You tell me. Which would you rather happen to you or your yard?
Well, misogyny is way worse than hate speech, given that it encompasses so much more. Do you mean which is worse, racism or misogyny? Because that’s a bizarre question.
Are they the same thing or are they different? WTF?
The other familiar part of the pattern is that posters get dragged into arguing with their nonsense, despite the fact that they’re not going to change their minds. Round and round, as you said.
Is the bar for banned speech here “makes someone uncomfortable” ?
Ooh! Ooh! I got this one!
Ahem.
NO
I think we all know that answer is that Samuel will not be OK with anyone fucking up his landscaping!
I think the outcome of not closing the thread had a mixed success. The resulting discussion was a leeeetle bit more civil, although relentless quotation to the objectionable portion of the various comments seems to me an ineffective persuasive technique. Although I find horndogs, and what qualifies as thought processes for them exceedingly boring, (an evaluation I have noticed holds up in text, and in person with overwhelming correlation) I read the entire thread. I have nothing to add to the debate. But, in my online experience a post that falls off the page with minimal reads, and no responses is the most reliable way of adjusting the behavior of posters. There are some who can elicit my lack of interest in their conversation simply with their names on the thread.
There are interesting posts, and posters, and persons with information I find interesting and useful here on this board. Horndogs are not among them, and would not be even if they sincerely wanted to examine the nature of their behavior. (A hypothetical not occurring in this case.)
Just offering a view, since I invested the time reading.
Tris
Imagine a very long string of “rolleyes” here.
We already had words like “sexist”, “chauvinist”, “vulgar”, etc. Why ruin a very specific word like “misogynist” by blurring its meaning into those other ones? Do you even care about differentiating men who show active and seething hostility for women from those who carelessly make “guy” comments? Is it really all just more or less the same thing? I believe there is a difference not only of degree but of kind.
OK, I’ve been dragged in but at least I’m pretty sure I have an open mind about it all. And lets set aside the poster/posters and how we may feel about them for the moment and look just at the opening post. If we had a SDMB “court system” and a computer program of some sort picked 12 of us at random, do you honestly believe that jury would find that particular post guilty of the crime?
First degree dumb I could go with but full blown misogynistic? The things said against it both there and here are great points but I question if the case has been made.
I’ve seen ones I would say fit the bill (of indictment) and I believe almost all got Modded in one way or another. A couple – well there is always an OJ or two in any crowd. I’m just not sure I can put this one in that class.
I’m not sure exactly why, but I thought the thread last week asking whether women preferred tall guys with shorter dicks or short guys with longer dicks was more offensive.
Getting away from misogyny again for a moment, I’ll use another hypothetical situation that I think might help explain the concerns that inspired this thread.
Let’s say there’s a thread where a person talks about how they know racism is frowned upon and all people are people, and so on. Yet despite that, in their experience that isn’t true. This race is dumber, this other race is spineless, another is full of crazy people, and everyone is too polite these days to admit it and persists in this unproductive fantasy about racial equality.
Now clearly this person is outing themselves as a racist, and is doing so in the hope that others will admit it too and they’ll all find common ground about how things really are and stop pretending. Fortunately that doesn’t happen, other posters speak up about how this is racist nonsense and the OP is living on the fringe in today’s generally more enlightened culture.
None of that is worthy of warnings or bans or thread locks. The OP won’t be making friends and will likely have a heated Pit thread about them. But it’s a topic that while distasteful is allowed to be discussed. Being a racist isn’t against board rules, nor is expressing that racism. And pointing out how a person’s statements are racist shouldn’t be either; it’s not an ad hominem attack to comment on what someone wrote if you don’t use that to make personal attacks (outside the Pit at least; in the Pit let loose).
But let’s say in the midst of expressing those racist views the OP also casually drops racial slurs. They are just talking how they talk when not trying to hide their real opinions. Those slurs are against board rules and will get you warned and possibly suspended/banned. It’s not the opinion that’s worthy of sanction, it’s the way it is expressed.
How I read the underlying concern in this thread is that there was language used that is the misogynistic equivalent of racial slurs. That language shouldn’t be accepted. We have a precedent already about certain language not being tolerated on the board, and in the interest of not alienating a good 50%+ of the human population, it is being asked that this language be disallowed on the SDMB.
I disagree.
Viewing women ONLY as sexual objects, admitting he ignores what women say to him because he’s so distracted by the sexy, and refusing to listen to any refutation that all other men aren’t like him are inherently bigotted. It’s another repetition of all the crap about how women can’t be in public spaces because of how men will react, that women can’t have jobs because the men will get distracted, and so on and son on which reasoning ends with women either locked in their homes or walking around under bedsheets because men can’t control themselves.
That said - the most valuable thing about that thread were all the men saying no, dude, the rest of us are NOT like that. Sure, we like to look at pretty women but we’re able to speak with them and actually hear what they say, we can focus our thoughts and words while around pretty women and treat them like equal human beings.
The OP wasn’t buying it - he clearly wants nothing other than validation for his bigotry and to let off the hook for his own thoughts and actions - but a dozen posts into the thread the OP was no longer the point, the point what anyone else looking in seeing other men contradict the OP.
If the OP had just been shut down and the thread closed it would have validated his theories about everyone else being in denial. By keeping it open and having multiple men weighing in with “no, dud, it’s YOU, it’s YOUR problem, the rest of us aren’t like that” it more effectively countered the OP’s assertion than simply silencing the conversation would have. The men who came in and said yes, distraction happens, here’s how to deal with it. The men who came in and said “this part of what you said is objectionable”. Those are all useful contributions, it shows we have good and decent men here who understand the issues women have brought up. Also, someone like the OP has to hear these things from men as well as women because it’s a lot harder for him to discount what men are saying. It would be better if the OP could actually listen to women but he’s not, the only way to reach him is for the men to speak up, too. And many did. That’s a positive thing about this board.
Of course, threads like that are a bit of a dance - it’s easy for them to go off the rails.
It was offensive, but I would argue that that one shouldn’t be shut down either (in fact, I even posted in it). Part of fighting ignorance is dealing with offensive subjects.
Again, the benefit of the thread wasn’t to the OP who was another jerk wanting nothing more than validation for his opinions. The value is in how other people reacted to what he said.
…a quick question: looking at the moderating team its an all-male team now isn’t it? No women moderators?
I brought this issue here because I wanted to discuss the moderation of the thread, not the content of the thread. It’s not about the topic. I found the “tall or hung?” thread to be gross as well, but it didn’t use dehumanizing language. More to the point, this thread isn’t about the Horndog thread, it’s about how the moderator reacted. Rather than say “That’s offensive”, the moderator said “some might think that’s offensive”, which is weaselly, which suggests that the issue is one that a truly neutral party can’t take a stance on because these are two legitimate points of view.
I think language like that–not topics like that–should be moderated more strongly. I do not, for the life of me, understand why a note saying “Please avoid phrases like “hit that” and lurid descriptions of women’s bodies, they are dehumanizing” would have been so terrible.
Right, and we are here to talk about how moderation reacted by treating it as something “some people might find” offensive, not as something that was.
Finally, again and again and again, it’s not that I was offended, it’s that I was shut out. Y’all are all like “oh no, we have to be able to talk about this topic”, but I can’t talk about the topic of the thread in the same way that a man can because the OP, right from the beginning, has made it clear he’s not talking to me. You don’t talk to women with phrases like 'I’d like to hit that". You may talk AT them like that, but you aren’t inviting them to respond and you aren’t going to listen, because you go out of your way to make sure they know you think of them as things.
So men, y’all get to talk about the topic of the thread. I, instead, have to talk about the language of the thread, have to take on the role of “educator”. I start out knowing my presence wasn’t anticipated, isn’t welcome, and everything I say will likely be disregarded by the OP by virtue of my sex. And that’s fine, in the sense that it’s part of fighting ignorance. But it would be fucking easier if moderation would back me up, if it was not afraid to say, officially “dude, we don’t talk like that here.”
Y’all are mocking me for being “uncomfortable”, but at the same time, you are so worried about whether or not being told you can’t say “I’d hit that” will make the OP uncomfortable.
I know for a fact that women sometimes engage in such coarse talk when men are barely in earshot. “I could bounce a quarter off that ass”. (direct quote)
Completely irrelevant to the issue brought up in this OP.
I haven’t been able to make myself read every single post here, and maybe this has already been stated, and maybe it isn’t even pertinent, but if you want to know what really makes me want to leave to the Dope, and if I do leave, what it will be about? It isn’t the objectifying lust which forms such a large part of the personalities of many men, being lovingly discussed, by men, over and over again. No. It is the assumption by so many men here, that men are the only ones reading their posts.
If you wouldn’t say that to a group of female acquaintances, how about not saying it here? Or at least not saying it that way?
How many OPs are a man asking, “women, please answer this question” usually to do with the utter mysteriousness of women, and being responded to almost entirely by men, with a few faint women’s voices being drowned out?
Yes, this is why women are leaving. I will probably be out of here really soon, as it is so incredibly angering that nothing seems to get through.
However I am perfectly sure that those who even know who I am will be glad to see me go.
Has it occurred to you that a system of moderation or sanctions needs to be defined in clear, reasonably unambiguous written rules beforehand? Because, otherwise, you end up in a situation where “community standards” mean different things to different people. And banning people for an offense they didn’t commit definitely leads to people leaving.
It also leads to people deciding they have nothing to lose, they’ll be banned regardless eventually, so they might as well act as offensively as possible.
So, again, *which *community standards does crass description of whom you want to engage in relations with violate? Are you saying you want new ones written?
Quit acting like it’s complicated. All they have to do is start treating objectifying language the same way they treat bigoted/racist langage.
As enlightened as you so desperately want to appear, I would suggest that posters who might want to find out how deep and sincere your “Wokeness” actually is might take themselves a look at your various impassioned defenses of Louis C.K. and his actions towards women, and about how hilarious you find his “comedic stylings” about adult men sexually abusing young children.