When it’s an inherently misogynistic argument.
My kids want to throw the ball in the house and I tell them to do it outside. There’s nothing wrong with throwing balls in the park, but it’s a big no-no in the living room. Imagine that.
I thought it was Fritz?
I don’t think this is an accurate summation of the posts in question.
By all means, continue to argue about it in this thread, too. It can only bring good things for you.
Not sure I’ll be able to. Have a lot of work to do today.
Doesn’t matter. The mods tell people to stop debating issues in threads in ATMB all the time, even for GQ questions. ATMB is for questions about the board and moderation, it’s not a mini-GD forum.
If it were true that we could express identical opinions but you would get modded and I wouldn’t, then you’re not actually complaining about the same thing as the OP. Your gripe wouldn’t be with the mods punishing certain wrongthink, but instead your claim would be that the mods arbitrarily punish certain posters. Those are two different debates, requiring different evidence.
That aside, I don’t think you’re right that we’d be treated differently. I think if we literally used the same words, we’d be equally likely to face moderation. The reason I am confident I would not get modded (and maybe I’m wrong!), is that I don’t actually think we police bad opinions on this board, even when they are based on bigotry at some level–for better or worse. What is policed is being a jerk. Even if I express opinions that are or are arguably misogynist (or racist or whatever), if I express them in ways that are civil and appropriate to the conversation I will not be modded merely for holding them. There are plenty of frequent posters here who routinely express racist and misogynist opinions, but they do so without using hate speech or bringing them up when not relevant or otherwise being a jerk about them. They don’t get modded.
It is true that the likelihood of treading into jerk territory is higher in threads about fraught topics of identity and oppression. You should feel like you have to behave differently in such a thread. You should recognize that it is a fraught topic, and you should bring to it both a sense of humility and an obligation to be careful with word choices to explain more carefully than normal. That heightened sense of alertness to coming across as a jerk is entirely appropriate.
To bring it back to this thread, I’m pretty sure I could express the opinions expressed by the two warned posters in this thread without mod intervention (at least as to the core opinion that they and others now claim were the point of their posts). And the reason I would not get modded is not that I have some special immunity. It is because I would not use phrases like “rape-able” and “rag-head” or gratuitous addition to my hypothetical that a woman is wearing a burka–as the posters in question did. This isn’t rocket science. If you wish to express opinions about fraught topics without being a jerk, then you need to be careful how you express them.
This is why we can’t have nice things.
Richard Parker is my spirit animal.
This makes me happy!
I wish I could argue as well as he does. You never attack (directly or by implication) his motives on the issues he advocates for. [/whinge]
I think that’s my point. When you take a position opposite to the Official Board Position on certain topics you must tread very lightly and carefully, showing the utmost respect to the other side. That is not done in other topics.
When people debate religion, for example, there is no respect. People who believe in God are said to believe in “sky fairies” and the like. Trump supporters certainly are not treated with any respect at all. There is no board rule to be careful, respectful and polite in GD, but when you are debating the list of issues the mods feel strongly about, then your post is spot on.
You seem to think you are answering the problem, but you are describing the problem.
Do you believe there are any topics on which it’s appropriate to “tread very lightly” when discussing just because of the nature of the topic? For example, do you think someone ought to be more careful and thoughtful when talking about rape and the abuse of women than when talking about the local basketball team? If so, then the only disagreement is about which topics meet this criteria. Which could well be a legitimate thing to discuss in ATMB, IMO – which topics should meet this criteria for this board?
I recently received a mod warning for the first time in my 26,000+ posts here. No need to rehash it, I don’t even disagree with it. I’m quite sure I could have posted the exact same thread, and used a synonym for a single word in that thread, and not received a warning.
It really is not what you say, but how you say it.
How hilariously silly and over-exaggerated. Slinging hyperbole like this doesn’t actually make a case.
Yeah, what we really need is a moderating trend in alarmation.
Do we have any Trump supporters whose support isn’t primarily about “librul tears”?
Moderator Note
Let’s keep Trump (and other politics) out of this discussion, please.
If only.
OK. So the complaint is not that posters are treated differently for identical opinions. And the complaint is not that posters are punished for wrongthink. The complaint is that posters are policed for jerkishness more tightly on certain topics, and you think those topics are unfairly selected?
I still don’t agree. If a topic touches on an area of widespread social bigotry, then you need to be more careful. Seems pretty clear-cut to me. Threads about politicians and their supporters do not fall into those categories. Belief in god, an opinion held the overwhelming majority of Americans, doesn’t fall into that category.
At best, your complaint is that this board does not think that Christian identity is a fraught topic that deserves this kind of close attention. I can think of some examples of tight modding in threads about religious belief, but I don’t really have a strong opinion on that topic. I don’t think the status of Christians is anything close to the status of Jews or Muslims, in terms of the extent of social bigotry directed against them in the contemporary west. But if that is the subject of your complaint, then I’m fine with a call for more civility in the discussion of Christian faith.