In the Clinton v Trump campaign thread I labeled Hillary a Harpy but it was very specific to how shrill her voice it. There was nothing in my statement implying more than that. Later in the thread there was this:
OK a couple of things. First of all, I’ve noticed lately a few posters that will vehemently disagree with something and will add at the end “Get over it.” I can’t quite put my finger on it but it seems condescending. I’m not a child. I’m entitled to my own opinion but it’s more than that. The responses using “Get over it.” invariably (intentionally?) miss the point of the original sentence. I almost want to say it should be modded but I can’t really explain why.
The second thing is that the inherent accusation of sexism. Using my own word “Harpy”, Hampshire is quite clearly saying that anytime I hear a woman speak up that I view it as a negative. But apparently they were able to escape being modded because of the weasel word “people” instead of “you” but there is no doubt they are accusing me.
OK here is what I should have done. I should have reported the post (I since have to see what the mods will do.) and dragged this into the pit. All I can offer in defense is this post hit me on a bad day. My wife works in a male dominated field and her life is harder because of her gender. As a family we have to deal with her making less than she should because of that. When I read that she was being forced to apologize to her employees for making them do their job for being to direct (i.e. managing like a man). So yes she was made to grovel before her subordinates because she “made her voice heard” as a manager. I can tell you a bunch of other stories but that day her direct supervisor was threatening to write her up (read into this we will start the papertrail to fire you) because she is direct with people which interestingly enough is exactly how the men in her field manage.
So I blew up. I admit it. As a teacher I do a lot to build students (male and female) into strong adults and everything I vicariously have to deal with because my wife has been oppressed in her field since before I knew her. The words in my head were along the lines of “HOW DARE YOU ACCUSE ME OF SEXISM.” so I wrote this:
To which I get this:
Warned for “being a jerk”.
But I fail to see what exactly was warnable about what I said. I did say to “shove the accusation of sexism up your ass where it belongs.” but that’s not threatening or wishing harm on Hampshire. I guess if I said “Get over it.” then it would have been fine. Was it “So don’t generalize a statement I make about one specific woman into an accusation of generalized sexism again.”? I think posters can tell other posters not to unfairly label them.
So Jonathan Chance, what exactly did I do that was warnable? Are posters like Hampshire allowed to use weasel words to accuse other posters of sexism, racism, etc.? I guess that second question will be answered when we see how (or rather if) the mods respond to my report of Hampshire’s post.
That part probably did it. I think the rest of it was spot on. I don’t know your rap sheet here, but you don’t seem like a problem poster, I’m surprised you didn’t just get a note under the circumstances of responding to an insult, even allowable as that insult may have been.
From what I read nothing in Hampshire’s post was directed at any specific poster, just the word “people”. You took it personally but nothing there makes me think it was meant that way.
You on the other hand specifically told Hampshire to shove it up his/her ass.
To me the difference seems obvious and a clear violation of the rules.
While it’s true I’d prefer not to see accusations of sexism/racism/pokemonism and so forth in either Great Debates or Elections, Hampshire was clearly describing a widespread phenomenon and not directly it at you personally.
You, on the other hand, went for the dismissive, offensive and insulting ‘shove it up your ass’ which isn’t - and can’t be - allowed. I don’t really know how to make that any clearer.
Emphasis added. There is no why that “shove it up your ass” can be considered civil. I would argue that a mod note might be more appropriate, but it is certainly mod’able behavior.
How is telling someone to “shove it up your ass” not being a jerk? It doesn’t need to be threatening or wishing harm. It’s certainly not the kind of language we’re going to allow outside the Pit.
From the rules:
Bolding mine. Some years ago we added the language “or personally attack” because some posters would try to rules-lawyer their way out of warnings under the “no insults” rule by saying that remarks like “shove it up your ass” weren’t insults. While this is rather ridiculous on the face of it, the “no personal attacks” and “don’t be a jerk” rules cover other kinds of insulting remarks.
Have you personally labeled Clinton, Pelosi, Fiorina and Warren all harpies? If not, then I don’t think Hampshire was saying any time YOU hear a woman’s voice you call her a harpy. Yet all of these women have been so labeled- by “people.” As Hampshire said. No weasel word there.
You were already mad about the way your wife was treated. I’m sure if she was also called a harpy in that threat to write her up you would have been even more furious. That doesn’t make “shove it up your ass” somehow a civil, non-jerkish statement.
I don’t think there’s any doubt that Hampshire was directly addressing Saint Cad, even though he used the weasel word “people”; he was directly including Saint Cad in the “group of people who…” category.
BUT, I also think it should be as obvious to Saint Cad as it is to the rest of us that telling someone “so go ahead and shove the accusation of sexism up your ass where it belongs” is not civil conversation and is inappropriate outside of the Pit.
It’s standing policy you can insult groups who happen to have members who post on the board, as long as you’re not singling out posters on the board. It may be a question if Hampshire’s post fits that category.
But Saint Cad’s post is definitely over the line. There’s no gray area there.
Here’ the relevant section that Hampshire was responding to:
As it happens, I was not aware that Hillary Clinton had that nickname (though SC may have been making a metaphorical prediction). I’d say that there would be a deep problem on this message board if such a remark didn’t prompt a discussion of the sexism connected with it. Now I can see why Saint Cad lost his cool and he deserve props for conceding that he did just that. A stand up move. Still.
But “shove the accusation of sexism up your ass”, is eminently warnable outside of the pit. Maybe not 10 years ago: I dunno. Certainly today, given that milder language has earned warnings. I can imagine a light-touch mod handing out a mod note for that. But a bright line was crossed, so I’d expect a sternly worded and possibly condescending note. One that wouldn’t be repeated for the targeted poster.
Generally speaking, we’re here to fight ignorance. That means things will get a little rough at times. Standards should be set so as advance clear communication (which never involves a direct insult but may in practice be interpreted as insulting) while deterring a hostile atmosphere outside of the Pit.
So throwing my word “Harpy” back on me is not a weaselly way to accuse me of being a sexist? He included me in the list of sexists who belittle strong women. You honestly don’t see that? That is a backhanded way of insulting me so I get a warning and Hampshire gets nothing? E
So if I somehow relate people using the term pokemonism and how they are racists without using the word “racist” and as long as I say “people” and not anyone specifically it is not insulting any person it is OK? It looks like the weasels are taking over the board.
He didn’t do that. Your post specifically said that other people called her a harpy. He was responding about those other people, challenging your claim that she was called that because of her voice. You took it badly. Even you admitted you didn’t know if it was directed towards you.
I do agree that a Warning is too much, though. It’s clear you were offended unintentionally, and your words got away from you. You didn’t cross the big lines, so a Mod Note reminding you to dial it back would have been more appropriate. I think a Mod should never use a Warning when a Mod Note will accomplish the same thing.
I mean, I understand saying that “if you meant it this way, that really insults me.” But you changed from “if” to being sure it was an attack, and lashed out. Heck, I almost replied to you about it, but decided it would probably wouldn’t come off well in your then current state.
Actually BigT I called her a Harpy based on the shrillness of her voice. It was Hampshire that made “Harpy” into a word sexists used and thus put me in that category. Basically this is it.
SC: Her voice is so shrill when she speaks I call her a Harpy
H: People use the term harpy because they are sexist and don’t want to hear a strong woman speak. Get over it.
SC: I’m not a sexist. Don’t call me a sexist.
JC: You are warned Saint Cad
SC: WTF?! Why didn’t Hampshire get modded?
JC: He said “people” and not you.
So according to the mods if I say “people that say the same thing you do are sexists/racists/Nazis/etc.” it’s ok because they didn’t say YOU were a sexist/racist/Nazi/etc.
So the bottom line is this. If someone insults you using weasel words and you are rude back, you get a warning and the weasel gets off. That is the new SD policy.
I find it incredible that a poster who has been around as long as you has the slightest doubt that “shove it up your ass” would get a warning. That you are questioning this is absurd.
You know, it’s not even that I got a warning - well maybe, I think I should have gotten a note. But the complaint is not so much that I got modded but that someone can twist what I wrote and them make an accusation of sexism and because they used weasel words they don’t get modded and it’s OK. THAT is what I’m pissed about. As for Colibri’s (a mod incidently) post, I have been around long enough that mods used to see through weasel words when accusing people of lying, sexism or racism and the poster would be called out on it.
Maybe I need to read the thread under discussion (although I kinda doubt it), but the way I read Hampshire’s remark was as a general complaint that the rhetorical deck seems to be stacked against women in the public sphere. I certainly never heard of a guy being called a harpy; and in fact if there is a single pejorative that gets leveled against a male political aspirant that is based primarily on the tone, timbre, and cadence of his speaking style, let’s just say it doesn’t come easily to mind.
For this reason alone, it’s not surprising for anyone to consider the word “harpy” problematic. I certainly consider it so. Maybe (MAYBE) it would have been appropriate for Hampshire to have been mod-noted for allowing the use of the word “harpy” to inspire that complaint in the Elections thread as not germane, but even that would have gotten a bit of a :dubious: from me.
Good on you, Saint Cad, for being non-sexist enough to be annoyed on your wife’s behalf when sexism undermines her status as a responsible adult member of society, and in her career. But if you’re willing to call anyone a harpy for anything OTHER THAN
then you probably don’t share my distaste for the term (and maybe also Hampshire’s). In such a case, perhaps it’s no surprise that when you see “people,” you’d be inclined to perceive it as a weasel word, deployed to give plausible deniability to someone who wants to accuse you, specifically.