IMHO, if someone is reflexively *always *labeling a woman’s accusation as false, without even considering the facts in that particular case, there is a strong case to be made that that is misogynistic.
But we had another poster upthread who said that posters ought to be punished for questioning or challenging a woman’s claim that she has been the victim of a crime. As someone else pointed out, that would mean that if someone challenged the Duke lacrosse accuser’s story as being flimsy, they ought to be punished on the Dope for such an opinion.
There are plenty of ways to express skepticism in a specific account without being misogynistic. The post referenced in the OP utterly failed to do that, for the many reasons already discussed.
I do see that. But the purpose of Helena330’s post was to tell Scumpop to adjust his own behavior so that people would stop telling him to “fuck off” in the Pit.
The heart of this thread, your own post, was to the point that Dr. Blasey Ford and her allies caused Justice Kavanaugh to be exposed to death threats. Some are taking offense to this and construing your post to imply that Dr. Blasey Ford and others who allege sexual assault should not come forward, or that by doing so these alleged victims are to blame for death threats against the accused. They say this shouldn’t be allowed. To which you respond, “Rather than trying to legislate other people’s behavior, why don’t you modify your own”?
Or in this particular vein of posts, we are talking about SamuelA’s opinion which generally attacks Dr. Blasey Ford’s allegation on various grounds. Some take offense to that and say it shouldn’t be allowed because that particular opinion - not necessarily all opinions unfavorable of Dr. Blasey Ford - is misogynist. To which you respond, “Rather than trying to legislate other people’s behavior, why don’t you modify your own”?
I’m trying very hard to be on your side here but you aren’t helping.
As I noted at the time, she completely missed the point. You do too, it seems. I don’t object to being insulted in the Pit. I object to the lazy, boring repetition of variations on “fuck you” and to the lazy, boring, misogynistic repetition of “cunt.”
We want the board to be a place where people can discuss any manner of topic. Most of the time that’s great, but some of the times those topics can be offensive and not every topic is everyone’s cup of tea.
My first instinct when presented with a type of ultimatum is to escalate. That’s why I usually hold my posts for a while before responding.
For me, I’m much more interested and receptive to thoughtful posts from folks like Helena330 and Manda JO, than I am to the more reactionary responses that are often offered. As you say, this is your most important issue, but the persistent efforts to increase what falls under the umbrella of ban worthy ideas is counter-productive in my view. Post reports are very useful - but they only serve to alert moderators to make their own judgments. When everything is reported, with increasing hostility, and where the judgment of the moderation team differs from the more reactionary posters, it builds up a sort of discounting.
I’m willing to address any argument on the merits. But I’m told that if I disagree with an individual’s assessment that something is misogynistic, that makes me a misogynist. And since the charge can be leveled at basically anything, it becomes circular and unassailable. That’s not a discussion any longer.
That makes no sense. I’m not trying to change anyone’s behavior, but I’m certainly speaking out on when they post misogynistic shit. I’m also expressing my displeasure with how it’s being handled. No one has ever told me to fuck off, here or elsewhere.
**Max - ** you’ve said earlier in the thread that you aren’t familiar with HD in particular and his posting history. As someone who is, i can tell you that the behavior that’s frustrating yoh at this moment is not isolated. It is a pattern of behavior and exactly what the rest of us have been complaining about. The fact that, despite you trying to be on HD’s side, you are able to identify his posts as disengenous is very encouraging. We may not always agree, but at least you demonstrate critical thinking and an actual interaction with the posts you are reading. I just wanted to say, I do respect that.
Reactionary - In political science, a reactionary can be defined as a person or entity holding political views that favour a return to a previous political state of society that they believe possessed characteristics that are negatively absent from the contemporary status quo of a society.
I wasn’t aware that there was a previous state of society when women were treated like equals to men.
Other posters in this thread have expressed opinions that Ford cannot be blamed in any way for telling her story and there is no evidence that she isn’t being truthful.
I am just pointing out that her story, whether or not it is based in truth, is a verbal assault intended to cause severe harm. And it’s rather suspicious how 1 sided it is. Like how every victim of a fight in the E.R. was always minding their own business when 2 guys come out of nowhere and attack. Is every assault victim lying? No, but most probably are.
My point was to say that HD has a legitimate point of viewing informing his post and that Ford purposefully attacked kavanaugh with the intent of causing harm. The death threats (both aimed at her and kavanaugh) are a forseeable consequence of her actions.
I certainly understand this. But the post in question wasn’t “on topic”. The topic had nothing to do with Kavanaugh, Ford, or sexual assault allegations in general. I know we’ve rehashed this already, but this is at least one of the sources of our disagreement (and presumably, your other disagreements in this thread, including with the posters you praise as thoughtful below).
I don’t know which group you’re slotting me into, not that it particularly matters. I’ve tried to keep my language and tone appropriate for ATMB and hopefully I’ve succeeded.
Do you find any of these “thoughtful posts” convincing to you, even a little bit? Has your opinion changed at all due to any arguments in this thread? Do you have any doubt about your initial decision, and for that matter, is this issue under any wider discussion among the staff?
I’m not suggesting that such views should be “ban worthy”, except in the sense that every rule violation can lead to a ban if egregious, or repeated, enough.
I’m not sure if this is directed at me, but I don’t believe disagreeing about whether something said by someone else qualifies as misogyny is necessarily misogynistic. I’ve seen nothing from you as a poster or a moderator that indicates to me that you’re a misogynist. I think you’ve generally been a good moderator, I just disagree (incredibly strongly!!!) on this specific issue, and I still want to hear from as many others in the staff and Doper-dom as are interested in contributing. Maybe someone will make an argument that clicks with some of the moderation staff, if they haven’t already.
At this point, I do think it’s reasonable to wonder why the mods don’t have women, minorities and/or the disabled represented amongst their number. I know that we can’t have every viewpoint, but they should at least hear from more than one on the loop.
How about we go a step further. Unless we have an equal representation of all races and genders this means the mod pool is biased. Let’s actively discriminate against mod applicants who are of over represented races and genders in favor of minorities and women. Who we should lower the bar for.
All of the POC or women mods, as far as I know, are no longer mods. TubaDiva is an administrator, of course, but I rather think she may be too busy to moderate. “Used to be” isn’t really helpful in this case.
We used to (so I am told), but apparently TubaDiva wants to recruit more moderators anyways. You can head over to the other thread and suggest more diversity in the up and coming expanded mod pool.