What type of reading is this? If I were breaking rules, right, don’t you think I would have been moderated for it? I was noted for how others were responding to me. It’s farcical. I was then topic banned while discussing the moderation and not the topic I was banned from talking about. It’s completely bizarre.
But it is a vindication of giraffe brigade tactics so congrats. Go get your next snark target.
You were.
No, you were mod-noted for breaking the rules. Thread hijacking, for one thing.
Something’s farcical, forsure.
Since you love lurking over there, care to check the last time I posted there? I’ve got a current Pit thread that gives the lie to your paranoia.
You realize that when I post on the topic and in response to a misreading of a clearly written post that that is not a derailment? A derailment is posting junk off topic. My posts were on topic. I’m not responsible for how others respond to me. That is their agency. That is on them. What’s with the infantilizing of those who respond, inaccurately and with inflammatory language, to my on topic posts? That’s the whole point of me questioning the note.
I wouldn’t have questioned it if I had done the derailing. I’ve been noted before when I was off topic and I dropped it. When I’m noted for something I didn’t do and the subject is far reaching yeah I want an explanation. I don’t want an irrelevant topic ban on a subject I’m not even discussing in this thread triggered by discussions of what led to the moderation I was asking about.
Whatever, you and your noisy crew are the squeaky wheel. There’s one of me. There’s many of you. Easier to go with the flow.
The topic was misogyny.
Misandry is not misogyny.
But you knew that.
Hammer, hammer, hammer, saw, saw, saw…
All for the doggie with the soft, soft paw? That’s what my granny used to say.
+0
I’m telling you this counting +1 stuff is fucking pointless. So stop it.
I agree.
I read octopus’s point about “group of men to identify misandry” or whatever as not a serious suggestion but a rhetorical question to illustrate the absurdity of the idea of a council of women to identify misogyny here at the SDMB.
Great move. Thank you! Please strongly consider making it for the whole board.
. 
Another good argument for a like/upvote button. 
There are ways to present a challenge of absurdity to the offered panel suggestion that aren’t indistinguishable from trite whataboutism. If your “rhetorical question” is indistinguishable from actual misogynist tactics, well, I don’t see why the mods need to dig into your motives.
Not that I think that was the case, mind you. I think he was being perfectly serious in his hijack attempt.
You can think what you wish, for now. Just be careful to keep what you write in alignment with what is acceptable now and if you are wise the standards 50 years from now.
I wasn’t hijacking. I’m not responsible for other people’s posts or how they misrepresent mine. Mods don’t have to do any digging. They just shouldn’t be holding poster A responsible for what posters B,C,D,E, etc post in response.
Fortunately, that’s not what’s happening. Unfortunately, I do not believe my pedagogical skills are up to explaining why, in a way that you’ll understand.
Here’s an example:
Thread pops about affirmative action.
Liberal orthodoxy posts the only acceptable point of view.
Octopus says “I don’t believe in discrimination to fight discrimination.”
Liberal orthodoxy and trolls then misrepresent that clear statement as being racist, Nazi!11!, a derailment, trolling, or “jerkish!”
Octopus responds to dishonest characterization and gets mod noted.
Pit thread is opened where liberal orthodoxy can reinforce the view that octopus is indeed whatever they claimed octopus was. Complete with other smears like octopus rapes children.
Liberal orthodoxy can now feel proud to have kept the internet safe once more!
Do you have a link so we can see what actually was posted?
Yep, that certainly is an example.
A sample of “what” is the next question-I suspect that if this existed in real life you would have just provided a link.
I’m hardly a liberal. I’ve argued on this board for years, on many many topics. I’ve argued against affirmative action, and many other topics that are favored by those who are more liberal. I’ve never been pitted (this isn’t an invitation). This idea that non-liberals can’t argue without having their arguments misrepresented is absurd. There are actually quite a few non-liberals who advance arguments and they don’t get pitted either. That’s because they actually engage in substantive argument. If you find yourself getting pitted often, maybe try better arguments?
Do me a favor and define “liberal” please? Who are you referring to?