It’s easy once you figure out their motivation. In regards to their fight against “misogyny” on the board. They’ve faced heavy pressure from the sex-negative feminists here to appease any perceived slights. Which is everything unless you’re praising women, non-sexually of course. Not surprising SN feminists are the minority in the real world, but hold a vocal majority here. Nno one takes them seriously in real life. If we did, we’d all be extinct in a hundred years.
So that’s the rules, behave like it’s 1840, and put women on a pedestal and never criticize women or god forbid say you find some women attractive. Ever. This is why they aren’t clear on the rules because they know the rules are ridiculous where their rules are basically: treat women like infants that have to be protected from any form of criticism, even when it’s earnestly done with their best interest in mind.
They aren’t clear with the rules because it’s misogynistic to treat women like infants in the real world.
I don’t think that is necessarily the case. I got Warned for a post expressing (I think it is fair to say) what is consensus thinking on the SDMB. That was about transgenderism, but I very much doubt if someone else, posting the exact same thing in those exact words, would have received even a mod note.
There was a fairly long thread in ATMB discussing it, but AFAICT no more explanation on why it was trolling when I did it but unremarkable when anyone else says it besides “different mods have different interpretations of the rules”.
That’s not the consensus on this board (or for liberals in general) as I understand it. “Gender identity” does not = “whatever you decide it is”. It’s far, far more complicated, AIUI.
In response to Ibanez, I’m not aware of any significant influence of “sex-negative feminists” on this board. I’m not even sure if I know of any such posters on the board.
EDIT: Since this is about the culture of this board, and not about politics, hopefully this doesn’t violate the mod instructions to not bring politics into this discussion. If it does, I will drop it if notified.
I don’t think that is a great example (I think you’re wrong about what the liberal view on gender identity is).
But I take your general point, and I would modify my claim as follows: Without talking about particular posters, I think it is probably true that I could post the identical thing to someone else, and depending on their history on that topic on this board, our statements might be interpreted differently. That is the nature of interpretation, and not a function of political bias. That said, it counsels for mods cutting a little extra slack for posters with whom they personally disagree, to mitigate the possibility of uncharitable interpretation. I suspect they mostly do that. And I don’t think that likely changes the result with respect to the posts that the subject of this OP.
No need to read anything into TPTB not wanting to establish a bright “DO NOT CROSS” line other than not wanting to encourage games of “See? See? There’s the line! I’ve not crossed it!”, aka “I’m not touching you!”, aka being a jerk. Been that way since Day One.
People who ridicule atheism are also treated snidely without Moderation; it just dos not happen as often. Supporters of any president tend to have their support mocked; again without Moderator intervention.
Is there a lack of respect demonstrated? Yes.
Are those demonstrations of disrespect treated differently? No.
The Moderation is still based on whether it is the thought or the poster being mocked.
I have long noticed that claims of discrimination tend to be based on whose ox is being gored. (There have been occasional exceptions, but the tendency trends that way.)
Shodan, wowww. That warning was some straight up BS. :mad:
And I would argue for just the opposite: allowing equal contempt for any religion that prescribes a strict, patriarchal antediluvian code of sexual ethics.
If you posted exactly what I did, would you expect to be warned for trolling?
Please note that I am not asking if it would be debated. Ivory Tower Denizen said in the linked ATMB thread that it was those specific words that caused it to be trolling. Do you believe that anyone who posts that should be Warned for trolling?
To be fair, ITD also said it wasn’t fleshed out enough, although I never heard how long it would have to be not to be trolling.
That response by SamuelA followed multiple posts (addressing his original supposedly factual question) which explained in some detail that and why Jews could not avoid being killed in the Holocaust by assimilating. At least one of those earlier replies in addition pointed out that doing so would require joining the very culture which was engaging in wrongdoing.
It’s certainly true that some people, during the Holocaust and in a lot of other circumstances, have under duress saved their own lives, at least temporarily, by joining in torturing and/or murdering their own family and community members; and I don’t think those people should bear the same degree of burden of responsibility as those who started the murders in the first place. But, even aside from his already having had explained to him why it usually wouldn’t have worked in that situation, calling such behavior a recommended course of action seems to me to be a major problem. I gather that on these boards one isn’t even allowed to recommend evading copyright law; I don’t see why moderator action for recommending joining in genocide isn’t reasonable.
