# Gatopescado's warning **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [March 8, 2017, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gatopescados-warning/781719 "2017-03-08T19:27:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gatopescados-warning/781719/61 "2017-03-09T14:07:21Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > Anyway, each and every possible violation of that rule was already a violation under the don’t be a jerk rule, so to me it always seemed redundant. > [@raventhief](#): > > So if one doesn’t read the specific rule, one can’t be expected to realize “witty” jokes about boobiez is kinda jerkish? 'Parently not. Apparently some people do need it spelled out for them precisely how this particular behavior is jerkish, and thereby a violation of the rule. And even then it doesn’t always penetrate the thickest skulls. > [@octopus](#): > > Was he being a jerk? That’s an interesting judgement call. Yep. Which is why we have moderators, to make those judgment calls. ---
**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gatopescados-warning/781719/62 "2017-03-09T14:09:36Z")
This thread reminds me of the excellent Slate podcast “Lexicon Valley.” The original hosts (for something like 50 episodes, from 2012 to early 2016) were two language enthusiasts. One is 30-something, the other pushing 60. The older one used “pussy” a couple of times (to mean “weak”), and was called on it by the younger guy (and by listeners). The “offender” understood the criticism, but also wouldn’t give up his perspective of it being a harmless usage of this word. ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Sanchez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e19adc/32.png) [@Rick\_Sanchez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Sanchez)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gatopescados-warning/781719/63 "2017-03-09T14:25:18Z")
> [@jackielikesvariety](#): > > really? it’s hard for me to believe you don’t get it. maybe this is why we need mods. All I know is that if I’d started a similar thread and someone had made a penis enlargement joke, I wouldn’t have found it in the least bit offensive, and I would have defended the poster against any warnings he may have received. And this is coming from someone with a long history of body image issues. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gatopescados-warning/781719/64 "2017-03-09T14:26:41Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > I was seriously skeptical when this rule first came out and when it was first applied, but in this case, it seems very obvious to me that it is nothing more than a logical and reasonable extension of the “don’t be a jerk” rule. > > Come on, a poster poses a debatable question based on a very personal experience that is troubling her, to the extent that she doesn’t want to reveal the details. And right out of the gate, it’s a crude, dismissive, contemptuous, demeaning joke about her body, and a part of her body that women are constantly suffering societal judgment and ridicule for. > > No, this is not about oversensitive women who need a safe corner of the internet to be isolated in. This is treating people as human beings. The internet is real life. Would you say something like this, in such a demeaning and personal manner, to people in your real life who were expressing discomfort over something so personal and wanted to discuss a serious conceptual issue connected with it? > > AK84, your attitude about this is particularly puzzling and disappointing. Yes, we allow people to express bigotry here of various kinds—racism, misogyny, Islamophobia—but do you really think that if someone expressed serious discomfort about something related to his or her race or religion, that a belittling comment like this should be accepted as par for the course? Its, not about women at all. Nor is it relevant to my argument whether or not Gatopescadodid or did not apologise. I can (as I said above) understand why mods might feel they need to make such a rule. The particular rule is irrelevant. My objection is as to its implementation of the in this case, and the mechanical manner its been made without an application of mind to the context and circumstances in which it was made. In another context, the exact same words could well have been properly warnable and gone without notice. ---
**Author:** ![Grrr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grrr/32/146_2.png) [@Grrr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grrr)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gatopescados-warning/781719/65 "2017-03-09T15:00:27Z")
> [@elbows](#): > > It was rude, jerkish, uncalled for, and sexist. He apologized in the thread and has posted no objection to the moderation here. > > By a wide majority it would seem most posters agree with the moderation on this. > > Getting butthurt because you can’t make random tittie jokes in any adult conversation you please, makes you look like frat boys, not men. > > Tittie jokes ARE for boys and have no place in conversations with adult women. This should be self evident to grown men. > > Also it’s 2017, by the way, do at least try to keep pace. Excellent post! Ya’ know, **Gatopescado** apologized for his remark. Right now, I have more respect for him than I do some of the folks in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![kopek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kopek/32/337_2.png) [@kopek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kopek)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gatopescados-warning/781719/66 "2017-03-09T15:06:19Z")
> [@Grrr](#): > > Ya’ know, **Gatopescado** apologized for his remark. Right now, I have more respect for him than I do some of the folks in this thread. And I’ll call that statement out for excellence as well. ---
**Author:** ![Maurie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df788c/32.png) [@Maurie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maurie)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gatopescados-warning/781719/67 "2017-03-09T16:04:57Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > How the hell would you know? there might be an underlying psychological effect at work, and it would be interesting (and ignorance-fighting) if that were the case. I most definitely agree that the tone of his post was gross, but I do admit that I would have found that thread more interesting if the OP hadn’t been so vague. I mean, of course it is absolutely her right to not choose to reveal her specific circumstance! But I really find the potential psychological possibilities intriguing, and I think the insights posters provided would vary a great deal and be more thought-provoking if we’d known what the inciting change was. (Plastic surgery? Facial? Body? Weight loss? Weight gain? A new wardrobe? New makeup? New hairstyle? Intentionally taken on? An incidental change? I think each of those options would allow for very different reasonings for what’s causing the OP to feel weird about it.) ---
**Author:** ![snoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@snoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snoe)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gatopescados-warning/781719/68 "2017-03-09T16:18:15Z")
> [@Grrr](#): > > Ya’ know, **Gatopescado** apologized for his remark. Right now, I have more respect for him than I do some of the folks in this thread. Hear, hear! I’m used to a certain level of occasional crass, sexist humor here (and in life). Stuff like the jokes about Kellyanne Conway being on her knees in that photo, or jokes people have made about Melania Trump. It turns me off, and from comments I’ve read I’m guessing it makes many women uncomfortable about participating here. But this comment was about a poster, not a public figure. It seems very clear-cut to me that this comment stepped well over the line - and not really because of the content of the comment, either. I think raising the “boob-job” question could have been done at least semi-respectfully. Instead, it didn’t address the OP, just spectators - but in a forum where the OP could read it. Definitely a jerk move. And yes, it’s to **catfish’s** credit that they handled the warning gracefully. Good on them! ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gatopescados-warning/781719/69 "2017-03-09T16:52:13Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > I was seriously skeptical when this rule first came out and when it was first applied, but in this case, it seems very obvious to me that it is nothing more than a logical and reasonable extension of the “don’t be a jerk” rule. > > Come on, a poster poses a debatable question based on a very personal experience that is troubling her, to the extent that she doesn’t want to reveal the details. And right out of the gate, it’s a crude, dismissive, contemptuous, demeaning joke about her body, and a part of her body that women are constantly suffering societal judgment and ridicule for. > > No, this is not about oversensitive women who need a safe corner of the internet to be isolated in. This is treating people as human beings. The internet is real life. Would you say something like this, in such a demeaning and personal manner, to people in your real life who were expressing discomfort over something so personal and wanted to discuss a serious conceptual issue connected with it? This. I was thinking the other day about how there are so many places on the Web where women really _don’t_ feel welcome on account of the sexually demeaning shit that gets thrown their way when something they say bothers some guy. And I was thinking about how the Dope by and large _isn’t_ one of those places, that both sexes are represented here in large numbers, and at least as best as I can tell from my male perspective\*, women here feel reasonably comfortable in discussing personal issues here. And you know, I’d like it to stay that way. If posts like the one we’re talking about here don’t draw warnings, it’s less likely to do so, IMHO. \*I’m not being facetious here, JFTR: there’s a lot of shit you don’t notice when it’s not being flung at _you_. Hence the qualifier. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gatopescados-warning/781719/70 "2017-03-09T17:13:17Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Its, not about women at all. Nor is it relevant to my argument whether or not Gatopescadodid or did not apologise. I can (as I said above) understand why mods might feel they need to make such a rule. The particular rule is irrelevant. I can’t make sense of this and I can’t tell if any of it is supposed to be responding to the quoted post of mine. > [@](#): > > My objection is as to its implementation of the in this case, and the mechanical manner its been made without an application of mind to the context and circumstances in which it was made. 1. What about this circumstance supports the conclusion that this decision was made mechanically and without consideration of the context? > [@](#): > > In another context, the exact same words could well have been properly warnable and gone without notice. 1. Wait, didn’t you just say that the problem was a lack of consideration of the context? Now you’re saying that it’s a problem that a different context would have produced a different result? The context is everything. This board has long considered speaking too or about a poster significantly different from speaking in abstract or about public figures. ---
**Author:** ![cochrane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cochrane/32/10441_2.png) [@cochrane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cochrane)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gatopescados-warning/781719/71 "2017-03-09T17:16:37Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Its, not about women at all. Nor is it relevant to my argument whether or not Gatopescadodid or did not apologise. I can (as I said above) understand why mods might feel they need to make such a rule. The particular rule is irrelevant. My objection is as to its implementation of the in this case, and the mechanical manner its been made without an application of mind to the context and circumstances in which it was made. In another context, the exact same words could well have been properly warnable and gone without notice. What the hell does this even mean? If they could have been warnable in another context, but didn’t get noticed, that just means the poster got away with it. It still doesn’t make them appropriate. You keep digging yourself a bigger hole with each post. And yes, it does matter that **Gatopescado** apologized. He acknowledges his comment was inappropriate in that context, where you refuse to do so. The moderation was made with context in mind. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gatopescados-warning/781719/72 "2017-03-09T17:31:16Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > Just have the mods put trigger warnings on all threads. [QUOTE=levdrakon;] Just make a special for women only forum and exclude it from “new posts” results. [/QUOTE] So, misogyny-based bullying is just fine then. > [@Bruce\_Wayne](#): > > I empathize with the OP. The thread in question came off as pretentious to me. Even if it were true that the OP had been pretentious, what difference would that make? > [@octopus](#): > > Who cares if there was a 13 or a thousand page thread? The first time I’ve seen that particular thread was today. It’s unreasonable to assume that a poster to a board is going to read the whole canon. > > Was he being a jerk? That’s an interesting judgement call. I’d say no because in a thread that is talking about a woman’s attractiveness cosmetic surgery seems relevant. And the jerk clause is so ill-defined that it’s almost meaningless. > > Now would I have made that joke to someone I didn’t know? Or with a public audience? Nope. That last paragraph could serve as is a pretty decent guideline of how to tell you’re being a jerk on the SDMB, don’t you think? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gatopescados-warning/781719/73 "2017-03-09T17:38:44Z")
I can’t defend that post. Perhaps a Note would have done the job just as well, however. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gatopescados-warning/781719/74 "2017-03-09T18:00:23Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > I was thinking the other day about how there are so many places on the Web where women really _don’t_ feel welcome on account of the sexually demeaning shit that gets thrown their way when something they say bothers some guy. > > And I was thinking about how the Dope by and large _isn’t_ one of those places, that both sexes are represented here in large numbers, and at least as best as I can tell from my male perspective\*, women here feel reasonably comfortable in discussing personal issues here. Really? My impression is just the opposite. Not that we’re the worst, but that several awesome women have left this board in disgust at the misogyny that pervades too many threads. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gatopescados-warning/781719/75 "2017-03-09T18:06:12Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > So, misogyny-based bullying is just fine then. So, any mention of “boob job” is now against the rules? It’s misogyny now? Seems easier to just mark threads with trigger warnings so people know a thread is “woman safe” instead of expecting people to have seen some 13-page thread that apparently is now a rule to protect the women on the board. \*\*Gatopescado \*\*apparently hadn’t read it. Trigger warnings are the thing now. Let’s keep up with the times. If there had been some sort of warning on the thread maybe he wouldn’t have made a snarky remark. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gatopescados-warning/781719/76 "2017-03-09T18:15:12Z")
> [@cochrane](#): > > In response to **AK84** and **octopus** , I’ll just quote these two and say I’m in agreement with them. If you can’t see **Gatopesado** was being a jerk, maybe it’s time for a little self-examination. Still doesn’t change the vague and subjective nature of that rule. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gatopescados-warning/781719/77 "2017-03-09T18:17:14Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > 1. What about this circumstance supports the conclusion that this decision was made mechanically and without consideration of the context? I wouldn’t go as far as saying ITD was hasty in making the warning, and I’m willing to accept that it’s possible that there is a failing on my part in not seeing what is so obvious to so many others here, but the circumstance that’s different here is the content of the original OP. It didn’t seem to be about a body issue or a serious psychological issue regarding feelings of attractiveness. The title of the thread is _“Why does feeling attractive feel creepy?”_ and what follows is regarding something the OP mused over. That “something about it didn’t sit well” with her and she was “just wondering if anyone else has thoughts on this” and is asking why “the feeling of being attractive isn’t 100% warm fuzzy feelings.” It seems she has almost 100% fuzzy feelings, and is just wondering what’s missing. I think that matters in deciding if others might think the boob joke you’re thinking about posting will go over well. It obviously didn’t, but that’s not the point. I don’t think Gato was making a joke regardless if it was insensitive or not; I think he just didn’t think it was. I don’t think most posters that would make a joke post regarding that sort of OP would have done so if the thread was more obviously about a serious body or psychological issue. > [@](#): > > So, misogyny-based bullying is just fine then. No one is saying that, and I don’t think you think Gato’s post rises to that level, do you? > [@](#): > > That last paragraph could serve as is a pretty decent guideline of how to tell you’re being a jerk on the SDMB, don’t you think? Not at all. We say all sorts of un-warnable things to each other here that wouldn’t be said in person that isn’t considered “being a jerk” behavior. The thing that makes the difference more innocent in this case is that Gato and the rest of us have no idea what the OP looks like. Betting on a boob job when we’re right in front of someone and see what her figure looks like raises the inappropriateness level. > [@cochrane](#): > > What the hell does this even mean? If they could have been warnable in another context, but didn’t get noticed, that just means the poster got away with it. It still doesn’t make them appropriate. You keep digging yourself a bigger hole with each post. And yes, it does matter that **Gatopescado** apologized. He acknowledges his comment was inappropriate in that context, where you refuse to do so. The moderation was made with context in mind. I don’t think you’re parsing AK84’s post the way he meant it to be. I think he means it would have gone unnoticed by someone like me that would start a thread over this, because in another thread, a booby joke would have been more objectively warnable. > [@](#): > > And yes, it does matter that Gatopescado apologized. Not when it comes to deciding whether or not the level of moderation was appropriate. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gatopescados-warning/781719/78 "2017-03-09T18:28:01Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > So, misogyny-based bullying is just fine then. > > Even if it were true that the OP had been pretentious, what difference would that make? > > That last paragraph could serve as is a pretty decent guideline of how to tell you’re being a jerk on the SDMB, don’t you think? No I don’t think so. The reason being is that language is frequently misinterpreted. And what I choose to say or not say in front of an audience of unknown composition might be completely different than what others are comfortable saying. Who is right and who is wrong? If that 13 page debate or the “rules” in that debate were part of the stickied rules I wouldn’t have said anything in this thread. The warning would have been pretty obvious. But they aren’t and some nebulous don’t be a jerk rule is invoked. I think the phrase “fucking the chicken” is jerkish. Many others don’t. Who’s right? Do I need to find a 10 page locked and buried thread to determine appropriateness ? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gatopescados-warning/781719/79 "2017-03-09T18:30:19Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > So, any mention of “boob job” is now against the rules? It’s misogyny now? Yeah, that’s exactly what I said, right? Tell you what, b fire I address any of the rest of your post, how about you justify writing just that one sentence with what people are actually saying on this thread? ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gatopescados-warning/781719/80 "2017-03-09T18:38:07Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Yeah, that’s exactly what I said, right? Tell you what, b fire I address any of the rest of your post, how about you justify writing just that one sentence with what people are actually saying on this thread? Justify your comment. Making a forum for women is somehow endorsing bullying. Makes no sense. If someone said, “let’s make a bullying forum” that would make sense. Well, we have the Pit. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gatopescados-warning/781719.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gatopescados-warning/781719.md?page=5)