The impetus was specifically about comments directed at women. The guideline itself, as quoted from the locked thread above by cochrane, is not in any way delineated by sex or gender. It’s a completely clearly written rule. I repeat it again, since you seem to have missed it:
[QUOTE=Ellen Cherry]
**Here, then, are the guidelines we will use when determining whether a post with sexual references needs review and might be subject to moderation:
Is it directed at another poster on this board?
Is it a sexual comment in a thread with a non-sexual topic?
Is it a sexual joke in a thread on a serious sexual topic?**
[/QUOTE]
Mods, maybe that locked thread should be made a sticky or a link added to the etiquette one?
A 13 page thread does not make the decision right. And even if the decisions is right, that does not make the application of that in specific cases correct. In this cases all was done was speculation on how something occurred. After a poster has brought it up. If there was going to be a problem down the road, could’ve been dealt then or perhaps a note not to take it too far.
This was done with a Trumpesque amount of care and thought.
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.
Best to not make titty jokes to women, boys. The reason? It’s rude and demeaning to us, especially when we are talking about something serious and personal to us at the time. It gets old. If you feel deprived over that, then that would be an example of clueless entitlement on your part.
If it were just a small bit of discomfort, then the women of the board wouldn’t have gotten together to ask it to stop. People wouldn’t have been threatening to leave. It wouldn’t have become a big deal.
The ignorance fighting here seems to be of the type of letting people know what sorts of things make people feel more uncomfortable than they actually realize.
I admit, I didn’t even notice the problem until the women brought it up. But I was glad to have my ignorance fought.
I think you might have gotten my two posts mixed up when you wrote that. Accidentally I am sure. One was on topic the other was snark in reply to what was written above it.
Here is the one which pertained to the moderation decision. Just incase you “mix up” again.
Of course; crude comments don’t have anything to do with “fighting ignorance”. Neither does infact a thread called “Why does feeling attractive feel creepy”. However moderation rules and decisions and how they are implemented certainly do. You can argue against the merits of the current moderation policy; FTR I think its not totally devoid of merit. Implementation of it, done blindly, without any thought given to the context in which that post was made is lazy moderation at best. Especially when we see such trigger happiness applied unevenly.
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.
It seems like the post was against the rules, so a warning seems deserved. That said, it was a very tame joke. It’s hard to believe anyone with any sense of perspective would consider it genuinely offensive.
If you cannot be bothered to read the whole exchange of posts and can only regurgitate points of view of others than yeah, self examination is very necessary.
No. U. Gatopescado’s post was clearly jerkish, and if you’re going to keep fucking that chicken, then I’m going to pay you just as much attention as I would to a howling wolf in a Tex Avery cartoon. You’ll notice he isn’t even sticking up for himself. Even he realizes he was being a jerk in that thread.
So I’ll just allow you to keep bloviating and go on with my day. Have a good 'un.
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.
There are several such fora, don’t you know? I should say, they’re for women only, except also for men who can engage with women without making inappropriate tit jokes, and also women can get kicked out of them for being jerks.
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?
