So would you say @puzzlegal’s opinion matters more than yours or mine? Happy to agree to that, even if Princhester thinks she’s a “pearl clutcher” too.
Hear that, women? Your mere existence is the same thing as someone else’s political beliefs. Posts that are offensive to the latter are in the same vein as posts that objectify your very body.
All those years of "show us your boobs’ posts? Just the same as making fun of a terrible President’s followers.
For the record, I deleted my post because I was getting too involved. I don’t see the distinction you are offering here. You appear to be offended “noisy claims of offense from certain quarters” and the fact those are being listened to.
Does she work at a Hooters or Tilted Kilt and therefore one of the women that may feel dehumanized when we say her place of employment is a “breastaurant”? If so, then yes.
No @BigT look up the word “offence”. It means something along the lines of “upset and or annoyed feelings, often because someone has been rude or shown no respect”
I said very clearly that I am complaining because I would prefer this place wasn’t limited by noisy claims of offence from certain quarters. That is not “offence”. I am not “offended” by the noisy claims of offence. I am concerned about their effect on these boards.
What my jail quip meant was this - I say a certain behaviour was not wrong. You are doing the equivalent of saying “well but the punishment was light so stop complaining”.
I use “pearl clutcher” because it’s shorthand for people who get offended over nothing. Many oppressive people get offended over the mention of homosexuality or gender issues. At least as wholeheartedly as anything expressed by you and others in this thread. This is something you should think about, hard, when you find yourself arguing that your or anyone else’s offence should be sufficient basis for sanction.
Next time someone right wing wants someone sanctioned for mentioning something to do with homosexuality because they are offended by that topic, you are going to support them are you?
The point about me mentioning the attitude of my friends and colleagues is not that their behaviour should be the sole benchmark but rather than what does and does not offend people varies hugely. Why should discourse be curtailed by the most easily offended?
If you can’t argue rationally that something is truly bad, but can only repeat ad nauseum that someone is offended, I have no time for your view.
Is that a requirement for her to feel objectified by its usage here, which is the actual issue under contention?
In all honesty, I thought Grrr was trying to be crude as a rhetoric device to make a point that the restaurant theme itself is crude. Certainly saying “Mom is pretty oblivious, I don’t think she realizes it’s a restaurant where servers are encouraged to emphasize their curves.” is not the same. So I may or may not agree that the term should be used especially in FQ (although being an industry term may make a difference) I think Chronos missed the point of what the OP was trying to do. I also think that moderation is not in a vacuum and many here feel that the mods have been way to strict and over-reactive in threads.
Again, my interpretation was that Grrr was not objectifying the women themselves but rather attacking the restaurants and patrons that objectify the women working there. If you want to say Grr did it inappropriately or did not make it clear his attack was not on the people with breasts then you agree with Chronos. And if women that work in those restaurants feel objectified and dehumanized by the term because it was the best place for a server with large breast to support themselves and family then I will agree with Chronos too. But ISTM that no one that has experience with that life has posted yet.
You bring nuance and comprehension to this thread. This is not nearly as important as the fact someone said breastaurant thereby denying women’s very existence.
…that is entirely subjective. Different places and different spaces will often have different standards of decorum. This is a private message board and the people that are tasked with overseeing the boards are allowed to say “this behaviour is allowed” and “this behaviour isn’t.”
Nobody in this thread has expressed offence. And even if they were, whether or not it is “nothing” or “something” is entirely subjective.
Many oppressive people use “the debate” over things like homosexuality or gender issues as cover for their prejudice.
I’m not offended. I haven’t called for anyone to be sanctioned.
The mods made a call. I don’t disagree with that call, and I’ve explained why. That’s really it.
Here’s Google’s:
annoyance or resentment brought about by a perceived insult to or disregard for oneself or one’s standards or principles.
You have this principle of how we should act, and you think we’re disregarding them. And you have expressed annoyance, anger, and resentment.
There are people we want to be welcoming to, and people we don’t. Bigotry and Trump support aren’t really welcome here, so of course we aren’t welcoming to those people. But we made a decision to try and be less unwelcoming to women.
This is one of those situations where a term that you and I may not have a problem with may be unwelcoming to women, and it is up to us to listen, not arrogantly dictate what “makes sense.”
And that is the last I will say about this.
Oh dear, we are down to the sad, sad level of “this is a private messageboard so the mods can do what they like” strawman. Nobody says the mods can’t impose Mod Notes as they choose. The issue is whether I and others think they should.
Whether anyone has used the term “offence” or not, the substance is the same.
The rest of your post is just an illustration of my point. Using an expression of one’s negative feelings* about something and saying that therefore that thing should not happen is fraught with danger. Exactly as you say, those feelings are highly subjective and can easily be used as cover for other things.
But you have supported a mod note for exactly that.
*being careful not to say “offence” here since you’ll nitpick it, though it’s apt.
That’s my hope too. And I can’t think of a better word than breastaurant to, in one word, express the sleaziness of the business model in question.
Breastaurant doesn’t objectify the women working there, breastaurants do that.
I read puzzlegal’s posts and she doesn’t seem to feel objectified. She seems to not like the terms used but that is not the same thing. And I’m curious why YOU feel you need to speak for her. I feel that as a woman, she doesn’t need a man to speak for her.
…its not a strawman. This is a private msesageboard. The mods can do what they like. That is literally the way that it is.
You literally said that " I say a certain behaviour was not wrong." The mods disagreed. It doesn’t matter what you say. You can argue your case here, and you are.
Except it isn’t. This is actually what arguing a strawman actually is.
My posts in this thread have not been “fraught with danger.”
Cover for what, exactly?
Exactly what?
No I don’t have a principle as to how you should act. I used to enjoy this place because it was intellectually rigorous. I would like to slow down it’s slide away from that. Not because of insult or disregard but because once it becomes somewhere without intellectual rigour it won’t be as interesting to me.
As to the rest, firstly, nice to know you speak for “we”, don’t complain if I try to have a say. Secondly, you are trying to avoid the need to prove a position by defining the opposing position as bad so you can move straight to the sanctions. I don’t agree that any bigotry occurred. Start there
IME if you want to find sexism, seek out some right wing ratbag.
If you want to find serious sexism, seek out some mansplainer telling you what women are offended by and how women’s will is so weak they can be overbourne at the drop of a hat.
@Banquet_Bear my point is that the principle behind your position is fraught with danger. Not that your posts in themselves are fraught with danger. As to “cover for what” the answer is “anything the offendee wants to remain unsaid”.
Overall, you’ve just got far too silly for me to go on with you. You are at present trying to argue that mods’ unquestioned physical ability and legal right to make a mod note negates my ability to argue they shouldn’t. It’s an argument that is the last refuge of the bereft. Right up there with “you can’t argue that marijuana possession should be legal because police can arrest you for possessing it”
…I’ve argued that I don’t disagree with the mod note. That in terms of “sanction” it is about as polite a sanction as you could possibly get.
Anything that I said about “this is a private messageboard” was directly related to the implication that the decision here was objectively wrong. Responding directly to the things that you have said are both 1) not the entirety of my argument and 2) not the last refuge of the bereft.
And what principle would that be?
Which is inherently ludicrous. If this was a private messageboard that promoted flat earth and sanctioned anyone who said different, would the earth be flat because it was a private messageboard?
You can argue that on that messageboard it is correct that one cannot say the earth is round. You cannot argue that because of the rules of the messageboard, the earth is flat.
Honestly…
No sorry. I’m not doing this. I’m not going to set out an argument to you, then wait three posts while you dicker around with strawmen and silly misinterpretations, then ask me to set out the argument again.
…if this was a message board that promoted flat earth and sanctioned anyone who said different, I wouldn’t be posting here.