the topic of the thread is exclusively about men or women’s anatomies.

It’s that the tenor of the discussion is one that uses language that is disrespectful to women, this making her feel disrespected by the social atmosphere of the conversation and thus not wanting to be part of that atmosphere.

The same thing would be true for me for example if a thread accepted the use of demeaning language about people of my race or age or religion or body type. If I’m an overweight person, I’m not going to participate in a thread in which the other participants freely use terms that are demeaning and humiliating about fat people—fatasses, porkers, pigs, oinkers, lazy disgusting fat bastards cramming their faces.

Regardless of whether the topic is a valid topic of discussion, the tenor of the language is exclusionary. That’s the point.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #188  
Old 08-11-2019, 06:37 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,933
Lol. What a clusterfuck. I bet certain long necked denizens feel stupid complaining about my earlier posts.
  #189  
Old 08-11-2019, 06:40 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Don't forget that the worst ethnic slur of all is perfectly permissible to use so long as you are the same minority.
No it's not -- a related non-slur term is commonly used in a dialect of American English, but it's not an ethnic slur in that dialect.
  #190  
Old 08-11-2019, 07:13 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Her issue is not literally about whether the topic of the thread is exclusively about men or women’s anatomies.

It’s that the tenor of the discussion is one that uses language that is disrespectful to women, this making her feel disrespected by the social atmosphere of the conversation and thus not wanting to be part of that atmosphere.

The same thing would be true for me for example if a thread accepted the use of demeaning language about people of my race or age or religion or body type. If I’m an overweight person, I’m not going to participate in a thread in which the other participants freely use terms that are demeaning and humiliating about fat people—fatasses, porkers, pigs, oinkers, lazy disgusting fat bastards cramming their faces.

Regardless of whether the topic is a valid topic of discussion, the tenor of the language is exclusionary. That’s the point.
But it is not. I am carrying a few extra pounds myself, but if there was a thread about how fat people were just disgusting pigs, I am fully free to skip over it. I can participate in any other thread if that thread raises my blood pressure.

I am also free to participate. I can give excuses/rationales for why some people are overweight and dispute the characterizations that we are all lazy bastards.

I can also Pit the people who started or commented in the thread using those terms.

What I shouldn't be able to do is ban any discussion about overweight people unless the OP uses careful terminology so I don't get hurt feelings. The real world doesn't work that way and this board shouldn't be a safe space.

Yes, if there is a direct insult, nobody should have to put up with that, but insults directed at the group??? It happens to conservatives and religious people all over GD. If we are going down that road (which we shouldn't) then let's be consistent.

Last edited by UltraVires; 08-11-2019 at 07:14 PM.
  #191  
Old 08-11-2019, 07:33 PM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 12,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Her issue is not literally about whether the topic of the thread is exclusively about men or women’s anatomies.

It’s that the tenor of the discussion is one that uses language that is disrespectful to women, this making her feel disrespected by the social atmosphere of the conversation and thus not wanting to be part of that atmosphere.

The same thing would be true for me for example if a thread accepted the use of demeaning language about people of my race or age or religion or body type. If I’m an overweight person, I’m not going to participate in a thread in which the other participants freely use terms that are demeaning and humiliating about fat people—fatasses, porkers, pigs, oinkers, lazy disgusting fat bastards cramming their faces.

Regardless of whether the topic is a valid topic of discussion, the tenor of the language is exclusionary. That’s the point.
This is a good way to try and explain this.
  #192  
Old 08-11-2019, 07:35 PM
Vinyl Turnip is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I love this. It is snarkily funny, yes, but there is a serious point to be gleaned. These kinds of aims really were the exact (well meaning) impulses behind the way things were done in Jacobin France under Robespierre, in the Stalinist USSR, in Maoist China (and still to an extent today).
Eyes rolling like slot reels, they culled a harvest of mismatched fruit.
  #193  
Old 08-11-2019, 07:39 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
...Why is objectifying language such a sacred thing? How is it NOT being a jerk?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
Maybe I'm exhibiting just a touch of devil's advocate here, Manda JO, but in my view there's an answer to that -- and I say this while understanding your position (I think) and certainly respecting it. And the answer is that language -- objectifying or not -- is essential in all its variations and nuances to express ideas, and in that sense language **is** damn near sacred. ...
I generally agree with your posts, but this is specious. Using "language is sacred" to excuse linguistic attempts to turn other people into things, is a very bad argument.

A prominent--and recent--example of how disgraceful a strategy this really is might be the current US President's use of "infested" with reference to black and brown people. Is it Trump's sacred right to speak of black-majority areas as "infested"?

For a reminder of Trump's use of language as a political tool: https://www.theroot.com/all-the-time...ted-1836799184

Dismissing attempts to "thing" females as being trivial, while agreeing that turning people of color into things (by means of repeated use of "infested," "invasion," etc.) is wrong, is a not-uncommon response by some who consider the matter. There is an attraction, felt by some, to the idea that femaleness is, essentially, trivial. This idea is worth questioning.

Turning entire demographic categories of people into things, metaphorically of course, creates a feeling of power. We all enjoy feeling powerful. But part of being an adult is realizing that the particular sense of power derived from asserting primacy in this way is not actually respectable or healthy. Certainly there is nothing "sacred" about this technique for artificially boosting one's feelings of superiority.

Another example (in addition to the current project of the Trumpian right to "thing" black and brown people): the vogue some years back for hiring little people to work in pubs/bars and similar venues, for the purpose of being the objects thrown in a test of athleticism or strength of the thrower. Turning a demographic group---people of short stature---into things, brought enjoyment and pleasure. Ask yourself: what sort of pleasure was that, exactly? The pleasure of throwing? If that's all it was, then why not just throw pieces of furniture or such?

"Dwarf-tossing" and referring to certain racial/ethnic groups as "infestations" and describing a woman as a collection of body parts that you want to make use of ("hit"): these are methods of asserting that one is a member of the dominant group.

That is not sacred. (And it is being a jerk.)
  #194  
Old 08-11-2019, 07:46 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
No it's not -- a related non-slur term is commonly used in a dialect of American English, but it's not an ethnic slur in that dialect.
Well, for whatever reason, entire ethnicities are banned from using that dialect.
  #195  
Old 08-11-2019, 07:47 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
I generally agree with your posts, but this is specious. Using "language is sacred" to excuse linguistic attempts to turn other people into things, is a very bad argument.

A prominent--and recent--example of how disgraceful a strategy this really is might be the current US President's use of "infested" with reference to black and brown people. Is it Trump's sacred right to speak of black-majority areas as "infested"?

For a reminder of Trump's use of language as a political tool: https://www.theroot.com/all-the-time...ted-1836799184

Dismissing attempts to "thing" females as being trivial, while agreeing that turning people of color into things (by means of repeated use of "infested," "invasion," etc.) is wrong, is a not-uncommon response by some who consider the matter. There is an attraction, felt by some, to the idea that femaleness is, essentially, trivial. This idea is worth questioning.

Turning entire demographic categories of people into things, metaphorically of course, creates a feeling of power. We all enjoy feeling powerful. But part of being an adult is realizing that the particular sense of power derived from asserting primacy in this way is not actually respectable or healthy. Certainly there is nothing "sacred" about this technique for artificially boosting one's feelings of superiority.

Another example (in addition to the current project of the Trumpian right to "thing" black and brown people): the vogue some years back for hiring little people to work in pubs/bars and similar venues, for the purpose of being the objects thrown in a test of athleticism or strength of the thrower. Turning a demographic group---people of short stature---into things, brought enjoyment and pleasure. Ask yourself: what sort of pleasure was that, exactly? The pleasure of throwing? If that's all it was, then why not just throw pieces of furniture or such?

"Dwarf-tossing" and referring to certain racial/ethnic groups as "infestations" and describing a woman as a collection of body parts that you want to make use of ("hit"): these are methods of asserting that one is a member of the dominant group.

That is not sacred. (And it is being a jerk.)
So if a poster wanted to argue that yes indeedy, illegal immigration is, like our President said, an "infestation," you would ban the topic from discussion? Or at least ban any support of that proposition?

To me, that is incredible that it would be out of bounds to defend a position taken by any president, whether you support him or not.
  #196  
Old 08-11-2019, 08:06 PM
IvoryTowerDenizen's Avatar
IvoryTowerDenizen is offline
Retired Straight Dope Staff
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North Shore of LI
Posts: 19,363
Again, those of raising the issue are not suggesting banning topics. It’s moderating objectifying language while discussing the topics.

Last edited by IvoryTowerDenizen; 08-11-2019 at 08:08 PM.
  #197  
Old 08-11-2019, 08:11 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
So if a poster wanted to argue that yes indeedy, illegal immigration is, like our President said, an "infestation," you would ban the topic from discussion? Or at least ban any support of that proposition?
No. But if a poster argued (for example) "we need to change the laws on immigration because those people are infesting our nation with their ______ and their ______ and we must clean out the rats' nest" I would expect the language to receive moderation. (As is usually the case, the moderator in question would likely choose the moderation tool to use after looking at the context and at the poster's history.)

The topic of illegal immigration itself is 100% legitimate and, no doubt, there are already threads about it, and will be many more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
To me, that is incredible that it would be out of bounds to defend a position taken by any president, whether you support him or not.
Luckily, I wasn't arguing that "it would be out of bounds to defend a position taken by any president."

But a message board is allowed to have community standards. Moderators of such a board are within their rights to moderate a post that said (for example) "I think Trump is right that there's no need to get a woman's permission before grabbing her by the p*ssy*" or "We should all live by Trump's rule to tell others to 'knock the hell out of' and 'knock the crap out of' anyone who we don't like."** A moderator is likely to intervene and note that these posts advocate for committing assault---a crime. The board has a reasonable right to moderate posts that promote the commission of crimes.

On such a board, it would be valid for a poster to refer to Trump positions with approval---so long as that poster avoids breaking the board rules (such as those against advocating the commission of crimes).

It's all common sense, really.




*not recalling off-hand what words are disallowed in this subforum, I'll go the asterisk route.

**https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/back...ry?id=48415766
  #198  
Old 08-11-2019, 08:28 PM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
I would argue that some of Trump’s worst rhetoric could in fact be worthy of moderator action if said here. But the OP in question is not nearly as bad.
  #199  
Old 08-11-2019, 08:39 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
It’s pithy, I know, but I’ve long been fond of the saying, “If you take what they give you, you get what you deserve.”
What a vile, privileged moral precept.
  #200  
Old 08-11-2019, 08:44 PM
Drunky Smurf's Avatar
Drunky Smurf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Smurf Village.
Posts: 11,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I would argue that some of Trump’s worst rhetoric could in fact be worthy of moderator action if said here.
And that has what to do with this thread?

The topic of the thread is the moderation of demeaning langue that was used.

If one can not stay on topic then why is one in this thread?
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 03:37 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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