Misogyny on the SDMB, Sept. 2018 edition

About This Message Board
161

Naw, this place is a business, with revenues and profit expectations. Cite. It is not a publicly funded university, it isn’t a TEDx symposium, it’s a business with financial needs.

As has been argued to the point of near infinite repetition, businesses are not subject to First Amendment concerns. What they are subject to are the demands of the market, branding, positioning, messaging.

Starving Artists words would not be welcome on the pages of USA Today. His words would not be used as advertising copy. A brilliant marketing guru would not repackage his arguments into a blog, replicating them across various social media platforms via paid placements.

Instead, he would be canned. Fired. Disavowed. Distanced. Deleted.

The SDMB isn’t big enough for network effects to drown him out… this place isn’t Facebook, it’s not even MySpace, it’s not even 4Chan. It’s a relatively small community owned by a struggling newspaper who is so desperate to monetize it that they are begging us for suggestions on how to do so. As a business case, the SDMB can no longer afford to allow Starving Artist to remain, especially as poster after poster after poster has, in various discussions of overt misogyny on this Board declared their intent to leave, allow their paid subscriptions to lapse, or even just… leave, period, without saying a word.

It has nothing to do with “echo chambers”, it really doesn’t. It goes down to what will make the SDMB a viable money-making enterprise, and having a member who constantly, for years, makes arguments which morally and viscerally disgust the vast majority of those who read them, these arguments growing more pronounced as the regular user base slowly declines, runs counter to the financial and business needs of this Board.

In short, there is no market for pro-pedophilia arguments. There is no market for sexual assault apologia. There is no market for Starving Artist.

162

Thanks, with more attitude like this, i think we can all work together to get rid of the worst… and slowly on the rest, with us clueless blokes.(which, I admit I am)

163

I hate to be thought of as defending SA, since I think he should banned, but “defender of pedophilia”?:confused:

164

the infamous defense he made of some football coach…

165

This bears repeating. It’s one thing to invite guests to your house only for them to find that the hosts are allowing the strident despicables to hold court in the living room, bellowing that life was much better when the ladies and the Negroes knew their proper place: some people will argue, most people will move to a better conversation, and quite a few will leave in disgust. But it’s quite another to try and sell tickets to a gathering only for to find that the same repugnancies are still permitted to hold court, and the organisers just shrug and say, “Well, if he swore we might be able to do something, but as it is our hands are tied.” You want to sell more tickets to this soiree, you tell the troglodyte arseholes who are ruining it to shut up or leave your party.

166

Things have changed. 25 years ago, it was fairly easy to distinguish between people who expressed unpopular views and trolls… And yes, this IS about trolls.Trolls are aren’t just bored idiots smoking weed in their parents’ basements any more. They’re “steadily upping their game,” as Time magazine says:

Yes, banning unpopular viewpoints would be bad for the SDMB. That’s not what’s going on here. I suggested in another thread we simply ignore people like SA. The problem with my suggestion is that unlike the trolls of old, the intention is not merely to engage others; it’s to chase them away:

The SDMB ignores this new reality at its own peril.

167

It doesn’t matter what Starving Artist thinks. What was described is objectively attempted rape. There can be arguments that what is described didn’t actually happen, but there is no argument that what is described is not rape.

Abortion is not like this at all. There very much is an argument for and against it. It is not something objective, like the definition of attempted rape. The issue with veterans also has always had both sides. It is not something objective, like the definition of attempted rape.

These things are not equal. This is not an issue of differing opinion. This is a guy seeing all the requirements for attempted rape and saying “It’s not that bad.”

He is saying that it’s okay to find a drunk woman, pin her to a bed, and start trying to take her clothes off and penetrate her.

I think it’s very, very reasonable to draw a line there and say that you cannot say that. It attacks all rape victims. It condones violating the law. There isn’t a debate among non-rapists that such actions are not acceptable.

And if that makes us an echo chamber to not allow the idea that it should be okay to pin a woman to a bed and start trying to penetrate her, then that’s a good echo chamber. That’s one that tells people that we don’t let in the people who would try to hurt them.

168

You really, REALLY don’t want to – the thread ran to something like what, 300 pages, and he got really, really disgusting. All because he was so obsessed with lionizing Joe Paterno.

Somebody could probably find the particular post where he went over the edge, but quite frankly, I don’t have the stomach.

169

While I realize the mods have a difficult job, as stated in this case a crime (rape) was dismissed as* [not] “all that serious”* and then the victim was blamed as deserving/causing it.

How is this not in violation of the registration rules?

I am not qualified at all to discuss what the board should do for policy, and I am probably subject to confirmation bias. But outside of sexual assault and rape I can’t think of other topics where this is allowed on the board.

Please correct me if I am mistaken but is there a unique exception for rape myth acceptance? Because I can absolutely see how a poster would view the current policy as doing so.

While I would personally prefer to debate such individuals; as a member of a group that isn’t commonly subject to this type of crime and harassment my desires shouldn’t be given any weight at all.

IMHO rules enforcement should always error on the side of providing a safe environment for those subject to abuse and crimes of violence.

170

You can refuse to talk to somebody who spews abuse and does not address any point directed at the discussion. Sticking your fingers in your ears and going “lalalalalalala, you’re just brainwashed” is the height of rudeness. Ignoring every point raised by other posters is the height of rudeness.
You are not free to have a different “opinion” about an issue of law. It’s not a moral issue. Whether something is unlawful is a matter of fact and has nothing to do with “morals”. When something is unlawful, you don’t get to say it’s really ok. The legislature decides and when it has said that you are WRONG, you get to shut up. Or, get yourself elected and stand up and say that you think women are fair game as long as they manage to fight you off…

I’m sick to death of being called a “liberal” because I object to some troglodyte’s delusions. It’s absurd. Every time somebody abuses you for being the member of a group after you have repeatedly said that you are not, they are being monumentally rude.

As for calling him names, when I am being repeatedly attacked, I am entitled to respond in kind. Posters really do not have to put up with constant abuse (and Lalalalalala I’m going to ignore any point made and regurgitate "you are brainwashed! you are a liberal! blah blah blah blah is just abuse, it isn’t furthering any discussion on a topic). It isn’t a “differing opinion” it’s responding to points with lalalalalala abuse abuse abuse, I don’t have to listen! Childish, unhelpful, rude and ridiculous.

171

<Hijack> If you read my previous post carefully, you will notice I stated the pro-life position without saying it was mine, and followed it up with “If I were a pro-lifer. . . .” I AM NOT A PRO-LIFER. I was on the fence at one point in college, wrote a paper on the subject to make up my mind, ended up pro-choice (mainly because I didn’t want to force babies to have babies in the name of morality), but I understand both sides, and the only thing I’m sure of is that anyone who thinks one side’s obviously right and the other’s obviously wrong doesn’t really understand the issue. <Rant> We’re not just post-fact, we’re post-opinion. People act like politics, morality, and religion can be proven scientifically, while evolution and global warming are up for grabs. </Rant> </Hijack>

:: pauses to breathe and sip some water ::

Yeah, he invalidated rape victims. :frowning: I fold.

I think SA’s going to leave here angrily thinking liberals can’t handle the truth or honest debate. I wish we had more conservatives. There are a lot of them out there, and they can’t all be brainwashed, either. I even enjoy seeing an occasional racist getting pwned, not by insults, but by overwhelming evidence. It makes it obvious they’re not brave iconoclasts, just wrong.

172

Aren’t “conservatives” generally supposed to be in favour of “law and order”? If so, we’ve got lots and lots, all arguing with the lefty who wants sex offenders to walk free…

Political delusions have nothing to do with discussing a specific topic. I think anyone mentioning republican/democrat or conservative/liberal or any of that should get an insta-ban, especially when it’s directed at foreigners. Stick to the point (if you have one) and keep the accusations and abuse to yourself.

EDIT There’s no doubt that Starving Artist has painted himself as some sort of warrior for “his side” (whatever the hell side that’s meant to be :D). He’s obviously not well, and there’s nothing anybody can do about that (unfortunately). He’ll be preaching his “virtues” to whomever will listen. It’s rather sad, but nothing will make any difference.

173

Please excuse the nitpick: to whoever will listen. It’s the subject of the clause.

174

Continuing the hijack… Answer the question, and that will tell you which it should be.

Who is listening? He is listening. Vs whom is listening? Him is listening.

175

Bloody hell. The person who is listening is the object, not the subject. “Preaching (to)” is the verb, not “listening”.

176

Sorry, again… Preach to he/him who will listen.

177

Preaching to him, not preaching to he.

178

Then leave off the part “will listen.” That’s what fucks it up.

179

Except it doesn’t…:smiley:

180

Welcome to The Dope!