When I posted Part i, I promised myself to not sign on again for 24 hours. The thread was locked, so I’ll post here.
Coldfire, it was my feeling that you were hiding behind your moderator status to get away with flaming another poster.
You later state that your objection is that this was a highjack. Can we clarify what constitutes one? When people post rants, they have always been subject to having the rant rated as good or bad, valid or invalid. In all the threads I have read on this board, I have not seen one person ever accused of highjacking a rant by critiquing its validity. If you have done that elsewhere, we can learn from that thread if you will it out to us. But I have never seen a person accused of a highjack by delivering an opinion directly related to the validity of a rant. Not one. Ever.
If you object to the tone of the response, I can appreciate that and learn from it. However, forgive my asking, as I have never seen you warn someone about highjacking a rant in the Pit by critiquing its validity. In fact, I’ve seen threads included in “Threadspotting” specifically because they were highjacks. In the interest of not breaking the rules, what are the precedents?
Now, on to a closely related matter. I have not seen the person who posts here under the name margin ever warned about anything. That includes posting flames in Cafe Society threads. The flames were reported, and no action taken.
Also, she was never told she was fucking annoying for posting
And if that is not annoying – and if that is not trolling – what is?
Lynn did say to “margin,” “if they didn’t get it the first time, they’re not gonna get it when you repeat it.” Which margin responded to by making another demand for a cite.
But there is more to it than that. From a friend I’ve learned that the person who posts as margin is the same person who posts on the Ms. Magazine board under the name ginmar (get it?) They have the same e-mail address. firstname.lastname@example.org (And we know that margin is a member of the Ms. board, because she said Oh, and you were quite the presence at Ms. this summer, too, Shodan. Margin also slipped up when she admitted she knew a poster here who didn’t know her as “margin” but knew her under her “ginmar” name.)
Perusing her posts there is interesting in that she has discussed many of the works that, on this board, she claimed to not know about or to need cites for. In other words, her constant demands for cites were trolls.
Also, on this board, she claimed that feminists whose work was thirty years ago were not relevent. On that board, she quotes and cites many of those selfsame feminists from thirty years ago to buttress her arguments. Trolling?
On that board, “ginmar” says, “For the record, I think men get raised to be rapists in this culture.” Later, she adds “Bad stuff doesn’t ‘happen’ to women. Men do bad things to them, get slapped on the wrist, because ‘she asked for it’ and get set free to do it again.”
Someone replies that they find such stereotypes offensive, adding that it “implies all or most men are rapists. Beyond that, I think it is counterproductive to feminism and humanism to distort reality in such a sexist manner. Strategically, it can only hurt feminism to use to such extremes in language and implication.” To this, “ginmar” responds: “Yeah, the poor men, who let rapists get away, who minimize the crime of rape, who sympathize with the defedants, who stigmatize the victims, who then get called on it!” (Anyone who has read “margin’s” posts should be feeling a sense of deja vu, both in terms of sentiment and phrasing.)
She continues on: “Men occupy all the positions of power, make up the majority of rich peopel, make the laws and decide which get enforced. If peaceful relations between the sexes aren’t possible, you can place the blame squarely on men.”
"Margin" denies demonizing men, but when a poster on that board objects to anti-male stereotypes, “ginmar” objects to any defense of men and replies, “How come your concern is for men, on a feminist board?”
"Margin" appears to be a Ms.-board-member troll whose primary aim on this board is to disrupt any discussion she does not like. To that end, she trolls for emotional responses while refusing to actually discuss the issues, thus derailing the discussion. I have learned that she and at least one other person posting here helped launch an attack on a different board to disrupt discussion there.