So, what’s your beef with the logical expansion of that rule to sexist bullshit comments, which most of us can agree is pretty jerkish? That’s all that’s happening here.
I take this question seriously. IMO, it’s “insult by proxy”.
However, in the “Why does this board lean left Democrat?”, I get the impression that you are fine with insulting conservatives as a group. (Indeed, some of the comments by other posters in that thread parrallel those given in the misogyny thread. “Don’t like it? Use the ignore feature, grow thicker skin, or leave”.)
While Republicans and Catholics can change their affiliation with those groups, it’s much harder to change gender or race, so I won’t go as far as to say these situations are equivalent.
But, IMO, it’s still insulting by proxy, staying within the board rules as we know them.
My apologies for the misread.
Me, in my first post to this thread:
This applied to everybody. That was the whole point. So you can drop the complaint about the unfairness of my only modding one side now, right?
So how many feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
Likening the board to a romantic restaurant is not only silly but a little creepy as well. At least, I’m not here for the romance, anyway.
It would be similar if the restaurant allowed anyone at all to come and sit at your table and join in the conversation anonymously. See, this is a message board, not a place to woo partners.
Not everyone is going to be happy with what everyone else has to say. If the purpose was the dining and romantic pleasure of you and your partner, you would be on the right track.
If the purpose is to have an open discussion with hundreds of different people anonymously, you’ll have to find a different model to work from.
Which was still addressing me and one other poster, and not the false accusation, which it makes no reference to.
You apologized for the misread, but you still haven’t done anything to moderate it. So no, it’s still unfair.
Personally, I think the new rule is fine. I think your apparent interpretation of it is far more broad, and I would have concerns about it if your views on it were how it were implemented.
Plus there’s the whole tipping thing.
Feminists don’t screw anywhere, all sexual intercourse is rape.
And when it does get extrapolated to your experiences on this message board, then it will be modded, and nobody seems to have a problem with that.
That’s terrible. What does it have to do with half-naked grown women wearing Pope hats?
I think the problem is that the attitude I am displaying has very little to do with harassing teen-agers, and a lot more to do with making crude jokes about grown women who expose themselves in public wearing silly hats and hand out condoms.
How far do you want to take this slippery slope?
No, there was no such implication, and the pantsless woman was not violated in any way.
What is being argued is that women (or men) who expose themselves in ridiculous ways are subject to being ridiculed.
Regards,
Shodan
that’s not funny
:rolleyes:
Claiming that the extent of the damage isn’t felt because she isn’t a poster here is sort of being willfully ignorant to the harmful culture it creates in the first place. The culture the rest of us experience every single day. Which was the point in the first place.
You’re right. I modded some other posts to make the same point, but I didn’t mod that post. I’ll try to be a little more careful, but I hope there’s not going be too much more of this nonsense in any form.
Knock it off. Not because it’s sexist or sexual, but because it’s dumb and kind of a threadshit.
So, the board staff tries to use the existing rules about hijacking, insults, and don’t be a jerk to become a bit more strict on the issue of sexism and/or misogyny, and they get hammered by ATMB protests about “changing the rules” and “not announcing the rules changes”.
So they sit down to craft a statement of intent so they can provide new guidelines on this closer scrutiny, and they get hammered that the existing rules were sufficient.
You’re not the only one who noticed that. It’s not a problem if people wanted more insight and more specifics in how we were going to look at these posts and how we were going to handle them. But it’s all ‘being a jerk,’ so it’s not some entirely new concept.
I don’t think the great majority of us came here to offend anyone. Personally, my curiosity is piqued, and I’d like to see what it’s like being as asexual and apolitical here as I am at my workplace. It’s served me well there, and if there’s an actual need here there’s plenty of better-skilled snarksmiths to keep the craft alive.
But for God’s sake, please don’t ever censor Slug’s drawings!
The point being they were wrong to do the moderating they did in the sorority girl and pantless protestor threads, and they are wrong to come up with this new policy. It’s a solution looking for a problem, with certain mods falling over themselves to out-liberal each other.
Woohoo…look at sensitive and politically correct we are. Watch us pat ourselves on the back. Oh it is so hard to be a mod…poor little us…you posters are sooo mean. :rolleyes:
Back to Analogies 101 with you, if you think the “romance” was the relevant part of the analogy. I’ve already explained what was relevant. But anyway:
So, like a bar? Like the kind of bar where a guy can get welcomed into the conversation if he says something interesting, but if he keeps jumping into conversations to say something nasty, the bouncer can kick him out? Oh noes, censorship!
Nitpick: At no point in the trying-to-get-fired thread did I say inappropriately-dressed young woman was hot. Just inappropriately dressed, and young.