# Limiting/flagging/forbidding post with content offensive to other members.

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854>\
**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:** 1\
**Showing post:** 82

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Drunky\_Smurf](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drunky_smurf/32/449_2.png) [@Drunky\_Smurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drunky_Smurf)\
**Post date:** [May 27, 2018, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854/82 "2018-05-27T07:45:43Z")

</div>

As a male:

> [@Bone](#):
>
> Some of the suggestions thus far have been around clear labeling - but we already have rules around descriptive thread titles. Perhaps that can be applied in these types of cases.’

Ok, why not start modding that?

**Skald** starts a thread titled:

“Friend A asks you to persuadeFriend B not to break their engagement. Do you try?”

and puts in this:

In particular, she shot a gonzo scene in which she not only was verbally and physically abused by the director and male models on camera, but also confessed to having been molested by a funny uncle when she was much younger. Eliciting this confession from her — and making her call her mail co-stars "Uncle " while she cried— was the highlight of the scene.

When as **Sunny Daze** points out he could have just said “she did some porn”.

Yet **Skald** goes on to mention how the woman is degraded and humiliated and it makes her cry and to that **Skald** says:

> [@Friend A asks you to persuadeFriend B not to break their engagement. Do you try?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/friend-a-asks-you-to-persuadefriend-b-not-to-break-their-engagement-do-you-try/813140/1):
>
> — was the highlight of the scene.

Shortening of the post is mine but if anyone actually reads what has been quoted and said here will know that I am not taking that out of context.

Would it honestly be a horrible thing to have him put in a disclaimer **IN THE TITLE** that said, “Hey, here, fellow peeps, I have a hypothetical for you about a thing but there is some woman abuse and degradation involved that excites me”\* in the title? So that those of us who do not want to read about such things is clear and that we can steer clear of such threads?

Is a simple warning (not of the poster) for that kind of content too much to ask for?

Is a simple “thread contains abuse of women” too much to ask for?

I am not about squanching free speech but please, a labeling of speech surely isn’t squanching it.

\*I am not attacking **Skald**. He himself said it:

> [@Friend A asks you to persuadeFriend B not to break their engagement. Do you try?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/friend-a-asks-you-to-persuadefriend-b-not-to-break-their-engagement-do-you-try/813140/1):
>
> — was the highlight of the scene.

and as others have pointed out he has admitted in the past the these things excite him but do I really need to go beyond this one admission?

**Mods?** Is it really, really that hard to ask for people who want to fantasize about the abuse of women be labeled as such?

I have many women, strong, intelligent women, that I would gladly give my life for that I would be ashamed to show these boards to based on this instance alone.

What harm would it do to have **Skald** label his posts as things that they actually are?

Such as:

“Here’s a hypothetical about some flowers?”

or

“Here’s a hypothetical about some flowers that also include some degradation of women?”

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854)._