In the past you’ve encouraged me to take seriously the claims of conservative posters who talk about how this board and certain posts can mischaracterize and denigrate conservatives. I’m dismayed that you seem to be refusing even the possibility of taking your own advice in the event that women on this board tell you something similar about certain posts in terms of misogyny and victim-blaming.
If, say, all the women on the board telling you that you’re wrong about the interpretation of a post with regards to misogyny and victim blaming couldn’t convince you that you might be wrong, then I guess there’s no point of me even trying to convince you that there’s even the slightest possibility that you’re wrong.
What’s funny is that I’ve seen you change your mind before, and it didn’t take every woman on the board making an argument to make it happen. What is it about this particular issue that makes it so impossible that there’s even the slightest possibility that you could be making an incorrect judgment?
How do you know all this, and why are you so certain? If you’re not certain, and this is just how you feel based on your initial reading, is that really more important than how the women of the board see it, if the reason for the rules on misogyny are for the purpose of improving the culture and “welcoming” nature of the board?
The idea that if a woman says something then it should be given more weight I view along the same lines as saying if a woman says something then it should be given less weight. Both are not how I view things.
There is always the possibility that I’m wrong. I’ve read what you and others have written and assessed the arguments. I disagree with them. Do you think it’s impossible that you’re wrong? Given the same set of facts, people can come to different conclusions. It’s clear you have a problem with HD and I think that influences your perception. Combine that with your prioritization of issues related to the treatment of women and I think it’s easy to see how others may not share your views.
For me, I’ve found many of his posts to be problematic and have issued his last two warnings and initiated a suspension. It’s not like I’m in anyone’s corner. I simply disagree with your interpretation. In other times where I’ve reconsidered various judgments, arguments were presented that were persuasive. That’s not the case here.
You can keep referring to it, and I’ll laugh every time you bring it up. All the mods enforce the rules. It’s like, our raison d’etre. You seem to disagree with that enforcement. I accept your disagreement.
It’s definitely possible that I’m wrong, and that I’m influenced by my biases. But on the issue of misogyny and victim blaming, I think the opinion of women and survivors actually does carry more weight than those who aren’t women or survivors. Just as I’d trust a doctor or a physicist more on topics of medicine or physics.
That may be the difference here. If so, I hope that you’ll consider that maybe women and survivors have better insight into these topics than you and I do.
Let’s look at his exact words. “I’m simply pointing out that her accusation, which was the central focus of a political squabble, exposed a family to death threats.”
Do you think he meant these as completely unrelated clauses? If all he wanted to argue was that Kavanaugh was exposed to death threats, he could have simply stated that. But he purposely tied Ford to those death threats.
Victim blaming doesn’t have to be a 100% assignment of blame. All that is needed is the suggestion that the victim is partially responsible, and that’s exactly what he did here.
I don’t want my opinions as a woman and an assault survivor to weigh more, but I DO want them to be understood and not dismissed. I was looking at a thread from a year ago the other day, and I was saddened to see how many women are no longer posting here. So many of them had valuable contributions to make in all sorts of threads, and they’re all gone. If mods shrug and say, “Well, they wanted us to weigh their views more heavily, and we couldn’t do that,” I think it oversimplifies the situation.
I get it that you saw HD’s comment on Ford as purely political, Bone. After all, nothing wrong with anyone saying a woman and her allies exposed someone to death threats for political reasons. Except context matters. HD merely added politics to the list of ulterior motives those who are loathe to believe women sexual assault victims–you know, the list that includes revenge and regret. The message is clear: women lie. That’s the misogynistic part. And if his point was that exposing someone to death threats is something Dems have done, too (a weak argument, as others have pointed out), he surely could have avoided using this particular, highly inflammatory example. It was like throwing a little hand grenade into the thread. He chose to do so anyway.
I don’t want HD banned. I said this in a comment in the Just This Side of Trolling thread. I want him to change his ways–not his politics, just his means of expressing them and how he posts. (And others, too, of whatever political persuasion. And I appreciate the mods’ attempts to do so, including yours, Bone. Clearly, though, they’re not working.
Kavanagh was not accused of rape by Blasey Ford, and the accusations she did make were probably false, based on the evidence presented to the public.
She is, based on the evidence, not a victim of Kavanagh, and so any criticism of her is not victim blaming. Observing that women can, and do, falsely accuse men of sexual abuse is not misogyny. And a culture, on this board or otherwise, that doesn’t demand strong evidence for such serious claims is a flawed culture.
She reported nothing to any authorities at the time. She later told one of my senators DECADES later. And that senator, her ‘ally’, kept it quiet until she could use it politically in an attempt to deny a Senate confirmation.
I think the difference here is that when shit is thrown, it looks way different depending on whether you’re viewing it from a safe place and seeing it as an isolated instance, or whether it’s thrown in your direction, just like the time before and the time before that.
We need mods who can relate to what it looks like from the latter perspective.
That intelligent women who had worthwhile things to say keep dropping off the boards on account of this shit is enough evidence for me - and should be enough evidence for the mods - that this shit is being under-enforced.
Nuts to that. The Prime Directive is “don’t be a jerk.” With respect to jerkishness, there’s no magic line where you’re not a jerk on one side of the line, and a jerk on the other side.
Using that particular example - yeah, that was being a jerk AFAIAC.
Hurricane Ditka assigned CBF a nefarious ulterior motive. You know, like revenge or regret? This may be an unusual motive to try to pin on her (she’s playing politics) but it’s still part of the same old “women lie about rape” that women hear all the time and helps to shut us up about it.
This is misogyny.
What Hurricane Ditka posted:
Probably not. Dr. Blasey Ford and her allies exposed Justice Kavanaugh’s family to death threats because they thought it might help their side in a political squabble. I don’t recall many Democrats saying that was “a pretty shitty thing to do”, so the complaint now rings hollow to me. Sorry.
My emphasis added. Oh, that’s the way I understand the usage of the word “blame”. She exposed his family to death threats. In other words, she is to blame for the threats that his family received- not because she made the threats, but because she exposed his family to the threats.