I found post #73 interesting, but probably not for the reasons you would think. More on that in a bit, but here is post #73:
There is no substantive argument here. There is no identification of the single sentence that folks are finding objectionable. This is an appeal to consider different perspectives, but it doesn’t identify what/why/how the sentence in question in objectionable.
Now, as to why I find it interesting - the first paragraph is much like how I think about conservative leaning views on the board.
That’s exactly the problem, Bone. As is described in the just this side of trolling thread, and as we have expressed to the moderation here time and time again, that’s the problem. There isn’t a single sentence we find objectionable, but in context, based on the behavior of certain posters over time, the problem is obvious. I’d think context matters – according to the rules of this message board, “Context is critical when interpreting the rules and moderation will take such into account”. Are you saying that this is no longer the case – that context must be completely ignored, and we can only look for single sentences that are objectionable on their own? If so, I humbly request you adjust the rules to reflect this apparent change in policy.
I think it’s case by case. Some things I think are more difficult to evaluate from the perspective outside of the group. Others are not. In this case, I see it as a question of interpretation of essentially a single sentence. Remember, the question being responded to was whether everyone could agree that exposing someone to death threats because of political upside is bad. That’s the context to evaluate the objectionable sentence.
I addressed this in post #9:
In this particular case, I don’t think perspectives from women add significant additional value than that of men. The analysis of the content stands on its own merit. The two operative questions - existence of threats, and political activities are not controversial.
Do you seriously think this is what I’m saying? This is the type of comment that is easily disregarded because it’s fundamentally unserious.
In any event, I think you lost the line of this portion of the thread. I said I addressed all substantive arguments. RT pointed out a post he didn’t feel was addressed. I responded saying there was no actual argument in that post. Nor is there in your post, beyond saying there isn’t anything there, but something should be done because reasons.
HD’s position, which is typical of many males who haven’t dealt with rape, is that it was so long ago that the accusation shouldn’t have been taken seriously to begin with, as though the memory of being physically assaulted and humiliated should just conveniently disappear.
It’s very ironic that you dismissively refer to my point about how you’re only considering one sentence rather than the whole point by considering only one sentence from my post. Unless our definition of the word “context” differs quite considerably, I’m not joking at all, no. If this is the case, why do you keep asking for a single objectionable sentence?
Here is my question to you. When you refer to “context”, do you mean the context of the line within the post? Or the context of the post within the poster’s history? Because the argument we are making, that you have failed to address, is that in the context of this poster’s history on the board, he has consistently derailed threads, made racist and misogynistic remarks, etc… He was even suspended for it.
Within THAT context, and within the context of his many, many previous comments on both Ford and Kavanaugh, I think it’s very clear that he DID bring up Ford in order to say exactly what we claim he said: that the death threats on Kavanaugh are Ford’s fault, because she accused him of sexual assault for political gain.
I don’t see how that’s a stretch, but again, that’s because I am considering the context of Hurricane Ditka’s history as a poster rather than only looking for a single objectionable line in a single post, as you’ve been asking us to produce.
I’m quite certain that this has been identified, over and over again – here is the sentence that is objectionable:
“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.”
That is clearly assigning blame to Ford (and her allies) for death threats. Further, that is assigning a motivation for the actions of Ford (and her allies) as to “help their side in a political squabble”. That’s misogynistic, in that it’s both victim blaming and denigration of a woman for telling her story – blaming Ford for death threats, and assigning despicable motives for such a significant and personal action (speaking up about a sexual assault).
Yeah, but the sentence is not objectionable enough for Bone according to his previous post, because Ditka isn’t clearly enough placing the blame on Ford rather than the Democrats. My point is, in the CONTEXT of Ditka’s previous history, it’s pretty freaking clear why he brought up Ford, so even if the sentence is ambiguous, his intent is not.
And where a woman’s perspective should have been of help, Bone, is where a whole lot of women pointed out that yes, ascribing ulterior motives to a woman for reporting a sexual assault IS something that women deal with all the time, and it IS something that makes them feel unwelcome on these boards. But apparently that doesn’t matter.
You have, and I’ve responded to your arguments. My statement was referring to RT’s post #73.
This is kind of repetitive - I disagree about “blame”. But there is something slightly new - do you attribute zero political motivation in Ford’s action? It seems like you do.
For me, I don’t think assigning motivation (political) is misogynistic in and of itself. I certainly think there was some political motivation - one of the goals was to prevent Kavanaugh from being appointed. Ford entered a political process - it’s axiomatic that it was at least in part political.
A man reported the post, and women have chimed in to agree and explain why the post was misogynistic, based in part on the context of our culture, and the specific poster. Bone has explained that he disagrees.
People have asked Bone to give some thought to the women’s posts. He responded that he gives no greater weight to women’s or men’s posts.
Women (and men) have pointed out reasons why that might be a bad policy when it comes to deciding whether a post is misogynistic, as there are differences of experience with the subject matter, among other reasons. It is also pointed out that Bone has not responded to the women’s posts.
Bone responds to one of those posts (by a man, I think) to say that there is nothing substantive in those posts to respond to.
Did I get any of that wrong?
It’s disheartening to see how this conversation is going.
Since your views naturally influence how you interpret the post in question and therefore influence how you moderate it, I’m curious as to whether the other mods interpret this the same way.
I make no comment on motives. In fact, I think it’s inappropriate, in general, to ascribe motives to an accuser of sexual assault/rape/etc. without very strong evidence one way or the other.
I don’t necessarily think assigning motivation is misogynistic, but when it’s paired with this sort of victim-blaming, and when the motivation implies dishonesty (as it did here, especially when the possibility of just wanting to tell her story about her experiences with a powerful man is ignored), it becomes clear misogyny.
But even more than that, this issue was brought up out of the blue. Kavanaugh and Ford were not part of this conversation. With the history of this poster and the sanctions they’ve received so far, it seems highly unlikely that they chose such an incredibly incendiary “example” (and it was a terrible example, as you’ve acknowledged), and framed it (almost certainly deliberately) in such a denigrating and victim-blaming way, just for the purposes of contrasting the issue. That would seem to violate a handful of board rules… and this is a serial offender. I would think serial offenders would be watched more closely, and given less slack. ISTM that I’ve received mod notes for much less – bringing up Trump’s history of sexual assault in unrelated threads.
I could be influenced by bias, of course. And so could you.
I’m also very curious about the views of the other moderators. I think only one has chimed in, IIRC. And I’m most interested in the views of the administrator. Are there any plans for any of them to contribute to this discussion?
I don’t think this is the right thread to debate the veracity / falsity of her accusation, but I guess I can clarify my opposition to asahi’s claim about my position a bit more:
My doubts about the veracity of Ford’s story has very little to do with the length of time that has elapsed since the alleged events. It has far, FAR more to do with the lack of corroborating evidence / details: She doesn’t know what year it happened, or where; the other people she said were at the party don’t remember it; etc.
You agree with HD that she had ulterior motives? She wasn’t just telling her story because she thought it was relevant to the situation -that the SC nominee had once tried to rape her and people making the decision should take this into account before putting him on the court for life?
I chose the example I did because it was the first one I thought of that I was confident I could easily provide cites documenting the death threats. I distinctly remembered reading articles about the death threats directed towards Mrs. Kavanaugh, and so anticipating a demand for a cite, I picked an example I was confident I could provide citations for. It wasn’t intended as a “hand grenade” or to sidetrack that thread with a re-litigation of Ford’s accusations. It was explaining my thinking in response to the question posed to me, with a prominent example that I felt confident I could provide citations for if asked.
Truth or lie or anything in between has zero to do with it - especially as you’ve offensively characterized it. Ford entered a political process. I see every question from every person, every statement, every witness, every single iota related to the appointment process as in part, political. Every single part of the process is designed to serve to answer one question - should the nominee be confirmed.