I’m not trying to impress anyone with my wokeness. And your grand ex-pat gadfly act is boring as hell.
QFT
I guess this American is just sick of hypocrites talking out of both sides of their mouth depending on their intended audience, something that you seem to have honed into a fine art.
I invite anyone who cares (which I fully expect to be no one) to investigate. Your statements excusing and defending Louis C.K. combined with the way you then turn around and wrap yourself in the cloak of a staunch Defender of Women is pretty vile, at least to my way of thinking, but I will let anyone who is interested judge for themselves.
I disagree with almost all of this.
My second year of teaching, I brought the class in from recess, and one student told me, “Mr. Dorkness, Bobby ate a leaf.” Kid had found some random plant on the playground and eaten a leaf of it as a joke.
And I had an epiphany: I could never predict all the ways that kids could be stupid.
Ever since, I’ve focused classroom rules less on a comprehensive list of specific behaviors, and much more on some general guiding principles. You can’t ever predict the ways kids will be stupid, so instead build up some general expectations, some guidelines, and correct the kids when they violate those guidelines.
Moderation? Same thing. You can’t ever predict all the ways that posters can be jerks. So instead of trying to come up with a comprehensive set of rules, go with deliberately vague rules.
Does banning people for an offense they didn’t commit lead to people leaving? Uh, okay. That’s irrelevant.
Do people who feel they have nothing to lose act extra-obnoxious? Not everyone does. That’s a pretty shitty impulse, and non-jerks don’t give in to that impulse. If someone does follow that impulse, I want them gone.
Seriously, you think this is better here than in the Pit?
So because this guy appreciates certain transgressive jokes by a professional comedian, he can’t have an opinion about standards of behavior for posters on this board?
And what’s with this thing of equating an opinion about misogynistic language with a desire to be “defender of women”? That’s Gamergate bullshit.
I think this endless loop of every voice in a thread being equal and needing addressing is why I’ve mostly drifted over to Twitter, where my voice is lost in a crowd, but I’m reading a lot more diverse commentary. In the end the rancorous children are going to kill the Dope, and I’m not sure much will be done to slow it down.
Moderator Note
Let’s dial back the personal jabs. If you want to fight with one another, take it to the Pit.
Colibri
No, I simply think that someone who passionately defends and champions a man (“Professional Comedian” or no) like the loathesome Louis C.K. while at the same time trumpeting his commitment to women’s issues to be a rank hypocrite, but if the female members of this messagebaord don’t see it that way, that is perfectly their right.
(I have heard of Gamergate, but do not know what it means)
ETA
I just now saw the note from Colibri after posting…
Sammy’s Choice (2019)
Nazi-like forum moderators force a young man to choose between hate speech and misogyny, rather than allowing him to forgo both. Nominated for 12 Derpy awards, including Falsest Dilemma and Best Supporting Navel-Gazer.
Since you know this to be a fact, you must have been well within earshot.
Except- I dont think they really are.
Why don’t we ask the female moderators to see if they’ve noticed any trends when it comes to female membership and migration?
Is whether or not women are leaving even relevant to this? I’m not going anywhere over this, but I don’t like it. Do I have to be willing to take my ball and go home before what I say matters?
Not at all, and we respect that Op made you feel uncomfortable, and several posters here and in that thread made it clear it was a poor OP. And I hope we will see less and less of that sort of thing. It’s immature.
It’s just that several of us dont want a new ‘rule’ which would be very fuzzy and extremely difficult to moderate.
So anybody should be able to say anything at all, in any thread, and in any phrasing?
In other words, do you think there should be no moderation at all? I get the impression that there are boards like that. I don’t get the impression that they’re known for serious discussion of a wide variety of topics among a wide variety of community members.
Quoted for truth.
It’s possible, of course, to both be very horny about women and to genuinely like women. But they’re certainly not synonymous; and they certainly don’t always go together.
Huh?
It’s a thread about the nature of moderation on these boards. It’s in ATMB, which is where such threads are supposed to go, and where Manda Jo was specifically told to take this discussion. How is that breaking the rules?
Not all boards with active moderation have a forum in which to (among other things) discuss moderators’ decisions. I rather like it that this one does.
Words in English very often apply to a spectrum of behavior. Attempting to insist that they must only apply to the very worst examples is both inaccurate, and unreasonably limiting.
Having fantasies is not automatically misogynyst. Talking about those fantasies in ways that reduce women in general, or specific women, to being only targets for such fantasies is. Insisting against contrary evidence that doing so is simply the normal and unavoidable baseline for human society definitely is.
Emphasizing this idea, again. The OP was also being insulting to men; most of whom are not so under the control of their immediate sexual urges that they become hazards in traffic because women are also out on the street.
What new rule? The “don’t be a jerk” rule suffices nicely.
You then would claim that “hey nice ass, I’d hit that” directed to a non-poster, would be a infraction?
No clue. Depends on the context. I was simply responding to your concern about inventing new rules.
At the risk of conferring significance on a subject I find extraordinarily unimportant, (the opinions of horndogs, not the significance of misogyny) I think a separate discussion about the level of disdain for an entire gender needed to be considered to be misogynistic might be worthwhile. Stealth assumptions abound in defense of male discussions of women’s desirability as sex partners in every possible case. The fact that such discussions might have parallels in female discussions about males is not relevant.
The audience included when a person is reduced to an object does not moderate the degree of prejudice the stated desire to “hit that” demonstrates. The thought itself is misogyny. That is a thing. A woman is a person. It is a tiny bit more civilized to simply not say it out loud. But it doesn’t change the fact that an undeclared misogynist is still a misogynist. It does allow the rest of us to ignore his viewpoint.
Tris
Rutting like a weasel is a useful characteristic among weasels. It produces more weasels.
I’m comfortable with that. Not warnable, perhaps, especially on the first offense, but if, say in a thread in Cafe Society talking about attractive actors, someone says, "I gotta say, when I watch [actress], all I can think is, “'I’d hit that”, I think that’s setting a tone we don’t want, and a note is appropriate. If someone is talking in IMHO about family dynamics, and they are like “It’s awkward going to my family reunions, because my cousin’s wife is HOT and I gotta admit, I’d hit that if I got the chance,” likewise, I think a note is a good idea. I think that sort of language makes it difficult for women to participate in those threads on the same terms as men.
Why is objectifying language such a sacred thing? How is it NOT being a jerk?