Well, it seems everyone but you understood it. I don’t think the problem is the thread so much. Perhaps you should reread the OP.
Look, anything can be offensive to someone: there’s a thread about gorging on meat in a Brazilian restaurant- could well be offensive to hardcore vegans.
A Christian “witnessing” could be offensive to our many atheists.
One of our hardcore atheists mocking religion could be offensive to the faithful.
A thread about atrocities in WW2 could be offensive to those with weak stomachs or perhaps those who had relatives impacted or those whose nations performed those atrocities.
A thread about a members colonoscopy could be offensive.
We have had threads where someone asks what to do about the raccoons in their backyard- and someone always suggest killing them- which I personally find a little offensive.
And I am not saying those who find such things offensive- or the posts discussed here- are in any way wrong- they are not. Some of those things are offensive, certainly. But once you start moderating or putting warnings, you run the risk of getting in trouble for not marking or doing something to a thread that on the surface, to a middle of the road reader- doesnt appear offensive (such as the carnivore gorging thread I mentioned- which made me hungry, but that’s me. ) If you are a hard core vegan and find a discussion about gorging on meat to be offensive, you have my sympathies- but just hit the back button please.
As long as the poster isnt deliberately going out of their way to try to be offensive, then I think we all just have to either hit the back button or maybe even report it.
Every one of your examples contain the words “could be offensive.”
Yet 8 women are speaking with one voice in this thread and that voice is saying that they are offended by the threads.
Do you see a difference here?
I do not doubt they are offended. But do you think his goal was to offend posters? Knowing him as I do, I sincerely doubt that.
So, why not PM him and tell him? Or hit “report this post”. Maybe that thread did cross a line and needs to be moderated. I am not a mod, not my call.
But there’s no way to “limit/flag/forbid” content which could be offensive.
I’ve been hearing “Just put so-and-so on ignore” for decades on various message boards, Usenet newsgroups, and listservs. This is the most concise rebuttal of that argument I’ve ever seen.
“Ignore him” is great advice when a poster rubs you the wrong way because he confuses “its” and “it’s.” It doesn’t work so well if the offending behavior is a public nuisance. If a dog in my neighborhood barks all night, that’s a problem for everyone. The dog doesn’t magically disappear if I put in earplugs before I go to bed.
I stopped opening Skald’s “hypothetical” threads years ago, after slamming into one of the little surprises he tucks into his stories. The experience reminded me of those movie scenes where someone opens a sack of money and a dye pack explodes. And I’m male, for what it’s worth.
“Just ignore him” is the second cousin of “That’s just the way he is,” another bit of normalization I hope I never hear again.
But is the thread content identifiable from the thread title, or is it about what to plant in your garden and halfway through the OP just starts talking about slabs and slabs of meat?
Is it the intent of his threads, or the result of his threads that matters?
Because they are tired of hearing “don’t worry honey, it’s not a big deal” in response to their concerns. (as in “just don’t open them,” or “just don’t peek”)
Whether it was his intent or not isn’t relevant*:“Oh, Uncle Bill doesn’t mean any harm telling his off-colour stories. That’s just his way. Just ignore him if they bother you.” If Uncle Bill doesn’t know by now that his stories are offensive, and not just to women, the onus is on him to educate himself, not on others to ignore him.
*Personally, I think he knows exactly the response he gets, and revels in it.
If you think he means to be offensive, then he is trolling and by all means report that post. By no means am I saying you dont have a right to be offended.
Look, there’s a certain poster or two here on this board who are hardcore atheists, and revel in mocking religion and the faithful. They even start threads “JAQing” off with questions designed to be offensive to the faithful. Should we ban that behavior too?
“It’s taking longer than we thought”, indeed. Jesus Christ.
Brava.
And the way this informative, well written, clear and concise post will be ignored and pooh-poohed by a cache of male posters is exactly one of the reasons I seldom come here anymore. If I want frat boy bro talk ‘It’s Ok honey - the men are talking, don’t worry your pretty little head.’ I can get that just about anywhere.
But hey, why should the board care about female posters leaving in droves? I mean, advertisers love boards with dwindling numbers, right?
The thing is, unlike a dog barking all night, there is actually an audience that desires to engage with Skald and his topics. Why should your desire to censor override others’ desire to engage? And unlike a barking dog and earplugs, the ignore tool on a forum actually works pretty well. Furthermore, judging from the language in the so-called pit from many of the complainers the outrage appears to be highly targeted, coordinated, and selective.
So you’re unable to *engage * unless the content includes totally gratuitous descriptions of abuse and dehumanization of women? That have ZERO to do with the thread or question being asked?
I hope that incorrect statement disguised as a question wasn’t aimed at me as I’m sure you’ve read that I don’t participate in those sort of threads as a general rule. It’s not that I find them exceedingly distasteful rather that I find that they just aren’t at all of interest to me.
Secondly, there are a few subjects on the internet that even I have a hard time mustering the energy to deal with. And topics involving sexual violence are one of them. Now, there are times I stick my nose into crime and punishment aspect of sexual harassment such as the Roy Moore thread. But the sexual aspect is secondary in my mind and definitely not for prurient purposes.
I even think the prison rape jokes that people make on these forums is sickening and I’ve probably voiced that here before. So if I don’t join in with mob violence and barbaric calls for prisoner rape why would I encourage stories of forcible female sexual degradation?
I hope that answered your “question.”
Yet by telling the numerous women here who have stated how offensive it is, especially in the context this poster does it, to just “ignore it”, you are, in fact, condoning it. And dismissing us.
I don’t think this board wants to be all that welcoming to women. Which is a shame.
Wrong. And wrong again. It’s a horrid leap of logic to suggest that the advocation of the employment of a tool to mitigate a subjective nuisance is a value statement of any sort. Furthermore, specifically addressing a concern with actionable advice is the antithesis of dismissal.
Read the first page of the linked thread to see the other side of the OPs feelings and treatment of women.
:dubious: indeed.