Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 08-10-2019, 11:40 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: 41,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Fine. So which is worse? Or are they both equally bad?
You tell me. Which would you rather happen to you or your yard?
Quote:
Can you tell me which is worse, hate speech or misogyny? Also, are they the same thing or are they different?
Reply With Quote
Well, misogyny is way worse than hate speech, given that it encompasses so much more. Do you mean which is worse, racism or misogyny? Because that's a bizarre question.

Are they the same thing or are they different? WTF?

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 08-10-2019 at 11:41 PM.
  #102  
Old 08-10-2019, 11:41 PM
Maserschmidt's Avatar
Maserschmidt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New England
Posts: 5,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by galen ubal View Post
This thread is following a very familiar pattern.
First a poster talks about how a particular post or poster is misogynistic in nature. Then the same few posters* rush in to tell the OP how wrong they are - usually posting many times in a short span. Specific instances are ignored, and the deniers instead talk of vague "political correctness" or "limiting speech" - rather than the particular concern the OP brought up in the first place. Those bringing up concerns of misogyny are basically told to just put up with it, ignore it, or "pit" the offending post or poster.
Round and round. Rather than, say, not tolerating misogynist posts or posters in the first place.

*A half-dozen or so. They're quite active in this very thread.
The other familiar part of the pattern is that posters get dragged into arguing with their nonsense, despite the fact that they're not going to change their minds. Round and round, as you said.

Last edited by Maserschmidt; 08-10-2019 at 11:41 PM.
  #103  
Old 08-10-2019, 11:54 PM
neutro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Redmond, WA
Posts: 132
Is the bar for banned speech here "makes someone uncomfortable" ?
  #104  
Old 08-10-2019, 11:55 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: 41,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutro View Post
Is the bar for banned speech here "makes someone uncomfortable" ?
Ooh! Ooh! I got this one!

Ahem.

NO
  #105  
Old 08-10-2019, 11:57 PM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,020
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
You tell me. Which would you rather happen to you or your yard?

Well, misogyny is way worse than hate speech, given that it encompasses so much more. Do you mean which is worse, racism or misogyny? Because that's a bizarre question.

Are they the same thing or are they different? WTF?
I think we all know that answer is that Samuel will not be OK with anyone fucking up his landscaping!
  #106  
Old 08-11-2019, 12:22 AM
Triskadecamus is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: I'm coming back, now.
Posts: 7,598
I think the outcome of not closing the thread had a mixed success. The resulting discussion was a leeeetle bit more civil, although relentless quotation to the objectionable portion of the various comments seems to me an ineffective persuasive technique. Although I find horndogs, and what qualifies as thought processes for them exceedingly boring, (an evaluation I have noticed holds up in text, and in person with overwhelming correlation) I read the entire thread. I have nothing to add to the debate. But, in my online experience a post that falls off the page with minimal reads, and no responses is the most reliable way of adjusting the behavior of posters. There are some who can elicit my lack of interest in their conversation simply with their names on the thread.

There are interesting posts, and posters, and persons with information I find interesting and useful here on this board. Horndogs are not among them, and would not be even if they sincerely wanted to examine the nature of their behavior. (A hypothetical not occurring in this case.)

Just offering a view, since I invested the time reading.

Tris
_____________________
Imagine a very long string of "rolleyes" here.

Last edited by Triskadecamus; 08-11-2019 at 12:23 AM.
  #107  
Old 08-11-2019, 01:12 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,637
We already had words like “sexist”, “chauvinist”, “vulgar”, etc. Why ruin a very specific word like “misogynist” by blurring its meaning into those other ones? Do you even care about differentiating men who show active and seething hostility for women from those who carelessly make “guy” comments? Is it really all just more or less the same thing? I believe there is a difference not only of degree but of kind.
  #108  
Old 08-11-2019, 02:44 AM
kopek is offline
born to be shunned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southwestern PA
Posts: 15,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by galen ubal View Post
This thread is following a very familiar pattern.
First a poster talks about how a particular post or poster is misogynistic in nature. Then the same few posters* rush in to tell the OP how wrong they are - usually posting many times in a short span. Specific instances are ignored, and the deniers instead talk of vague "political correctness" or "limiting speech" - rather than the particular concern the OP brought up in the first place. Those bringing up concerns of misogyny are basically told to just put up with it, ignore it, or "pit" the offending post or poster.
Round and round. Rather than, say, not tolerating misogynist posts or posters in the first place.

*A half-dozen or so. They're quite active in this very thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maserschmidt View Post
The other familiar part of the pattern is that posters get dragged into arguing with their nonsense, despite the fact that they're not going to change their minds. Round and round, as you said.
OK, I've been dragged in but at least I'm pretty sure I have an open mind about it all. And lets set aside the poster/posters and how we may feel about them for the moment and look just at the opening post. If we had a SDMB "court system" and a computer program of some sort picked 12 of us at random, do you honestly believe that jury would find that particular post guilty of the crime?

First degree dumb I could go with but full blown misogynistic? The things said against it both there and here are great points but I question if the case has been made.

I've seen ones I would say fit the bill (of indictment) and I believe almost all got Modded in one way or another. A couple -- well there is always an OJ or two in any crowd. I'm just not sure I can put this one in that class.
  #109  
Old 08-11-2019, 03:17 AM
Personal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: The Beach
Posts: 1,648
I'm not sure exactly why, but I thought the thread last week asking whether women preferred tall guys with shorter dicks or short guys with longer dicks was more offensive.
  #110  
Old 08-11-2019, 03:43 AM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,332
Getting away from misogyny again for a moment, I’ll use another hypothetical situation that I think might help explain the concerns that inspired this thread.

Let’s say there’s a thread where a person talks about how they know racism is frowned upon and all people are people, and so on. Yet despite that, in their experience that isn’t true. This race is dumber, this other race is spineless, another is full of crazy people, and everyone is too polite these days to admit it and persists in this unproductive fantasy about racial equality.

Now clearly this person is outing themselves as a racist, and is doing so in the hope that others will admit it too and they’ll all find common ground about how things really are and stop pretending. Fortunately that doesn’t happen, other posters speak up about how this is racist nonsense and the OP is living on the fringe in today’s generally more enlightened culture.

None of that is worthy of warnings or bans or thread locks. The OP won’t be making friends and will likely have a heated Pit thread about them. But it’s a topic that while distasteful is allowed to be discussed. Being a racist isn’t against board rules, nor is expressing that racism. And pointing out how a person’s statements are racist shouldn’t be either; it’s not an ad hominem attack to comment on what someone wrote if you don’t use that to make personal attacks (outside the Pit at least; in the Pit let loose).

But let’s say in the midst of expressing those racist views the OP also casually drops racial slurs. They are just talking how they talk when not trying to hide their real opinions. Those slurs are against board rules and will get you warned and possibly suspended/banned. It’s not the opinion that’s worthy of sanction, it’s the way it is expressed.

How I read the underlying concern in this thread is that there was language used that is the misogynistic equivalent of racial slurs. That language shouldn’t be accepted. We have a precedent already about certain language not being tolerated on the board, and in the interest of not alienating a good 50%+ of the human population, it is being asked that this language be disallowed on the SDMB.

Last edited by Atamasama; 08-11-2019 at 03:45 AM.
  #111  
Old 08-11-2019, 03:57 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard View Post
The OP is not a misogynist (well, he may be, but his post is not evidence of that).
I disagree.

Viewing women ONLY as sexual objects, admitting he ignores what women say to him because he's so distracted by the sexy, and refusing to listen to any refutation that all other men aren't like him are inherently bigotted. It's another repetition of all the crap about how women can't be in public spaces because of how men will react, that women can't have jobs because the men will get distracted, and so on and son on which reasoning ends with women either locked in their homes or walking around under bedsheets because men can't control themselves.

That said - the most valuable thing about that thread were all the men saying no, dude, the rest of us are NOT like that. Sure, we like to look at pretty women but we're able to speak with them and actually hear what they say, we can focus our thoughts and words while around pretty women and treat them like equal human beings.

The OP wasn't buying it - he clearly wants nothing other than validation for his bigotry and to let off the hook for his own thoughts and actions - but a dozen posts into the thread the OP was no longer the point, the point what anyone else looking in seeing other men contradict the OP.

If the OP had just been shut down and the thread closed it would have validated his theories about everyone else being in denial. By keeping it open and having multiple men weighing in with "no, dud, it's YOU, it's YOUR problem, the rest of us aren't like that" it more effectively countered the OP's assertion than simply silencing the conversation would have. The men who came in and said yes, distraction happens, here's how to deal with it. The men who came in and said "this part of what you said is objectionable". Those are all useful contributions, it shows we have good and decent men here who understand the issues women have brought up. Also, someone like the OP has to hear these things from men as well as women because it's a lot harder for him to discount what men are saying. It would be better if the OP could actually listen to women but he's not, the only way to reach him is for the men to speak up, too. And many did. That's a positive thing about this board.

Of course, threads like that are a bit of a dance - it's easy for them to go off the rails.
  #112  
Old 08-11-2019, 04:00 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Personal View Post
I'm not sure exactly why, but I thought the thread last week asking whether women preferred tall guys with shorter dicks or short guys with longer dicks was more offensive.
It was offensive, but I would argue that that one shouldn't be shut down either (in fact, I even posted in it). Part of fighting ignorance is dealing with offensive subjects.

Again, the benefit of the thread wasn't to the OP who was another jerk wanting nothing more than validation for his opinions. The value is in how other people reacted to what he said.
  #113  
Old 08-11-2019, 04:01 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,499
...a quick question: looking at the moderating team its an all-male team now isn't it? No women moderators?
  #114  
Old 08-11-2019, 05:45 AM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,436
I brought this issue here because I wanted to discuss the moderation of the thread, not the content of the thread. It's not about the topic. I found the "tall or hung?" thread to be gross as well, but it didn't use dehumanizing language. More to the point, this thread isn't about the Horndog thread, it's about how the moderator reacted. Rather than say "That's offensive", the moderator said "some might think that's offensive", which is weaselly, which suggests that the issue is one that a truly neutral party can't take a stance on because these are two legitimate points of view.

I think language like that--not topics like that--should be moderated more strongly. I do not, for the life of me, understand why a note saying "Please avoid phrases like "hit that" and lurid descriptions of women's bodies, they are dehumanizing" would have been so terrible.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
It was offensive, but I would argue that that one shouldn't be shut down either (in fact, I even posted in it). Part of fighting ignorance is dealing with offensive subjects.

Again, the benefit of the thread wasn't to the OP who was another jerk wanting nothing more than validation for his opinions. The value is in how other people reacted to what he said.
Right, and we are here to talk about how moderation reacted by treating it as something "some people might find" offensive, not as something that was.

Finally, again and again and again, it's not that I was offended, it's that I was shut out. Y'all are all like "oh no, we have to be able to talk about this topic", but I can't talk about the topic of the thread in the same way that a man can because the OP, right from the beginning, has made it clear he's not talking to me. You don't talk to women with phrases like 'I'd like to hit that". You may talk AT them like that, but you aren't inviting them to respond and you aren't going to listen, because you go out of your way to make sure they know you think of them as things.

So men, y'all get to talk about the topic of the thread. I, instead, have to talk about the language of the thread, have to take on the role of "educator". I start out knowing my presence wasn't anticipated, isn't welcome, and everything I say will likely be disregarded by the OP by virtue of my sex. And that's fine, in the sense that it's part of fighting ignorance. But it would be fucking easier if moderation would back me up, if it was not afraid to say, officially "dude, we don't talk like that here."

Y'all are mocking me for being "uncomfortable", but at the same time, you are so worried about whether or not being told you can't say "I'd hit that" will make the OP uncomfortable.
  #115  
Old 08-11-2019, 07:10 AM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,691
I know for a fact that women sometimes engage in such coarse talk when men are barely in earshot. "I could bounce a quarter off that ass". (direct quote)
  #116  
Old 08-11-2019, 07:13 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
I know for a fact that women sometimes engage in such coarse talk when men are barely in earshot. "I could bounce a quarter off that ass". (direct quote)
Completely irrelevant to the issue brought up in this OP.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #117  
Old 08-11-2019, 07:34 AM
Ulfreida is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: pangolandia
Posts: 3,596
I haven't been able to make myself read every single post here, and maybe this has already been stated, and maybe it isn't even pertinent, but if you want to know what really makes me want to leave to the Dope, and if I do leave, what it will be about? It isn't the objectifying lust which forms such a large part of the personalities of many men, being lovingly discussed, by men, over and over again. No. It is the assumption by so many men here, that men are the only ones reading their posts.

If you wouldn't say that to a group of female acquaintances, how about not saying it here? Or at least not saying it that way?

How many OPs are a man asking, "women, please answer this question" usually to do with the utter mysteriousness of women, and being responded to almost entirely by men, with a few faint women's voices being drowned out?

Yes, this is why women are leaving. I will probably be out of here really soon, as it is so incredibly angering that nothing seems to get through.

However I am perfectly sure that those who even know who I am will be glad to see me go.

Last edited by Ulfreida; 08-11-2019 at 07:34 AM.
  #118  
Old 08-11-2019, 07:41 AM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulfreida View Post
but if you want to know what really makes me want to leave to the Dope, and if I do leave, what it will be about?

If you wouldn't say that to a group of female acquaintances, how about not saying it here? Or at least not saying it that way?

Yes, this is why women are leaving.
Has it occurred to you that a system of moderation or sanctions needs to be defined in clear, reasonably unambiguous written rules beforehand? Because, otherwise, you end up in a situation where "community standards" mean different things to different people. And banning people for an offense they didn't commit definitely leads to people leaving.

It also leads to people deciding they have nothing to lose, they'll be banned regardless eventually, so they might as well act as offensively as possible.

So, again, which community standards does crass description of whom you want to engage in relations with violate? Are you saying you want new ones written?

Last edited by SamuelA; 08-11-2019 at 07:42 AM.
  #119  
Old 08-11-2019, 08:04 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,381
Quit acting like it's complicated. All they have to do is start treating objectifying language the same way they treat bigoted/racist langage.
  #120  
Old 08-11-2019, 08:13 AM
Royal Nonesutch is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 551
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Quit acting like it's complicated. All they have to do is start treating objectifying language the same way they treat bigoted/racist langage.
As enlightened as you so desperately want to appear, I would suggest that posters who might want to find out how deep and sincere your "Wokeness" actually is might take themselves a look at your various impassioned defenses of Louis C.K. and his actions towards women, and about how hilarious you find his "comedic stylings" about adult men sexually abusing young children.
  #121  
Old 08-11-2019, 08:20 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,381
I'm not trying to impress anyone with my wokeness. And your grand ex-pat gadfly act is boring as hell.
  #122  
Old 08-11-2019, 08:25 AM
elbows is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 14,398
Quote:
Yes, this is why women are leaving.
QFT
  #123  
Old 08-11-2019, 08:29 AM
Royal Nonesutch is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 551
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I'm not trying to impress anyone with my wokeness. And your grand ex-pat gadfly act is boring as hell.
I guess this American is just sick of hypocrites talking out of both sides of their mouth depending on their intended audience, something that you seem to have honed into a fine art.

I invite anyone who cares (which I fully expect to be no one) to investigate. Your statements excusing and defending Louis C.K. combined with the way you then turn around and wrap yourself in the cloak of a staunch Defender of Women is pretty vile, at least to my way of thinking, but I will let anyone who is interested judge for themselves.

Last edited by Royal Nonesutch; 08-11-2019 at 08:31 AM.
  #124  
Old 08-11-2019, 08:32 AM
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: 41,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Has it occurred to you that a system of moderation or sanctions needs to be defined in clear, reasonably unambiguous written rules beforehand? Because, otherwise, you end up in a situation where "community standards" mean different things to different people. And banning people for an offense they didn't commit definitely leads to people leaving.

It also leads to people deciding they have nothing to lose, they'll be banned regardless eventually, so they might as well act as offensively as possible.
I disagree with almost all of this.

My second year of teaching, I brought the class in from recess, and one student told me, "Mr. Dorkness, Bobby ate a leaf." Kid had found some random plant on the playground and eaten a leaf of it as a joke.

And I had an epiphany: I could never predict all the ways that kids could be stupid.

Ever since, I've focused classroom rules less on a comprehensive list of specific behaviors, and much more on some general guiding principles. You can't ever predict the ways kids will be stupid, so instead build up some general expectations, some guidelines, and correct the kids when they violate those guidelines.

Moderation? Same thing. You can't ever predict all the ways that posters can be jerks. So instead of trying to come up with a comprehensive set of rules, go with deliberately vague rules.

Does banning people for an offense they didn't commit lead to people leaving? Uh, okay. That's irrelevant.

Do people who feel they have nothing to lose act extra-obnoxious? Not everyone does. That's a pretty shitty impulse, and non-jerks don't give in to that impulse. If someone does follow that impulse, I want them gone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Royal Nonesutch View Post
I invite anyone who cares (which I fully expect to be no one) to investigate.
Seriously, you think this is better here than in the Pit?

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 08-11-2019 at 08:33 AM.
  #125  
Old 08-11-2019, 08:34 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royal Nonesutch View Post
I guess this American is just sick of hypocrites talking out of both sides of their mouth depending on their intended audience, something that you seem to have honed into a fine art.

I invite anyone who cares (which I fully expect to be no one) to investigate. Your statements excusing and defending Louis C.K. combined with the way you then turn around and wrap yourself in the cloak of a staunch Defender of Women is pretty vile, at least to my way of thinking, but I will let anyone who is interested judge for themselves.
So because this guy appreciates certain transgressive jokes by a professional comedian, he can’t have an opinion about standards of behavior for posters on this board?

And what’s with this thing of equating an opinion about misogynistic language with a desire to be “defender of women”? That’s Gamergate bullshit.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #126  
Old 08-11-2019, 08:39 AM
Maserschmidt's Avatar
Maserschmidt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New England
Posts: 5,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulfreida View Post
I haven't been able to make myself read every single post here, and maybe this has already been stated, and maybe it isn't even pertinent, but if you want to know what really makes me want to leave to the Dope, and if I do leave, what it will be about? It isn't the objectifying lust which forms such a large part of the personalities of many men, being lovingly discussed, by men, over and over again. No. It is the assumption by so many men here, that men are the only ones reading their posts.

If you wouldn't say that to a group of female acquaintances, how about not saying it here? Or at least not saying it that way?

How many OPs are a man asking, "women, please answer this question" usually to do with the utter mysteriousness of women, and being responded to almost entirely by men, with a few faint women's voices being drowned out?

Yes, this is why women are leaving. I will probably be out of here really soon, as it is so incredibly angering that nothing seems to get through.

However I am perfectly sure that those who even know who I am will be glad to see me go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elbows View Post
QFT
I think this endless loop of every voice in a thread being equal and needing addressing is why I’ve mostly drifted over to Twitter, where my voice is lost in a crowd, but I'm reading a lot more diverse commentary. In the end the rancorous children are going to kill the Dope, and I’m not sure much will be done to slow it down.
  #127  
Old 08-11-2019, 08:41 AM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 43,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royal Nonesutch View Post
As enlightened as you so desperately want to appear, I would suggest that posters who might want to find out how deep and sincere your "Wokeness" actually is might take themselves a look at your various impassioned defenses of Louis C.K. and his actions towards women, and about how hilarious you find his "comedic stylings" about adult men sexually abusing young children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I'm not trying to impress anyone with my wokeness. And your grand ex-pat gadfly act is boring as hell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royal Nonesutch View Post
I guess this American is just sick of hypocrites talking out of both sides of their mouth depending on their intended audience, something that you seem to have honed into a fine art.

I invite anyone who cares (which I fully expect to be no one) to investigate. Your statements excusing and defending Louis C.K. combined with the way you then turn around and wrap yourself in the cloak of a staunch Defender of Women is pretty vile, at least to my way of thinking, but I will let anyone who is interested judge for themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
And what’s with this thing of equating an opinion about misogynistic language with a desire to be “defender of women”? That’s Gamergate bullshit.
Moderator Note

Let's dial back the personal jabs. If you want to fight with one another, take it to the Pit.

Colibri
  #128  
Old 08-11-2019, 08:42 AM
Royal Nonesutch is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
So because this guy appreciates certain transgressive jokes by a professional comedian, he can’t have an opinion about standards of behavior for posters on this board?

And what’s with this thing of equating an opinion about misogynistic language with a desire to be “defender of women”? That’s Gamergate bullshit.
No, I simply think that someone who passionately defends and champions a man ("Professional Comedian" or no) like the loathesome Louis C.K. while at the same time trumpeting his commitment to women's issues to be a rank hypocrite, but if the female members of this messagebaord don't see it that way, that is perfectly their right.

(I have heard of Gamergate, but do not know what it means)

ETA

I just now saw the note from Colibri after posting...

Last edited by Royal Nonesutch; 08-11-2019 at 08:43 AM.
  #129  
Old 08-11-2019, 08:48 AM
Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Fine. So which is worse? Or are they both equally bad? Assuming you cannot order them, then I gave two sets of 3 bad things. One of the bad things overlaps between sets. The other 2 pairings have a clear ordering. Can you tell me which is worse, hate speech or misogyny? Also, are they the same thing or are they different?
Sammy's Choice (2019)

Nazi-like forum moderators force a young man to choose between hate speech and misogyny, rather than allowing him to forgo both. Nominated for 12 Derpy awards, including Falsest Dilemma and Best Supporting Navel-Gazer.
  #130  
Old 08-11-2019, 10:42 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
I know for a fact that women sometimes engage in such coarse talk when men are barely in earshot. "I could bounce a quarter off that ass". (direct quote)
Since you know this to be a fact, you must have been well within earshot.
  #131  
Old 08-11-2019, 10:57 AM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulfreida View Post
...

Yes, this is why women are leaving....
Except- I dont think they really are.
  #132  
Old 08-11-2019, 11:01 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,530
Why don't we ask the female moderators to see if they've noticed any trends when it comes to female membership and migration?
  #133  
Old 08-11-2019, 11:18 AM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,436
Is whether or not women are leaving even relevant to this? I'm not going anywhere over this, but I don't like it. Do I have to be willing to take my ball and go home before what I say matters?
  #134  
Old 08-11-2019, 11:23 AM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
Is whether or not women are leaving even relevant to this? I'm not going anywhere over this, but I don't like it. Do I have to be willing to take my ball and go home before what I say matters?
Not at all, and we respect that Op made you feel uncomfortable, and several posters here and in that thread made it clear it was a poor OP. And I hope we will see less and less of that sort of thing. It's immature.

It's just that several of us dont want a new 'rule' which would be very fuzzy and extremely difficult to moderate.
  #135  
Old 08-11-2019, 11:26 AM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Which is - muzzling. That's what it is. "You can't say that" or "you cant say that in that way" is muzzling. Asking the Mods to tell him to stop is muzzling.
So anybody should be able to say anything at all, in any thread, and in any phrasing?

In other words, do you think there should be no moderation at all? I get the impression that there are boards like that. I don't get the impression that they're known for serious discussion of a wide variety of topics among a wide variety of community members.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
No, a "horndog" is attracted to women. That is not the same thing as liking them. .
Quoted for truth.

It's possible, of course, to both be very horny about women and to genuinely like women. But they're certainly not synonymous; and they certainly don't always go together.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
In fact, technically, Manda Jo is breaking the rules, as this thread is "junior modding".
Huh?

It's a thread about the nature of moderation on these boards. It's in ATMB, which is where such threads are supposed to go, and where Manda Jo was specifically told to take this discussion. How is that breaking the rules?

Not all boards with active moderation have a forum in which to (among other things) discuss moderators' decisions. I rather like it that this one does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
If the definition of misogyny is expanded to include this kind of thing, what word do we use for someone like my cousin? He watches red pill YouTube videos and is constantly fulminating about how evil women are and how they are toxic menaces, and he needs to just “go his own way” (MGTOW) and all that crap. To me, that’s misogyny, not having lascivious fantasies about women.
Words in English very often apply to a spectrum of behavior. Attempting to insist that they must only apply to the very worst examples is both inaccurate, and unreasonably limiting.

Having fantasies is not automatically misogynyst. Talking about those fantasies in ways that reduce women in general, or specific women, to being only targets for such fantasies is. Insisting against contrary evidence that doing so is simply the normal and unavoidable baseline for human society definitely is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
I know women are pissed at this, but honestly as a dude I am, too. Sure, I have sexual thoughts. But it's absurd to think that I can't walk and chew gum at once, and that 98% of dudes are unable to function in society if they see someone they find sexually attractive. Men are more capable than that.
Emphasizing this idea, again. The OP was also being insulting to men; most of whom are not so under the control of their immediate sexual urges that they become hazards in traffic because women are also out on the street.
  #136  
Old 08-11-2019, 11:32 AM
IvoryTowerDenizen's Avatar
IvoryTowerDenizen is offline
Retired Straight Dope Staff
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North Shore of LI
Posts: 19,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Not at all, and we respect that Op made you feel uncomfortable, and several posters here and in that thread made it clear it was a poor OP. And I hope we will see less and less of that sort of thing. It's immature.

It's just that several of us dont want a new 'rule' which would be very fuzzy and extremely difficult to moderate.
What new rule? The “don’t be a jerk” rule suffices nicely.
  #137  
Old 08-11-2019, 11:37 AM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by IvoryTowerDenizen View Post
What new rule? The “don’t be a jerk” rule suffices nicely.
You then would claim that "hey nice ass, I'd hit that" directed to a non-poster, would be a infraction?
  #138  
Old 08-11-2019, 11:41 AM
IvoryTowerDenizen's Avatar
IvoryTowerDenizen is offline
Retired Straight Dope Staff
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North Shore of LI
Posts: 19,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
You then would claim that "hey nice ass, I'd hit that" directed to a non-poster, would be a infraction?
No clue. Depends on the context. I was simply responding to your concern about inventing new rules.
  #139  
Old 08-11-2019, 11:43 AM
Triskadecamus is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: I'm coming back, now.
Posts: 7,598
At the risk of conferring significance on a subject I find extraordinarily unimportant, (the opinions of horndogs, not the significance of misogyny) I think a separate discussion about the level of disdain for an entire gender needed to be considered to be misogynistic might be worthwhile. Stealth assumptions abound in defense of male discussions of women’s desirability as sex partners in every possible case. The fact that such discussions might have parallels in female discussions about males is not relevant.

The audience included when a person is reduced to an object does not moderate the degree of prejudice the stated desire to “hit that” demonstrates. The thought itself is misogyny. That is a thing. A woman is a person. It is a tiny bit more civilized to simply not say it out loud. But it doesn’t change the fact that an undeclared misogynist is still a misogynist. It does allow the rest of us to ignore his viewpoint.

Tris
___________________
Rutting like a weasel is a useful characteristic among weasels. It produces more weasels.

Last edited by Triskadecamus; 08-11-2019 at 11:44 AM.
  #140  
Old 08-11-2019, 11:53 AM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
You then would claim that "hey nice ass, I'd hit that" directed to a non-poster, would be a infraction?
I'm comfortable with that. Not warnable, perhaps, especially on the first offense, but if, say in a thread in Cafe Society talking about attractive actors, someone says, "I gotta say, when I watch [actress], all I can think is, "'I'd hit that", I think that's setting a tone we don't want, and a note is appropriate. If someone is talking in IMHO about family dynamics, and they are like "It's awkward going to my family reunions, because my cousin's wife is HOT and I gotta admit, I'd hit that if I got the chance," likewise, I think a note is a good idea. I think that sort of language makes it difficult for women to participate in those threads on the same terms as men.

Why is objectifying language such a sacred thing? How is it NOT being a jerk?
  #141  
Old 08-11-2019, 11:59 AM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,020
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Except- I dont think they really are.
You could try making a poll, comparing it against previous pills. That should demonstrate... Something, right?
  #142  
Old 08-11-2019, 12:02 PM
IvoryTowerDenizen's Avatar
IvoryTowerDenizen is offline
Retired Straight Dope Staff
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North Shore of LI
Posts: 19,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
I'm comfortable with that. Not warnable, perhaps, especially on the first offense, but if, say in a thread in Cafe Society talking about attractive actors, someone says, "I gotta say, when I watch [actress], all I can think is, "'I'd hit that", I think that's setting a tone we don't want, and a note is appropriate. If someone is talking in IMHO about family dynamics, and they are like "It's awkward going to my family reunions, because my cousin's wife is HOT and I gotta admit, I'd hit that if I got the chance," likewise, I think a note is a good idea. I think that sort of language makes it difficult for women to participate in those threads on the same terms as men.

Why is objectifying language such a sacred thing? How is it NOT being a jerk?
Alternatively “then my cousin said ‘I'd hit that’ about his classmate and I called him out on it”, would not. Context.

Last edited by IvoryTowerDenizen; 08-11-2019 at 12:03 PM.
  #143  
Old 08-11-2019, 12:22 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by raventhief View Post
You could try making a poll, comparing it against previous pills. That should demonstrate... Something, right?
No. His mind's made up.

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...82&postcount=8
  #144  
Old 08-11-2019, 12:27 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
Words in English very often apply to a spectrum of behavior. Attempting to insist that they must only apply to the very worst examples is both inaccurate, and unreasonably limiting.

But he is not one of the very worst examples. He is not guilty of violence against women as far as I know. That makes him a garden-variety misogynist as I understand the term. Whereas someone who has not expressed hatred against women as a class is just not a misogynist at all, whatever else they may be.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Royal Nonesutch View Post
As enlightened as you so desperately want to appear, I would suggest that posters who might want to find out how deep and sincere your "Wokeness" actually is might take themselves a look at your various impassioned defenses of Louis C.K. and his actions towards women, and about how hilarious you find his "comedic stylings" about adult men sexually abusing young children.

This is what always happens. The guillotiners become the guillotined. In campaigns to wipe out moral impurity, someone will outflank you eventually.
  #145  
Old 08-11-2019, 12:55 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'm comfortable with that. Not warnable, perhaps, especially on the first offense, but if, say in a thread in Cafe Society talking about attractive actors, someone says, "I gotta say, when I watch [actress], all I can think is, "'I'd hit that", I think that's setting a tone we don't want, and a note is appropriate. If someone is talking in IMHO about family dynamics, and they are like "It's awkward going to my family reunions, because my cousin's wife is HOT and I gotta admit, I'd hit that if I got the chance," likewise, I think a note is a good idea. I think that sort of language makes it difficult for women to participate in those threads on the same terms as men.

Why is objectifying language such a sacred thing? How is it NOT being a jerk?
Because the rule has always been that non-posters can be insulted. Even insults directed at non-posters where it is known that posters hold the exact same views.

For example, someone can say "People who want to outlaw abortion hate women and want to return to white male sexual domination" (or something similar) even in a thread where other posters have expressed pro-life views. Religion is talked about as believing in sky fairies. These are strongly held views by posters and is tremendously insulting. They should not be banned or moderated.

The remedy for poor speech is better speech. The moderation comes in where a poster insults another poster or uses known pejoratives and hate speech towards groups, not just uncouth ones. So yeah, in response to another poster, why can't we have a "Why are blacks so stupid?" thread? Ignore the thread, pit the OP, or engage in a slugfest and point out why the OP is incorrect. That's what we do: fight ignorance. If the OP starts throwing around N-bombs, then yes, that is out of bounds. Moderate that.

If "setting a tone we don't want" is the standard, then almost every post needs moderated under such a revolutionary rule.
  #146  
Old 08-11-2019, 01:11 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
I know for a fact that women sometimes engage in such coarse talk when men are barely in earshot. "I could bounce a quarter off that ass". (direct quote)
And that totally makes it okay?
  #147  
Old 08-11-2019, 01:22 PM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,436
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.
  #148  
Old 08-11-2019, 01:31 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,637
This “matter of degree” standard leads directly to enforcing ideological purity. Favor a more restrictive immigration policy? Bigot. Critical of all religions but particularly one that is used to harshly oppress women, gays, and atheists? Islamophobic bigot. Etc.
  #149  
Old 08-11-2019, 01:41 PM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,436
No, the unwillingness to accept nuance and belief in absolutes is what creates extremism and ideological purity. Free speech is good? It must be totally free and any limitations on it are just a slippery slope to 1984.

Nuance exists. Degrees exist. We are going to draw a line. We have to decide where it's at. I am arguing it should be on the far side of "hit that", because objectifying/dehumanizing language limits the ability of the targeted group to participate in the conversation. I think it should be NOTED.
  #150  
Old 08-11-2019, 01:44 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,235
Current events have proven that “good speech drives out bad speech” is false. Exactly the opposite is true, particularly on online forums.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
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 07:38 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 © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017