You could try making a poll, comparing it against previous pills. That should demonstrate… Something, right?
Alternatively “then my cousin said ‘I’d hit that’ about his classmate and I called him out on it”, would not. Context.
No. His mind’s made up.
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=21800082&postcount=8
But he is not one of the very worst examples. He is not guilty of violence against women as far as I know. That makes him a garden-variety misogynist as I understand the term. Whereas someone who has not expressed hatred against women as a class is just not a misogynist at all, whatever else they may be.
This is what always happens. The guillotiners become the guillotined. In campaigns to wipe out moral impurity, someone will outflank you eventually.
Because the rule has always been that non-posters can be insulted. Even insults directed at non-posters where it is known that posters hold the exact same views.
For example, someone can say “People who want to outlaw abortion hate women and want to return to white male sexual domination” (or something similar) even in a thread where other posters have expressed pro-life views. Religion is talked about as believing in sky fairies. These are strongly held views by posters and is tremendously insulting. They should not be banned or moderated.
The remedy for poor speech is better speech. The moderation comes in where a poster insults another poster or uses known pejoratives and hate speech towards groups, not just uncouth ones. So yeah, in response to another poster, why can’t we have a “Why are blacks so stupid?” thread? Ignore the thread, pit the OP, or engage in a slugfest and point out why the OP is incorrect. That’s what we do: fight ignorance. If the OP starts throwing around N-bombs, then yes, that is out of bounds. Moderate that.
If “setting a tone we don’t want” is the standard, then almost every post needs moderated under such a revolutionary rule.
And that totally makes it okay? :dubious:
The difference between “n-bombs” and “hit that” is one of degree, not type–in both cases, it’s a matter of language being inherently dehumanizing and serve to make it impossible for members of the group to participate on an even footing: the well has already been poisoned. I’ll happily concede that the n-word’s legacy of violence and oppression makes is especially dehumanizing, but that doesn’t mean it is a special case and it and it alone can be moderated.
This “matter of degree” standard leads directly to enforcing ideological purity. Favor a more restrictive immigration policy? Bigot. Critical of all religions but particularly one that is used to harshly oppress women, gays, and atheists? Islamophobic bigot. Etc.
No, the unwillingness to accept nuance and belief in absolutes is what creates extremism and ideological purity. Free speech is good? It must be totally free and any limitations on it are just a slippery slope to 1984.
Nuance exists. Degrees exist. We are going to draw a line. We have to decide where it’s at. I am arguing it should be on the far side of “hit that”, because objectifying/dehumanizing language limits the ability of the targeted group to participate in the conversation. I think it should be NOTED.
Current events have proven that “good speech drives out bad speech” is false. Exactly the opposite is true, particularly on online forums.
Okay, what if instead he had written “All I can think about is how I just wanna grab that ass and get all up in there”?
How are women unable to participate in that thread? Argue that the OP (in that thread)'s problem is that he views women he meets as sex objects. Perhaps that is why he cannot have a conversation with his wife, etc. How are you in any way unable to fully participate simply because you are insulted? I participate in all sorts of political threads where posters insult my strongly held beliefs or my motives.
Also you keep throwing around “insulting.” That’s never been the standard here unless it is a direct insult at a poster.
Hate speech has always been the standard. I’m not going to list them, but those words that are commonly and indisputably understood to be hate speech. “Hit that” is not hate speech by any measure of that term. It’s a pretty shitty thing to say, but the mods will be busy indeed if that is the new standard.
I cannot fully participate because I can’t talk about the topic before I first establish that I even have standing to participate in the conversation. I’ve been excluded by the whole thing.
And the moderator already WAS busy, did post. He posted a good solid paragraph avoiding the central issue, when he could have just said “knock it off with the objectifying expressions. They are offensive and don’t serve to move the conversation forward”.
Why must mods be NEUTRAL on someone being a gross, objectifying jerk?
What does that even mean? What part of the topic made it off-limits for women? If anything, the thread would be helped by women participating.
At most, you could say that the thread made you uncomfortable therefore you could choose not to participate. There is no requirement of participating in every thread. If you find it distasteful, why not let those who would chose to participate to have at it while you move onto other threads that you like? Why the need to eradicate these threads that offend you when you have the full power to avoid them? It’s not like this is happening in your living room or something.
Manda Jo, I respect your views and opinions and I’m pretty sure at this point I know where you are coming from and how you feel about this…
… but I disagree with you. While I agree that some moderation is necessary I feel that you are just this side of too restrictive here.
Silencing an viewpoint on this board does not make it go away in the larger world. I would prefer such attitudes to be voiced and countered on this forum. YMMV. These sorts of jerks need to hear that their attitudes are NOT the norm instead of us driving them away, at which point they might wind up on a forum that just acts as an echo-chamber for them.
As far as gross… what with threads about prehensile rectums, frying semen, placenta recipes, various medical conditions and skin infections, and so forth “gross” is CLEARLY not a disqualifier around here.
And just in case I wasn’t clear, I abhor such descriptions of women. I do not support them in any way.
No, but earlier there was a bunch of gender-biased talk. Which, by the way, would also be infractable if the rules were tightened. “The moderation on this board isn’t women-friendly because only men are still moderators”. “Only men are man-splaining in this thread”.
Arguably quite biased, a person of any gender should be able to make fair and reasonable decisions and if we truly wanted a world of equality, it would not matter how many men or women were in a discussion.
She’s not talking about silencing a viewpoint. She’s talking about rejecting demeaning expressions.
Ultravires, aren’t you a practicing attorney? Don’t you make your living by arguing over the exact interpretation of statutes, among other things like the meaning of a verbal statement by a witness? If so, you’re a far more credible source as to what “is is” and what hate speech is.
Not my forum, of course, but that’s absolute nonsense. If one requires validation before one can speak then one is ceding one’s right to be heard at all. That’s your choice, certainly. But don’t use it as an excuse to dodge an issue.
It’s pithy, I know, but I’ve long been fond of the saying, “If you take what they give you, you get what you deserve.”
You want to effect change? You want to see new paradigms? Speak loudly and firmly. No one can give you the authority to be self-actualized and possess your own agency. Only you can do that. If you choose not to, then fine. That’s your call and I’ll support you in it. But don’t tell me you need someone else’s permission to speak.