# Limiting/flagging/forbidding post with content offensive to other members. **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [May 26, 2018, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854 "2018-05-26T13:27:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2018, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854/241 "2018-05-29T01:31:59Z")
> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#): > > No, the rule was made because people were offended. How do you explain this? “People, most of whom happened to be women.” You are discriminating on the basis of sex. ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2018, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854/242 "2018-05-29T01:35:32Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > How do you explain this? > > “People, most of whom happened to be women.” You are discriminating on the basis of sex. Yeah, I’m done. Feel free to believe what you wish. ---
**Author:** ![Penfeather](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/penfeather/32/384_2.png) [@Penfeather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Penfeather)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2018, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854/243 "2018-05-29T01:43:33Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > In the almost twenty year history of this message board, has a new policy been enacted because a subset of men were offended? Example, please. Ooh, ooh! Announcing spoilers in Cafe Society thread titles. Buncha fragile _men_ being triggered by being told that _Deadpool 2_ contains dick jokes, gotta have their safe spaces like a buncha wimps. Hand me the _sal volatile_ ere I swoon. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2018, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854/244 "2018-05-29T01:53:45Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > But making new rules because mostly women (your words) are offended is the very definition of sexism. > [@The very definition of sexism](#): > > Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on a person’s sex or gender. > **[Sexism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism)** > > Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on one's sex or gender. Sexism can affect anyone, but primarily affects women and girls. It has been linked to gender roles and stereotypes, and may include the belief that one sex or gender is intrinsically superior to another. Extreme sexism may foster sexual harassment, rape, and other forms of sexual violence. Discrimination in this context is defined as discrimination toward people based on their gender identity or their gender According to leg... …nope. I think you’ve got the “very definition of sexism” wrong. Making rules because people are offended is not sexism. In this particular case a majority of the people “offended” were woman: but if the majority of people “offended” just happened to have been men that wouldn’t have changed anything at all. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2018, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854/245 "2018-05-29T02:42:58Z")
If anybody wants an analogy to this latest permutation, there was a ban on linking to unlabeled shock videos instituted a _long_ time ago, before the term Rickrolling was even invented. This followed complaints to the moderators; I’m guessing most of the complainers happened to be men given the demographics of this website. Much later, spoiler boxes were introduced. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2018, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854/246 "2018-05-29T02:55:37Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Of course women are people. But making new rules because mostly women (your words) are offended is the very definition of sexism. > > Should we bring back fainting couches? Smelling salts? No, it’s not. Not at all. The genesis of the rule is independent of the application of the rule. The rule is gender neutral, ergo not sexist. And point of information - it’s not a new rule, but an expansion and clarification of existing rules. Principally the rule for descriptive thread titles and a supporting role for not being a jerk. I think it’s jerky to try and rickroll people with explicit sexual material. And since my judgment in this carries quite a bit of weight (an equal amount with respect to all moderators), there we are. * * * @MfM - the warning in the past was for 'jack in the box links. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2018, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854/247 "2018-05-29T03:07:56Z")
The problem seems to be handled well. Thank you mods. ---
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2018, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854/248 "2018-05-29T03:13:34Z")
So much for the goatse-roll I was going to work into a “cute animal pics” thread. ---
**Author:** ![Sunny\_Daze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunny_daze/32/438_2.png) [@Sunny\_Daze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunny_Daze)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2018, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854/249 "2018-05-29T03:50:58Z")
That one never loses its charm. Maybe a goatse with “Never gonna give you up” playing in the background. 2 for 1. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2018, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854/250 "2018-05-29T05:24:01Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Or maybe you could, unlike the Pit troglodytes, get your facts straight and not misrepresent people. I actually proposed the NSFW tag and other helpful solutions in the pit. And guess what? I was called a troll, my words were twisted, and an organized clique insulted me based on my gender and race. > > Now, practically the same solution that was proposed and attacked is adopted praise galore is heaped upon it. :dubious: > > So, since it was a decision I actually proposed and was mocked for, why would I be upset to see it implemented? The pushback began when you suggested we just ignore skeevy content. And in response to virgin shaming, you started fat shaming. From free to cite otherwise. ---
**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:** [May 29, 2018, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854/251 "2018-05-29T06:03:59Z")
> [@raventhief](#): > > The pushback began when you suggested we just ignore skeevy content. And in response to virgin shaming, you started fat shaming. > > From free to cite otherwise. The ignore tool and the report tool exist and were obviously under utilized. Change came, and a good change I may add, when Morgenstern posted a reasonable thread in the appropriate forum AND due to the rules of the forum discussion was not derailed with personal attacks. That’s how things get done. Yet… for some unfathomanble reason the Pit was the forum of choice and every suggestion that got met with vitriol there for some unfathomable reason was met with near universal acclaim here.:dubious: And yes, when I was attacked in the Pit, I responded in kind. Much kudos to the mods for a reasonable solution. ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2018, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854/252 "2018-05-29T06:10:47Z")
Funny how your previous message made it sound as if you were just innocently proposing nsfw tags and were so unfairly attacked. That’s not what happened. Being told to just ignore it was not likely to be meet with acclaim either here or in the Pit, and that what your first 2 of 3 posts were. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2018, 9:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854/253 "2018-05-29T09:46:09Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > This very thread. > > \ > > And that’s just in the first page and a half. So a new policy was created because women, specifically, are offended. > > How is that NOT sexist? I think I’ve pre-sponded adequately in post 183. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2018, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854/254 "2018-05-29T18:23:52Z")
## RTFirefly’s post 183 is worth reading I say. > [@AncientHumanoid](#): > > Not merely offensive, mind you, but also poorly written.\* YMMV > > - which I also find offensive. 😉 . Now that the mods have spoken, there’s the issue of best practice to consider. Short stories are too long for this message board. We’re limited to vignettes. Slipping in something that’s surprisingly graphic takes the reader out of the story, even if the reader is not inordinately offended. That’s bad writing. There’s a lot of bad writing on this message board, some of it penned by myself. But in terms of best practice, it is best avoided. Yes yes, this is not the primary issue, or even a secondary one. But we are on page 6 after all. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2018, 8:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854/255 "2018-05-30T08:54:56Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > So, if we (men) mistreat women, it’s sexist to punish men for mistreating them when they complain? That seems to be his concern, yes. I had no idea that reporting and acting on offensive behaviour was fundamentally sexist, but if so, maybe we need more sexism. And more racism. ---
**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:** [May 30, 2018, 10:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854/256 "2018-05-30T10:44:07Z")
[So this is interesting](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=855621). Skald started a thread with a (somewhat petulant) note: > [@Skald](#): > > Hypothetical? Certainly. Inclusive of sex, rape, violence against women, possibility of death as a story element? Well, maybe the last one. Offensive to anybody? How the hell should I know? True enough, there was no sex or rape in the OP. Later, though, in order to win an argument, **you with the face** responds (to me): > [@you with the face](#): > > Would your feelings about the defensibility of your choice change if you learned that August did the unthinkable to April, and that’s why she didn’t want to have anything more to do with him? So here she is, either lying on her death bed or in the recovery room in serious condition, and he shows up like Daddy Dearest. When she starts crying at the sight of him and demands to know why you violated her trust…will you still feel justified? When I suggest that bringing sexual abuse into the scenario violates the OP, she responds: > [@](#): > > Hey, I was envisioning a scenario in which April overheard August referring to her as his “one night stand nigger baby”. Does this sort of introduction of vicious racial slurs and what appears to be innuendo about sexual violence into threads where it didn’t previously exist seem copacetic? For me, this sort of thing is–well, a little gross. ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2018, 11:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854/257 "2018-05-30T11:17:26Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > [So this is interesting](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=855621). > > Skald started a thread with a (somewhat petulant) note: > > True enough, there was no sex or rape in the OP. > > Later, though, in order to win an argument, **you with the face** responds (to me): > > When I suggest that bringing sexual abuse into the scenario violates the OP, she responds: > > Does this sort of introduction of vicious racial slurs and what appears to be innuendo about sexual violence into threads where it didn’t previously exist seem copacetic? > > For me, this sort of thing is–well, a little gross. Yes, but it has nothing to do with hypotheticals. There was no unexpected graphic sexual violence or degradation being introduced in the first post from **ywtf** that you’re referring to, which is what this thread is about. The mere presence of innuendo of sexual misconduct is not what the issue is. The second post, which uses the slur, is an issue, but as far as I can see it was never reported, and would be an issue regardless of what thread it was posted in. Just because a post you find objectionable shows up in a Skald hypothetical thread doesn’t make it relevant here. I’m going to assume you don’t mean to play a false equivalent gotcha game, but it feels a little bit like that. ---
**Author:** ![ZipperJJ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zipperjj/32/211_2.png) [@ZipperJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZipperJJ)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2018, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854/258 "2018-05-30T13:39:07Z")
I’m super late to the party (actually managed to get my nose out of the screen this holiday weekend), but I just wanted to give my gratitude to the folks who stepped up and brought this issue to light, the ones who didn’t back down on their complaints, and the mods who took action and made a positive change. I want to say it was because of the awesome ladies who are on the board but I know there are a lot of great dudes here too. Thumbs up to all! ---
**Author:** ![expectopatronum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/expectopatronum/32/173_2.png) [@expectopatronum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/expectopatronum)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2018, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854/259 "2018-05-30T14:59:09Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > [So this is interesting](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=855621). > > Skald started a thread with a (somewhat petulant) note: > > True enough, there was no sex or rape in the OP. > > Later, though, in order to win an argument, **you with the face** responds (to me): > > When I suggest that bringing sexual abuse into the scenario violates the OP, she responds: > > Does this sort of introduction of vicious racial slurs and what appears to be innuendo about sexual violence into threads where it didn’t previously exist seem copacetic? > > For me, this sort of thing is–well, a little gross. He actually started 3 different threads with the same note you describe as “somewhat petulant”, two of which were instalocked. That 100% proves that Skald is aware of the complaints about him and is unwilling to apologize, and doesn’t even see why it’s a problem to begin with. That is something I find far more unsettling than the exchange you reference here. Let’s not try to rules lawyer this thing to death, please. If **you with the face** had a history of dropping racial slurs into posts with no warning, I might see the comparison, but so far as I know that’s not the case. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2018, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854/260 "2018-05-30T15:29:41Z")
> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#): > > The second post, which uses the slur, is an issue, but as far as I can see it was never reported, and would be an issue regardless of what thread it was posted in. Can I ask _why_ it’s an issue? It’s clear from the context that I didn’t direct the term at any poster but was rather offering it up as an extension to the hypothetical; the dang thing is put in quotes for a reason. Other recent **Skald** threads show similar usage. See [here](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20989974&postcount=43) and [here](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=657881&page=3&highlight=nigger). I’m vexed at the idea that I somehow crossed a line. **LHoD** first wrongly accused me of adulterating the thread with sexual abuse in spite of my efforts to be as non-graphic as I could possibly be, and now he’s acting offended at the mere notion that hypothetical characters could speak in racist ways? I understand the challenge you’re under as a moderator, but I think there is little defense for even issuing me a non-warning finger wag in that thread. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854.md?page=14)