Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 08-11-2019, 08:48 PM
thorny locust is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 966
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Could you rewrite the OP into a form that is acceptable to you, then, so we can see how this poster could have expressed his feelings in an acceptable manner?
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
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."
I was attempting to answer SamuelA's direct question by providing an example. That may, admittedly, have been a mistake; but not for the reasons you're giving.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
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.
I'm afraid that SamuelA might actually mean that claim seriously.

I'm also afraid that SamuelA might mean all the other things he's said recently in this thread seriously. I'm not going to derail the thread further by tackling them all, however.


Quote:
Originally Posted by IvoryTowerDenizen View Post
Again, those of raising the issue are not suggesting banning topics. It’s moderating objectifying language while discussing the topics.
That seems to be exactly what some people are objecting to -- they want, not only to be able to discuss any subject, but to be able to discuss any subject while using any language that they please, but without themselves having to listen to any objections to such language; or at least, to any objections that aren't phrased exactly in a fashion acceptable to them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
It's all common sense, really.
There is unfortunately no such thing.
  #202  
Old 08-11-2019, 08:56 PM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
That seems to be exactly what some people are objecting to -- they want, not only to be able to discuss any subject, but to be able to discuss any subject while using any language that they please, but without themselves having to listen to any objections to such language; or at least, to any objections that aren't phrased exactly in a fashion acceptable to them.

Epic strawman.
  #203  
Old 08-11-2019, 09:23 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
... That seems to be exactly what some people are objecting to -- they want, not only to be able to discuss any subject, but to be able to discuss any subject while using any language that they please, but without themselves having to listen to any objections to such language; or at least, to any objections that aren't phrased exactly in a fashion acceptable to them. ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Epic strawman.
It really isn't. The posts equating the OP's point with "policing" and "muzzling" are numerous in this thread. If the intent of those posts is not to express resentment over not being "able to discuss any subject while using any language that they please," then what is the intent of these posts? A selection from just the first 120, providing an illustrative amount of evidence:

#21: policing
#26: torches and pitchforks
#42: muzzled
#54: does not want men on the board to talk frankly
#73: "demand no one has the right to see his posts"
#90: censoring; "conform to the speech demanded by these minority of posters"
#103: banned speech
#118: banning; banned


Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
...There is unfortunately no such thing.
Granted, "common sense" is sadly uncommon. But aspirations are important.
  #204  
Old 08-11-2019, 09:35 PM
Manda JO is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,331
Well, I had a busy afternoon and there's now way too much to respond to; I am sorry. This is why I start threads like literally once every few years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
She’s not talking about silencing a viewpoint. She’s talking about rejecting demeaning expressions.
This is what I am trying to say and I honestly feel like attempts to make this about the topic, not about the moderation of the words, is a strawman.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
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.
I've been doing this for TWENTY FUCKING YEARS. And what I want is your, as in the moderator's support. When women say "Wow, that's offensive" I don't want moderation to respond with "I hope the OP can see how some people MIGHT FIND what he said offensive" but no moderator instruction to avoid that sort of language. That's not fucking support.

And this happens over and over and over again. And every time we dance this dance: any discussion of HOW something is said turns into a defense of WHAT was said. There's this "dude camaraderie" aesthetic and while women are allowed to be here, we are supposed to just understand that this is how dudes talk and it's unfair to cramp their style.

And it does limit my ability to participate because I can't participate without coming in loaded for bear. I can't discuss the issue and just leave the offensive language--to do so is to appear to condone it. Before I can speak at all, I have to throw a fit about the language, because how can I talk about a complex and nuanced issue and ignore the fact that the place of women in this narrative is that of an object. And when I do, I know that the moderation is going to, at most, suggest that "some people might see it as offensive"

Acsenray said what I wasn't around to say better than I could say it:

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?

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.
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.
  #205  
Old 08-11-2019, 09:46 PM
Manda JO is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,331
One more thing:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post

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!
Here's the original post:

[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by nate View Post
I'd bet my life it's like this for 98% of males. I mean, I'm kind of curious about if you were really honest, walking down the street and you see any attractive women, how can you help your brain not automatically think "damn, I'd like to fuck the hell out of that". Especially if they are dressed in some sort of risque, butt-cheeks hanging out, skinny tanned legs outfit.
How is that not gratuitous? He can say "I find my overpowering physical response embarrassingly overwhelming. It's biological, it's like I can't help it." If I can't "get it" from that, then the description of ass-cheeks and "fuck the hell out of that" is not going to clarify it for me.

He's getting off on this description. He's wallowing in it. And people who start threads like that should be told to knock it off by the moderation.
  #206  
Old 08-11-2019, 09:54 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,571
I recall an event of similar nature with Nobel Laureate Tim Hunt, essentially saying that women in science laboratories were distractingly beautiful or something like that, actually what I think he said was worse. He got taken to task and had to resign. I think we are better for it if we call out this kind of derogatory commentary when we see it, so thank you for starting this thread. There's a line to be drawn, but it's not black and white and having these things called out helps us see there is a line, however fuzzy it may be.

I leave it to the IMHO mods to address the specifics.

Last edited by Bone; 08-11-2019 at 09:55 PM.
  #207  
Old 08-11-2019, 09:56 PM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
It really isn't. The posts equating the OP's point with "policing" and "muzzling" are numerous in this thread. If the intent of those posts is not to express resentment over not being "able to discuss any subject while using any language that they please," then what is the intent of these posts? A selection from just the first 120, providing an illustrative amount of evidence:

#21: policing
#26: torches and pitchforks
#42: muzzled
#54: does not want men on the board to talk frankly
#73: "demand no one has the right to see his posts"
#90: censoring; "conform to the speech demanded by these minority of posters"
#103: banned speech
#118: banning; banned

You quoted but did not address the portion of the argument that was a strawman. It was: “without themselves having to listen to any objections to such language; or at least, to any objections that aren't phrased exactly in a fashion acceptable to them”. That is the epic strawman. I did not see anyone making any assertion like that. Just the opposite: they were saying that people should state any objections they like, but not muzzle the OP.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 08-11-2019 at 09:57 PM.
  #208  
Old 08-11-2019, 10:03 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I recall an event of similar nature with Nobel Laureate Tim Hunt, essentially saying that women in science laboratories were distractingly beautiful or something like that, actually what I think he said was worse. He got taken to task and had to resign. I think we are better for it if we call out this kind of derogatory commentary when we see it, so thank you for starting this thread. There's a line to be drawn, but it's not black and white and having these things called out helps us see there is a line, however fuzzy it may be.

I leave it to the IMHO mods to address the specifics.
No. You said we could talk about any topic we wanted. If it turns out that women in science labs are indeed distractingly beautiful, then based upon your post, we can't talk about that. It's bullshit.

As I said above, don't ban the topic. Have posters respond about how to deal with beautiful women in science labs, or make a point that men looking at women for their sexual attributes in science labs is poor form and they need to adapt with the times. Why squelch speech on a board dedicated to fighting ignorance?

Or do you retract your statement that we can talk about any topic?

This "fuzzy line" only allows the most vocal critics to suppress speech for fear that people are leaving this board. Have a fairly reasonable line and tell people on the other side to suck it up like conservatives and religious people have to do every day while posting here.
  #209  
Old 08-11-2019, 10:05 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
How is that not gratuitous? He can say "I find my overpowering physical response embarrassingly overwhelming. It's biological, it's like I can't help it." If I can't "get it" from that, then the description of ass-cheeks and "fuck the hell out of that" is not going to clarify it for me.

He's getting off on this description. He's wallowing in it. And people who start threads like that should be told to knock it off by the moderation.
Perhaps all OPs should be directed to you so you can edit them so they do not offend your sensibilities?

And I get the Trump ones (and religious and Republican ones). When someone calls him "his orangeness" or something like that, I can reform them so we get "better" debates without any gratuitous add ons.
  #210  
Old 08-11-2019, 10:08 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
No. You said we could talk about any topic we wanted. If it turns out that women in science labs are indeed distractingly beautiful, then based upon your post, we can't talk about that. It's bullshit.
You're reading something that wasn't written. Feel free to talk about any topic. Rather than react defensively, I suggest you try to interpret generously. It goes a long way.

We prohibit hate speech. If a topic is the pros and cons of segregated schools, that's a topic that can be discussed. If however, an OP laces the conversation with hate speech referring to various minorities, I'm going to shut that down. The topic isn't verboten, but we do have various guide rails on what is acceptable.
  #211  
Old 08-11-2019, 10:12 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
No. You said we could talk about any topic we wanted. If it turns out that women in science labs are indeed distractingly beautiful, then based upon your post, we can't talk about that. It's bullshit.
It is bullshit, because women in science labs aren't distractingly beautiful. That's a framing that removes male agency entirely from the picture.

What is true is that some scientists are so sloppy with their sexual attraction, have so little self-control, that they're unable to stay focused on their work when they're sexually attracted to a co-worker. They haven't learned how to avoid distraction.

See how that reframe works? Now it's clear that the problem isn't women's sexxxy mojo. The problem is that some men need to figure out how to have some basic self-control.

The problem is a little deeper, though, and the framing reveals that. Those men don't even think they're a problem. Anyone who talks about "distractingly beautiful" women and means it in any serious way is externalizing responsibility for male self-control.

And the way they're doing that is part of a millennia-long history of misogyny.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 08-11-2019 at 10:12 PM.
  #212  
Old 08-11-2019, 10:28 PM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
So tell a poster that. Don’t insist they be punished for saying what they said.
  #213  
Old 08-11-2019, 10:40 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
So tell a poster that. Don’t insist they be punished for saying what they said.
"I'm telling you, LHOD, don't tell other posters what to do!"

Sorry, dude. We're discussing what the rules should be. I think Manda is in the right here: the matter can be discussed appropriately, but the current model ain't it.
  #214  
Old 08-12-2019, 12:14 AM
Drunky Smurf's Avatar
Drunky Smurf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Smurf Village.
Posts: 11,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I leave it to the IMHO mods to address the specifics.
Ok, so you and a couple other mods have chimed in to say this isn't your place to say anything.

When are the mods, that can "have a say" going to show up and say something?

Also I if go into any forum and starting shouting the N-Word 100 times. Are all the other mods except the mods of that forum going to come in and say, "I can't speak to the specifics of the complaint because it is not my forum so I'll let the mods of that forum say something."

And yet the specific mods of that forum not actually say something.

That sounds awefully like this place condones me shouting the N-Word 100 times. And the mods not giving a shit about hate speech.

Which I thought was a rule.
  #215  
Old 08-12-2019, 12:27 AM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
Strawmen continue to abound.

  #216  
Old 08-12-2019, 01:06 AM
engineer_comp_geek's Avatar
engineer_comp_geek is online now
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 24,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
Well, I had a busy afternoon and there's now way too much to respond to
Yep, same here. I'll try to respond to at least some of the points raised in this thread so far though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
When women say "Wow, that's offensive" I don't want moderation to respond with "I hope the OP can see how some people MIGHT FIND what he said offensive" but no moderator instruction to avoid that sort of language. That's not fucking support.
As was pointed out way back in post #9, this is entirely a misunderstanding of what I wrote on your part. Again, as was already said, what you are calling a response is not a response. It is a comment on posts that were made, and a hope that the OP might gain some understanding based on responses from the thread. It was not the moderation response that you are making it out to be.

This part of my response is more pertinent:

Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek View Post
We really do not want to encourage posts along the lines of "women make me want to have sex", and we definitely do not want to encourage men's locker room types of posts where men just talk about who they want to have sex with and why.
This is the part that I thought was saying pretty much exactly what you are asking for. I am trying to make it clear that while I am allowing the thread to continue, we really don't want OP's like that here. You can argue that I did not state it clearly enough or explicitly enough, but that was the intent, to say that the OP, and posts along similar lines, are not acceptable here.

Look, I'm human, and the English language is not precise. Sometimes what I am trying to say may not come across exactly how it was intended. I apologize for not being clear enough, and I will attempt to be more explicit on this topic going forward.

I thought you were clear on the misunderstanding back around post #11 of this thread. If you are going to continue to be angry over what you thought I said instead of what I actually said, well, I can't help you there.

To all of our female members, we are committed to making this place less misogynistic, and we are at least attempting to provide exactly the support that you are looking for. Again, we're human, and we're pretty much guaranteed to make a few mistakes as we continue down this path, but we are all working towards the same goal here.

To all of those in this thread who think we are going down the wrong path, or think that we are arbitrarily enacting some draconian set of rules, or that we need some explicitly stated 400 page rule book so you will know exactly where the lines are, let me be blunt. All of you need to get with the fucking program. We are on this path, we are committed to it, and we have the full support of our administrator behind it. We are not making unreasonable demands, and what we are asking for is not difficult to understand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...a quick question: looking at the moderating team its an all-male team now isn't it? No women moderators?
We do not currently have any female moderators. However, our administrator is female, and while you generally do not see much from her posted on the board, she is very much involved in the moderation here behind the scenes.

Last edited by engineer_comp_geek; 08-12-2019 at 01:12 AM. Reason: clarification
  #217  
Old 08-12-2019, 01:08 AM
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
Strawmen continue to abound.

And you continue to change the subject of the topic of this thread. Purposefully. :Rolleyes:
  #218  
Old 08-12-2019, 01:20 AM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunky Smurf View Post
And you continue to change the subject of the topic of this thread. Purposefully. :Rolleyes:



I have no idea what you mean, so if it’s happening at all (which I rather doubt), it’s certainly not purposefully.
  #219  
Old 08-12-2019, 03:59 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Well, for whatever reason, entire ethnicities are banned from using that dialect.
Not exactly - people who aren't fluent in that dialect are probably going to screw up the usage of sensitive words like that which require fluency. And very, very few non black people are fluent.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #220  
Old 08-12-2019, 04:38 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek View Post
We do not currently have any female moderators.
ISTM that this should be a relatively easy problem to solve. Does the staff see this as a problem, and if so, are they trying to solve it?
  #221  
Old 08-12-2019, 04:59 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
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.
Jesus fuckin' christ.

Tell you what, twitter may not even have these few standards of moderation but at least on twitter if I block a misogynistic troll I probably won't see them again. Speaking of which...

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
So tell a poster that. Don’t insist they be punished for saying what they said.
So let's assume we do that, and then nothing changes. They double down (as nate did) keep on saying the same shit. What then?

Do we just accept that that's the tenor of conversation we should come to expect?

Because if so, I can imagine a whole lot of better shit to do with my time.
  #222  
Old 08-12-2019, 05:46 AM
elbows is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 14,398
Can any mod explain (to any woman still reading) what exactly is so impossible about closing the thread and saying, ‘This topic is not taboo, but this language is not sufficiently respectful to women. Try again if you want to continue with this topic.’

How hard is that?

This unmodded OP screams LOUD that nothing here is going to change. The then degradation into the same old story, with same old players drives the point home.

This thread is a shit show due to lack of moderation, in my humble opinion.
  #223  
Old 08-12-2019, 05:56 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 25,875
So, remind me, when was the first ATMB thread where the mod staff swore they were going to improve the moderation around misogyny here? Because my perception is that after that there was a flurry of activity, and then a whole lot of nothing. And here we are again...
  #224  
Old 08-12-2019, 06:26 AM
Manda JO is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek View Post
Yep, same here. I'll try to respond to at least some of the points raised in this thread so far though.


As was pointed out way back in post #9, this is entirely a misunderstanding of what I wrote on your part. Again, as was already said, what you are calling a response is not a response. It is a comment on posts that were made, and a hope that the OP might gain some understanding based on responses from the thread. It was not the moderation response that you are making it out to be.

This part of my response is more pertinent:


This is the part that I thought was saying pretty much exactly what you are asking for. I am trying to make it clear that while I am allowing the thread to continue, we really don't want OP's like that here. You can argue that I did not state it clearly enough or explicitly enough, but that was the intent, to say that the OP, and posts along similar lines, are not acceptable here.
Thanks for the response. I don't think you stated it clearly enough, and I think that matters. What you appear to be saying is "The thread appears to be within what is acceptable, but I hope it doesn't get any more extreme, but no foul if it does". I mean "we don't like to encourage" is pretty weak sauce. The reason this matters so much is that the OP is already on record as saying he's 98% sure that all men secretly agree with him. When you appear to bend over backward to avoid an official or firm response, it feeds into that belief.

As far as taking this to ATMB, that's really all I have to say and I appreciate your response. I'm not angry about the moderation--I think it's just a great example of a recurring issue from across the moderation staff and worth talking about. I'm totally willing to continue that conversation, or just leave it there--I have said my piece, I hope it registers with the moderation staff.

That said, the rest of THIS thread has served to highlight how deep the problem is. Because here, I think you can see that a lot of posters think that if anything, you went too far--they don't think there should be any official stance on that sort of objectifying language, and they see your response as evidence that we DON'T condemn that sort of language.. They see in your official response confirmation that we don't "muzzle" speech and that that sort of thing is acceptable, so long as it doesn't burst into fully-formed Penthouse Forum.


Quote:
Look, I'm human, and the English language is not precise. Sometimes what I am trying to say may not come across exactly how it was intended. I apologize for not being clear enough, and I will attempt to be more explicit on this topic going forward.

I thought you were clear on the misunderstanding back around post #11 of this thread. If you are going to continue to be angry over what you thought I said instead of what I actually said, well, I can't help you there.
In post #11, you said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek View Post
If someone says something offensive at a party and everyone around him says "dude, not cool", then perhaps the appropriate response for the host is just to acknowledge the situation so that everyone knows the host at least knows that the guy did something wrong, and to keep an eye on the situation to see if the guy got the message from his peers. Or perhaps not. That's exactly why we are having this discussion here.
To me, that "Perhaps, or perhaps not" suggests that you were on the fence about whether an official moderator response was appropriate, or if a more "neutral" approach was more appropriate for the host.

But honestly, ever since about then, when you got busy or whatever (which is fine), I haven't been arguing with you, I've been arguing with the swarm of posters who think that speech like the OP shouldn't have been modded at all.

Quote:
To all of our female members, we are committed to making this place less misogynistic, and we are at least attempting to provide exactly the support that you are looking for. Again, we're human, and we're pretty much guaranteed to make a few mistakes as we continue down this path, but we are all working towards the same goal here.

To all of those in this thread who think we are going down the wrong path, or think that we are arbitrarily enacting some draconian set of rules, or that we need some explicitly stated 400 page rule book so you will know exactly where the lines are, let me be blunt. All of you need to get with the fucking program. We are on this path, we are committed to it, and we have the full support of our administrator behind it. We are not making unreasonable demands, and what we are asking for is not difficult to understand.
I very much appreciate this. Again, I wasn't at all angry, originally: I just wanted to point out that the language used to moderate the post was very weak, and that it doesn't matter if other people in the thread have "done a good job educating the OP"--a firm moderator response is still important.

Last edited by Manda JO; 08-12-2019 at 06:28 AM.
  #225  
Old 08-12-2019, 07:02 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,519
I started reading this thread and was prepared to defend the lack of moderation, but after reading the whole thing, I'm not going to do that. I read the original thread before this one, and didn't think much of it, but that's on me.

There is no need to use disrespectful language when discussing a topic, even if the topic is how your brain reacts disrespectfully in certain circumstances. If your brain's internal dialog sometimes includes a stream of racial epithets, and you'd like to discuss this fact on the SDMB, you don't need to trot out those epithets as proof, or simply use them in your post as if they weren't ugly language.
  #226  
Old 08-12-2019, 07:30 AM
TokyoBayer's Avatar
TokyoBayer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 10,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek View Post
My intent with "the OP certainly has some issues" was to agree . . . is saying that I hope nate actually gets what people are saying. I'm not weaseling out of saying that the OP is offensive, I'm saying that I hope nate understands why some people in the thread are saying its offensive (because it is offensive).

My point with "We really do not want to encourage posts along the lines of "women make me want to have sex", and we definitely do not want to encourage men's locker room types of posts where men just talk about who they want to have sex with and why" is also to say that in general these types of posts are not acceptable here. You state that there is " No suggestion demeaning descriptions of women and objectifying idioms are a problem at all." when in fact I am explicitly saying the exact opposite of that. Demeaning descriptions of women and objectifying are not acceptable here.
ecg, I'm very confused here and I hope you can clarify.

Here in this thread, you made the statements above. I bolded three parts.

First, you stated, “I hope nate actually gets what people are saying. I'm not weaseling out of saying that the OP is offensive, I'm saying that I hope nate understands why some people in the thread are saying its offensive (because it is offensive).” but from Nate’s further comments, it appears he’s not learning, rather, he has doubled down. Obvious getting feedback from the crowd has failed. Why wasn’t a Mod Note made?

Second, you stated, “we definitely do not want to encourage men's locker room types of posts where men just talk about who they want to have sex with and why" is also to say that in general these types of posts are not acceptable here.” Yet this seems to me to be what nate is doing.

Third, you stated, “Demeaning descriptions of women and objectifying are not acceptable here.” Yet again, this wasn’t modded.

As nate is not learning from the experience, why can’t this be modded as the OP and subsequent comments clearly violate your stated guidelines? Obviously, as the OP was written prior to these guidelines, a warning would be unreasonable, but wouldn’t it set a clearer message to everyone that there are indeed guidelines?

Unless your post was not intended to state guidelines, and if so, shouldn’t that be clearly stated.
  #227  
Old 08-12-2019, 08:33 AM
Ibanez is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,974
Libido

Libido (/lɪˈbiːdoʊ/; colloquial: sex drive) is a person's overall sexual drive or desire for sexual activity. Libido is influenced by biological, psychological, and social factors

The alleged offender attempted to convey male human libido exists - which is partly a biological function is “misogynistic” now, seriously ?

The alleged offender wasn't even particularly nasty or crass about trying to convey that, except for maybe admitting not being able to do so discretely without upsetting his wife. But he is right, that urge is in most males. Without it we'd be extinct as a species. Libido is different for men than women. But we both have it, even some women feel the same believe it or not when it comes to certain men. There's nothing wrong with that at all.

Now I'll expect a chorus of self-identifying SD males saying that they never have those urges. All obvious outliers then for a variety of reasons, but that's not how you reach an true consensus by a sampling of a biased source anyways.

Homo sapiens have been humping each other for over 200,000 years. There's a biological component that's taken root over that time that cannot be suddenly be erased because some people find it offensive, science doesn't work that way. If people want it banned because it's offensive to sex-negative feminism I guess that's a different topic.

Also if people stop threatening to leave the SD + that be great. Just leave or get involved in a discussion you don't agree with, start one, but stop complaining to the mods every time it comes up asking them to bring down the hammer on your behalf because it's offensive.

I too find some subjects offensive on this site. The term white males is always usually brought up with derision and snark. I recently saw a thread on what makes up a man-child the other day, whereas if there was similar thread say what makes up a gold-digger I have no doubt it would have been nuked. I had a choice to engage in the thread, pit them or complain to the mods. I did none of that, instead took my dog out for a walk.
  #228  
Old 08-12-2019, 08:54 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 25,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibanez View Post
The alleged offender wasn't even particularly nasty or crass about trying to convey that,
You have a very different definition of crass from mine, if you think "I'd like to fuck the hell out of that" isn't it.

But hey, kudos on the gratuitous trans dig you slipped into your post.

Last edited by MrDibble; 08-12-2019 at 08:55 AM.
  #229  
Old 08-12-2019, 08:58 AM
kopek is offline
born to be shunned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southwestern PA
Posts: 15,027
Somehow I am slightly surprised this thread is still open.
  #230  
Old 08-12-2019, 09:00 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by TokyoBayer View Post
ecg, I'm very confused here and I hope you can clarify.

Here in this thread, you made the statements above. I bolded three parts.

First, you stated, “I hope nate actually gets what people are saying. I'm not weaseling out of saying that the OP is offensive, I'm saying that I hope nate understands why some people in the thread are saying its offensive (because it is offensive).” but from Nate’s further comments, it appears he’s not learning, rather, he has doubled down. Obvious getting feedback from the crowd has failed. Why wasn’t a Mod Note made?

Second, you stated, “we definitely do not want to encourage men's locker room types of posts where men just talk about who they want to have sex with and why" is also to say that in general these types of posts are not acceptable here.” Yet this seems to me to be what nate is doing.

Third, you stated, “Demeaning descriptions of women and objectifying are not acceptable here.” Yet again, this wasn’t modded.

As nate is not learning from the experience, why can’t this be modded as the OP and subsequent comments clearly violate your stated guidelines? Obviously, as the OP was written prior to these guidelines, a warning would be unreasonable, but wouldn’t it set a clearer message to everyone that there are indeed guidelines?

Unless your post was not intended to state guidelines, and if so, shouldn’t that be clearly stated.
I am still unclear why there wasn't a mod note for the language but your other questions seem off line. You really think a mod note should have been given because nate didn't learn his lesson quick enough? And I think the locker room talk he refers to is threads where guys are saying stuff like "That Kathy Ireland had great eyebrows. I could put those to good use, if you know what I mean!" not something as generic as nate's "pretty girls make me think of sex".
  #231  
Old 08-12-2019, 09:00 AM
Ibanez is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
You have a very different definition of crass from mine, if you think "I'd like to fuck the hell out of that" isn't it.

But hey, kudos on the gratuitous trans dig you slipped into your post.
Just going by what I read from the OP, and that wasn't there. I would assume it would be if it was said, or was this another case of "he didn't say it - but this is what he meant"

And no idea on what you're referring regarding me insulting trans people in my post.
  #232  
Old 08-12-2019, 09:02 AM
Manda JO is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
. . .not something as generic as nate's "pretty girls make me think of sex".
He said "I'd like to fuck the hell out of that", not "pretty girls make me think of sex"
  #233  
Old 08-12-2019, 09:04 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibanez View Post
Just going by what I read from the OP, and that wasn't there. I would assume it would be if it was said, or was this another case of "he didn't say it - but this is what he meant"
From the OP of the thread that this OP was referring to:

"damn, I'd like to fuck the hell out of that"

"Especially if they are dressed in some sort of risque, butt-cheeks hanging out, skinny tanned legs outfit."

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=880135
  #234  
Old 08-12-2019, 09:10 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
He said "I'd like to fuck the hell out of that", not "pretty girls make me think of sex"
I am well aware of the language he used and I've agreed that it should have been moderated multiple times in this thread. I was describing the subject matter with regards to that part of ecg's note.
  #235  
Old 08-12-2019, 09:22 AM
Ibanez is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
From the OP of the thread that this OP was referring to:

"damn, I'd like to fuck the hell out of that"

"Especially if they are dressed in some sort of risque, butt-cheeks hanging out, skinny tanned legs outfit."

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=880135
Ok thanks. Crass yest, and I wouldn't have said that here knowing the audience.

Odd that OP didn't include that in her original post.
  #236  
Old 08-12-2019, 09:30 AM
thorny locust is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 966
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek View Post
Yep, same here. I'll try to respond to at least some of the points raised in this thread so far though.



As was pointed out way back in post #9, this is entirely a misunderstanding of what I wrote on your part. Again, as was already said, what you are calling a response is not a response. It is a comment on posts that were made, and a hope that the OP might gain some understanding based on responses from the thread. It was not the moderation response that you are making it out to be.

This part of my response is more pertinent:



This is the part that I thought was saying pretty much exactly what you are asking for. I am trying to make it clear that while I am allowing the thread to continue, we really don't want OP's like that here. You can argue that I did not state it clearly enough or explicitly enough, but that was the intent, to say that the OP, and posts along similar lines, are not acceptable here.

Look, I'm human, and the English language is not precise. Sometimes what I am trying to say may not come across exactly how it was intended. I apologize for not being clear enough, and I will attempt to be more explicit on this topic going forward.

I thought you were clear on the misunderstanding back around post #11 of this thread. If you are going to continue to be angry over what you thought I said instead of what I actually said, well, I can't help you there.

To all of our female members, we are committed to making this place less misogynistic, and we are at least attempting to provide exactly the support that you are looking for. Again, we're human, and we're pretty much guaranteed to make a few mistakes as we continue down this path, but we are all working towards the same goal here.

To all of those in this thread who think we are going down the wrong path, or think that we are arbitrarily enacting some draconian set of rules, or that we need some explicitly stated 400 page rule book so you will know exactly where the lines are, let me be blunt. All of you need to get with the fucking program. We are on this path, we are committed to it, and we have the full support of our administrator behind it. We are not making unreasonable demands, and what we are asking for is not difficult to understand.



We do not currently have any female moderators. However, our administrator is female, and while you generally do not see much from her posted on the board, she is very much involved in the moderation here behind the scenes.
engineer_comp_geek, I've read and re-read this post, and I'm still confused. What does it mean to say that the OP's original post is not acceptable, and that the moderators in general are committed to the path of making such things not acceptable, but to say simultaneously that you're not moderating it?

I'm not saying that you couldn't have moderated it and left the thread open for further discussion; I think that would have made a lot of sense. But it does really seem to me that you're giving mixed signals here.


-- Ibanez, absolutely no one is saying that libido doesn't exist, or that most men (or for that matter, most women) don't have sexual thoughts.
  #237  
Old 08-12-2019, 09:30 AM
Maserschmidt's Avatar
Maserschmidt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New England
Posts: 5,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibanez View Post
Ok thanks. Crass yest, and I wouldn't have said that here knowing the audience.

Odd that OP didn't include that in her original post.
Odd that you didn't read the original thread before opining.
  #238  
Old 08-12-2019, 09:31 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 25,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibanez View Post
Just going by what I read from the OP, and that wasn't there.
No, it's in the OP of the thread this thread is about. So you're commenting here without having read the actual thread this is about?
Quote:
I would assume it would be if it was said, or was this another case of "he didn't say it - but this is what he meant"
No, it's a verbatim quote from nate's OP. And it's been repeated right on this page...
Quote:
And no idea on what you're referring regarding me insulting trans people in my post.
What was "self-identifying SD males" about, then?
  #239  
Old 08-12-2019, 09:37 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibanez View Post
Ok thanks. Crass yest, and I wouldn't have said that here knowing the audience.
Whereas I wouldn't say it because it is crass, sexist and the wrong thing to say in any environment.

But to each his own, I guess.

Last edited by Czarcasm; 08-12-2019 at 09:38 AM.
  #240  
Old 08-12-2019, 09:47 AM
Isosleepy's Avatar
Isosleepy is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,640
I don’t think it is possible at all to moderate this board to the point where no surviving posts are offensive to anyone. Or at least not without this board losing much of what makes it have value.
When offensive comments are made, those offended can note their being offended , and why. If enough members note their being offended by certain things, and the behavior continues regardless, mods get to decide whether the poster is now trolling, or merely expounding an unpopular viewpoint. That is why we have moderators.

Last edited by Isosleepy; 08-12-2019 at 09:48 AM.
  #241  
Old 08-12-2019, 10:14 AM
AHunter3's Avatar
AHunter3 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 20,450
I don't think that it would not be possible to start a useful, socially relevant thread that begins with "Hey, whenever I see a young attractive woman, I feel this rush of sexual appetite and I want do do her", etc.

A lot (for me) kind of depends on whether the post proceeds from there to examine that and ponder it, connect it with something. If it's just "Yeah, I see her and I'm ready to get busy, ya know, how about them hot women, huh?", then it does indeed come across as objectifying and prurient and I do agree that the post in question falls into that category.

Saying so is not the same thing as saying "there should never be a post that contains references to being a male person who sees an attractive woman and feels lust for her". It's not the same thing as begging for topic-censorship.

I don't think the OP of the referenced instigating thread was appropriate for the board. But with the same opening sentences a meaningful thread about a lot of different things (subject-object polarized gender roles, #metoo and guys' defensiveness, or even the vitality of the experience of human sexual lust) could have been generated. But make a point. Have something to say aside from sharing what is an objectifying sexual response.

Last edited by AHunter3; 08-12-2019 at 10:16 AM.
  #242  
Old 08-12-2019, 10:22 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
OP starts a thread where he says that when he sees a hot woman with "ass cheeks hanging out", all he can think is that he wants to "hit that".

Rather than give a note that says something like "Hey, dude, we don't talk about women like that here", the burden is put on us to unofficially "educate" him that there's something wrong with talking about women as if they were objects. Spoiler, it didn't work, because in post #86, he was doubling down:



He's clearly not here to have a conversation. He even goes on to explain:



Understand, when women read this story, we are the wife, and the girl on the scooter, being oogled by a dude who has apparently lost control of his mind and who has reduced the sight of her, of US, to the "sight of this". It's a creepy story. Whatever the intent, it has the effect of serving as a stark reminder that for many, we are only interesting, we only matter, when we make someone's dick twitch. And all the lurid details aren't there to help us understand what happened--it at least comes across as an excuse to linger on the memory: recounting it makes his parts warm in memory and he wants to humble-brag about his virile experience. And we all know this. Can you imagine telling that story in any sort of mixed company? At a work function? A back-yard BBQ with women present? At a bus stop to your dude best friend where women could hear you?

The OPs behavior is creepy and uncouth and makes women uncomfortable. But the powers that be have decided that it's our job to "educate" assholes and creeps--there apparently can't be any official guidance.

And it DOES shut down discussion. Because now before I can participate in the thread, I have to FIRST address the misogyny. Women end up stuck in the meta, arguing about how something was said instead of the content, because we can't just let the meta go--it's exclusionary, and so we have to address that it exists in order to even be clear where we are coming from when we comment on the content. THEN we get bogged down in an argument about whether or not it's misogynistic to say "I just want to hit that" because apparently that's controversial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helena330 View Post
Meanwhile, one or more women feel really uncomfortable with the dude and the lack of any meaningful response to him and leave the party.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helena330 View Post
That's what we've been protesting for MONTHS.. How objectifying, demeaning, and hostile women find it when men post what gets their dicks hard! That was Manda JO's, ITD's, and my entire point.

I'm very much with Manda JO and Helena330 here.

Fighting ignorance doesn't include a need for us guys to talk about what behavior or appearance on the part of women makes us feel good in our nether regions. There's no reason I can see why the mods can't just say, "dude, we don't talk about women like that here." We have a fair number of really smart women who add a great deal to many conversations here through their posts. I don't like the fact that they feel this site is hostile to them in this way, and I don't want this sorta shit to drive them away.

This is one of those situations where 'both sides have a point' perpetuates the shit that only one side is on the receiving end of. My vote is to have it be board policy: we don't talk about women like that around here. It's really just a specific case of the board's Prime Directive: don't be a jerk.
  #243  
Old 08-12-2019, 10:24 AM
crowmanyclouds's Avatar
crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 4,598
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
So, remind me, when was the first ATMB thread where the mod staff swore they were going to improve the moderation around misogyny here? Because my perception is that after that there was a flurry of activity, and then a whole lot of nothing. And here we are again...
They have top men working on it right now.
Top... men...

CMC fnord!
  #244  
Old 08-12-2019, 10:30 AM
Jimmy Chitwood is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Near Philadelphia
Posts: 6,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibanez View Post
Libido is different for men than women. But we both have it, even some women feel the same believe it or not when it comes to certain men. There's nothing wrong with that at all.

Now I'll expect a chorus of self-identifying SD males saying that they never have those urges. All obvious outliers then for a variety of reasons, but that's not how you reach an true consensus by a sampling of a biased source anyways.
I'm a self-identifying SD male. I have those urges. Libido exists.

I also, more and more, have urges to just punch certain people in the mouth, throw a milkshake at their face, scream at them, etc. Doesn't even take that much! I am quite certain there is a biological component to that aggression, quite certain there is a psychological component, and quite certain there is a social component. But the biological one is there, I am sure of it -- that there is some evolutionarily-conferred advantage to the fact that I have that latent aggression and violence available to me. I am sure that is different for men than women, too. I am sure that I could provide you a link to some online medical database about anger and androgen that would identify this.

If I started a thread, without using any hate-speechy slurs or anything, about how I want to direct that violence, and under what circumstances, and toward which people in particular, and how it feels when that happens and what I think, and how it overwhelms me and I just can't even think straight just because of some tiny thing that sets me off, and how maybe some people wouldn't understand but hey I know some people would, and how I would think I was less of a person if I didn't feel that way, I would expect to be moderated. I would expect people to be uncomfortable about that. It would be appropriate for people to be uncomfortable about that, and appropriate for me to be censured for doing that to them. I would not expect to be able to fall back somehow on the fact that, well, I have an endocrine system, so... because that would be fucking stupid.
  #245  
Old 08-12-2019, 10:36 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Chitwood View Post
I'm a self-identifying SD male. I have those urges. Libido exists.

I also, more and more, have urges to just punch certain people in the mouth, throw a milkshake at their face, scream at them, etc. Doesn't even take that much! I am quite certain there is a biological component to that aggression, quite certain there is a psychological component, and quite certain there is a social component. But the biological one is there, I am sure of it -- that there is some evolutionarily-conferred advantage to the fact that I have that latent aggression and violence available to me. I am sure that is different for men than women, too. I am sure that I could provide you a link to some online medical database about anger and androgen that would identify this.

If I started a thread, without using any hate-speechy slurs or anything, about how I want to direct that violence, and under what circumstances, and toward which people in particular, and how it feels when that happens and what I think, and how it overwhelms me and I just can't even think straight just because of some tiny thing that sets me off, and how maybe some people wouldn't understand but hey I know some people would, and how I would think I was less of a person if I didn't feel that way, I would expect to be moderated. I would expect people to be uncomfortable about that. It would be appropriate for people to be uncomfortable about that, and appropriate for me to be censured for doing that to them. I would not expect to be able to fall back somehow on the fact that, well, I have an endocrine system, so... because that would be fucking stupid.
Doubly so if this obviously applied to at least some of the people reading the thread.

Y'know, just like how Manda Jo felt spoken to about that OP.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 08-12-2019 at 10:37 AM.
  #246  
Old 08-12-2019, 12:11 PM
engineer_comp_geek's Avatar
engineer_comp_geek is online now
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 24,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by TokyoBayer View Post
First, you stated, “I hope nate actually gets what people are saying. I'm not weaseling out of saying that the OP is offensive, I'm saying that I hope nate understands why some people in the thread are saying its offensive (because it is offensive).” but from Nate’s further comments, it appears he’s not learning, rather, he has doubled down. Obvious getting feedback from the crowd has failed. Why wasn’t a Mod Note made?
Failing to learn is not against the rules.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TokyoBayer View Post
Second, you stated, “we definitely do not want to encourage men's locker room types of posts where men just talk about who they want to have sex with and why" is also to say that in general these types of posts are not acceptable here.” Yet this seems to me to be what nate is doing.
None of nate's subsequent posts have been reported, and I have not had the time to read through every post in that thread (busy weekend). I will read through everything in a bit and if I see anything that needs to be moderated, I will take care of it then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TokyoBayer View Post
Third, you stated, “Demeaning descriptions of women and objectifying are not acceptable here.” Yet again, this wasn’t modded.
The OP was moderated, although, as has been pointed out, that moderation was not explicit enough. I will attempt to do better moving forward. As for subsequent posts, again, I will be checking through the entire thread soon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TokyoBayer View Post
As nate is not learning from the experience, why can’t this be modded as the OP and subsequent comments clearly violate your stated guidelines? Obviously, as the OP was written prior to these guidelines, a warning would be unreasonable, but wouldn’t it set a clearer message to everyone that there are indeed guidelines?

Unless your post was not intended to state guidelines, and if so, shouldn’t that be clearly stated.
We have been attempting to reduce the misogyny on this board for many months now. My post was not an attempt to create any sort of formal guidelines or any sort of new set of rules. The guideline is don't be a jerk. I think most people around here understand that crude male locker room type speech said in front of a woman is jerkish behavior, so things like that should not need to be spelled out in great detail.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
engineer_comp_geek, I've read and re-read this post, and I'm still confused. What does it mean to say that the OP's original post is not acceptable, and that the moderators in general are committed to the path of making such things not acceptable, but to say simultaneously that you're not moderating it?

I'm not saying that you couldn't have moderated it and left the thread open for further discussion; I think that would have made a lot of sense. But it does really seem to me that you're giving mixed signals here.
Again, to clarify, the OP was moderated, just not clearly enough. That was my fault. I thought I was being clear, but obviously I was not. The intent was to moderate it with a mod note and to leave the thread open, exactly as your second paragraph says.
  #247  
Old 08-12-2019, 01:05 PM
Inner Stickler's Avatar
Inner Stickler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 15,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
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.
I'm not sure if this is meant as general life advice or specifically for this board, but I've certainly seen people make comments that I read at the time as meaning, "I don't think what you're saying is appropriate" and get slapped by a mod for junior modding so I wouldn't be surprised if people are a little gunshy about asserting new paradigms. Also, isn't this thread exactly what you're demanding? Manda Jo is describing the paradigm that she wants to see. It's up to us but mostly you as the arbiters of the board's tone to determine if that's the paradigm that you want because we can only be self-actualized and in possession of our own agency within the constraints of the moderating team. Someone who's banned because they kept reporting misogynists is not going to effectively alter the paradigm.

Thank you to Manda Jo and the others who have spoken up about this. I read nate's initial post and thought it was crude but unremarkable in that I certainly understand the experience of seeing a particularly attractive man and having my train of thought run off the track. I was surprised to see it so roundly rebuffed by everyone so I appreciate the deeper dive into why it irritated so many people.
  #248  
Old 08-12-2019, 01:17 PM
Manda JO is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek View Post

Again, to clarify, the OP was moderated, just not clearly enough. That was my fault. I thought I was being clear, but obviously I was not. The intent was to moderate it with a mod note and to leave the thread open, exactly as your second paragraph says.
Thank you. That's really all I wanted to establish.
  #249  
Old 08-12-2019, 01:22 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inner Stickler View Post
I'm not sure if this is meant as general life advice or specifically for this board, but I've certainly seen people make comments that I read at the time as meaning, "I don't think what you're saying is appropriate" and get slapped by a mod for junior modding so I wouldn't be surprised if people are a little gunshy about asserting new paradigms.
That's certainly been an issue before...
  #250  
Old 08-12-2019, 01:28 PM
Ibanez is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
No, it's in the OP of the thread this thread is about. So you're commenting here without having read the actual thread this is about?

No, it's a verbatim quote from nate's OP. And it's been repeated right on this page...
That is not linked in the OPs' original post of this thread. Customary around here to link it. I don't read every post by every user after that - built in ignore function.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
What was "self-identifying SD males" about, then?
Literal. I'm a male Ibanez and here's where I think you're wrong....

p.s. I don't have issues with trans people.
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 03:44 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