This is hardly an apt analysis when people on opposite sides of the issue started the two threads. It’s only natural that a Note might get attention from people advocating more strict moderation, whereas a Warning might prompt a dispute from the person warned.
Furthermore, far from being “damned” in this thread, it seems to me that the moderation here is getting wholehearted support from the great majority of posters. So if anything there’s a consistent message that the majority in this community support stricter moderation of misogyny.
I fear that is the goal: to get our side to shut up. If it was not for left wing lunacy, the resolution to this issue would be easy. If you allow yourself to be filmed dancing in which you writhe up against a wall and crawl on your knees, then comments about your sexuality is fair game within the context of the video.
Now, if she is giving a speech on the floor of Congress, that shouldn’t invite comments about how “she is the sexy bitch in that video I saw last week.” How is this any different than commentaries on movies or television programs where the mods have held that those invite comments in and of themselves? Certainly KellyAnne Conway did not invite sexual comments.
I won’t belabor the point because the board has decided to be willfully blind of its own inconsistency at the behests of a vocal minority. And it is not like this vocal minority is unwillingly exposed to this stuff. How many times when discussing threadshitting has it been said that if you don’t like the topic, then just don’t read it.
The thread title was not misleading. If discussion about a woman’s appearance offends your Victorian sense of morality, then move on to one of the other hundred threads where you can talk about Trump’s appearance.
My understanding was that this policy started because of off topic sexual comments in other threads that posters would be unwillingly subjected to, such as a comment in a thread where someone discovered a lump in her breast and the response is “pics or I don’t believe it.” Something along those lines; not a general ban on discussions of attractiveness.
I don’t agree that it was “clueless”, because I think the standard is way too extreme. But it was certainly in good faith. I actually prefer to avoid getting modded!
ETA: Cosigning UV’s comments on what is and is not appropriate or unduly aggressive.
Through most of our society, it probably is “fair game”. We’re arguing that it shouldn’t be, and that on this board the moderators should specifically require that such comments not be fair game. Because dancing is not inherently sexual. Being a young woman and wearing entirely normal casual clothing is not inherently sexual. There was nothing inherently sexual about her dancing or the video. That’s just in your head. Your insistence that it’s sexual says things about you – it says nothing at all about her or the video.
That’s what you’re not getting. You’re insisting that just the act of dancing, or of being a young woman and wearing certain entirely mundane clothing, is inherently sexual and warrants suggestive comments. You are wrong, and this is a bad thing in our society, and I’m hopeful that this board, at least, will not tolerate such dinosaurian and misogynist posting going forward. What she did in the video (dancing in the style of an '80s movie) is an entirely normal, mundane, and non-sexual thing that young people do very frequently.
I’m pretty sure the misunderstanding here is that some folks just can’t understand that a young woman wearing casual clothing and dancing isn’t inherently sexual. “Writhing against a wall” to music isn’t inherently sexual. Doing a dance move “on her knees” isn’t inherently sexual. It’s just dancing. There’s lots of types of dancing that aren’t inherently sexual. I think some folks just are unable or unwilling to accept this.
Sometimes I have been critical about some calls by the Mods here. But you know, on this issue I think the staff is doing a excellent job. This is not a easy issue or call.
Feel free, there’s plenty of places on the 'net where that sort of thing isn’t verboten, no one is suggesting that the rules here should apply everywhere.
Or maybe you’re just wrong and willfully ignoring it when people dance to express their sexual desirability. And there’s nothing wrong with that! I mean, from the sounds of it, you would probably argue that twerking isn’t sexual either. :rolleyes:
Look, we could all presumably agree that it was silly for older people to have conniptions over Elvis Presley’s hip shaking dance moves, right? But the issue wasn’t that they misunderstood his entirely nonsexual dancing as sexual; it WAS an expression of sexuality, but it is not cool to suppress sexual expression (as we have seen recently with the Tumblr crackdown).
C’mon, haven’t you ever heard the old saw about dancing being a “vertical expression of a horizontal desire”? A lot of truth to that.
Arguably, this is exactly what happened. She made a video while in college, she was just sworn in and some people are going “hey look at this sexy bitch, think I’ll go fap”
Would it be acceptable to you too make that sort of comment if, I dunno, she was sitting listening to a Congressional hearing, instead of giving a speech on the floor of Congress?