I didn’t think the rules needed changing before, just enforcement. And I’m a likely target of that enforcement too. However, I get your point, the mods are stuck in a no-win situation here.
And, as mentioned, if and when this becomes part of your experience on these boards, it will be modded. And no one will object.
Until then, I find it difficult to believe that reducing the number of jokes on the Internet about pantsless women in Pope hats does much to fight against sexual harassment of 14 year olds. Those two things don’t seem to be very closely connected.
This reminds me of people objecting to pornography because it objectifies women, and thus increases rape. Do you think that is a good argument? Do you think it is at all similar to your argument that making jokes about pubic hair design establishes a culture where school counselors harass minors?
Regards,
Shodan
I can understand what you are saying. I have a 22 year old daughter who I love and for whom I want nothing but the best. I don’t recall any posts I’ve made that I wouldn’t say to her. The extreme examples (tit jokes in breast cancer threads? Seriously?) are repugnant. Anyway, let’s see what happens.
So you’re against Guideline #1 then? It’s your opinion that these sexual references shouldn’t be articulated, even if it’s someone not on the board?
Seriously? Knock it off, Oakminster.
Thanks, mods.
FTR, anyone who reviews my posting history in ATMB will quickly see that I am not up the mods’ asses as a general rule. However, I think this is a good response to what has been a complicated and difficult issue.
I’m a lot more impressed with the mod response to this than I am by the behavior of several other long-time posters in these threads, I’ll tell you that.
Everything that she said. I don’t understand the resistance to treating posters with a basic level of respect, but since it’s there I think the new rules are a good response.
Then the Pit should not exist.
But you did describe her attire in sexualized and humorous language:
“stretch pants so tight that no detail of sub-waistular topography was left uncertain”
“ribbon that did jack-diggly to conceal the level of erectness of her nipples”
“a top sheer enough that no one needed X-ray vision to see that freckles were not confined to her face”
I don’t think it’s beyond the pale to suggest the language in your OP set a tone for the thread, that allowed for other humorous comments to be made.
So mods, are you going to answer the question as to whether the comments that got called out in the bottomless pope woman thread and Skald’s employee thread were in violation of the current rules, and why or why not? If youre not going to answer that question, can you at least acknowledge that you’re not going to answer it, so we’ll stop asking?
I thought it would go without saying that I understand having issues with specific posters. Guess not.
Good job, Mods. A very reasonable solution well explained by Ellen.
But it goes against your “treat other posters with a basic level of respect” idea–have you seen the pit? Respect is actively disregarded. It is not merely “having issues with specific posters.”
Yes, because- as we all know- it is a long held conservative tradition to be an unabashed, sexist pig.
Wait. That can’t possibly be what you’re trying to say.
Not at all, actually. I think Guideline #1 works fantastically in conjunction with Guidelines 2 and 3, which I suspect would more than cover what’s being discussed here.
I don’t buy into the concept that a naked woman is an inherently sexual thing and that she’s “asking for it”- whatever it may be. I don’t think most people here feel that way either. Again, mock away, but that’s a whole world of different from the implication that because she showed her reproductive organs, we get to make crude comments about wanting to fuck her.
Her ideas: stupid. Her protest: absolutely stupid. That doesn’t mean she’s asking to get fucked, as many comments seemed to suggest. We teach this to young children, so I’m not sure why it has brought about such conflict here: attack the ideas, attack the arguments-- but attacking the person is the weakest form of argumentation.
Do I think these opinions should be tempered in real life? Yeah. And I think for the most part they are. It still certainly happens, though. I just don’t get the blowback here about treating each other with the same basic level of human decency we try to display in meatspace.
I meant to say earlier that I’m leaving this for the MPSIMS mods. I sent an email informing them that a couple of posters are asking about these threads.
Ha…says the guy who’s username is a sexual innuendo that ends with “poke her in the rear”.
:rolleyes:
Well, yeah - be a jerk in the pit, and don’t be a jerk on the rest of the board. What’s your point?
Um, who posted the set-up? :rolleyes:
Again - even ironically, this isn’t GD and it’s not the place for a political discussion.
But I think there is a dichotomy here. Let’s say that I say that in general women who don’t wear panties under dresses are sluts that want easy access for fucking. I have a right to say that and you have a right to be offended and the mods have a right to take or not take action as they see fit. The difference is if you were to write in a post that you don’t wear panties then me calling you a slut should have taken action against me because that is a direct attack against you. The question is where do stupid, sexist, racist, political, etc. post cross the line where they need to be censored? For me, juvenile humor about a woman promoting sexuality with no pants on is a target for jokes and I don’t think anyone is advocating or seriously condoning sexual assault. What happened to you in school is completely different.
The other question is what level of violation is there by posting in an anonymous message group? You’re wrong saying I don’t have a right to say something crude like “You sound very fuckable.” if you’re describing something intimate whereas you’re right that I may not have that right to say that standing next to you trying to look down your top because that is a violation of you right to feel safe.
As others point out, private organizations do not need to respect free speech and so the mods are the ones to decide if my “right” to not be censored on their board outweight your “right” to not be offended. Most of the time I think they get it right.
Sure. But I didn’t say she looked GOOD dressed as she was. Just as, when I mentioned in a thread that my wife & I were throwing a dinner party in part as a set up for a pair of female friends of ours, certain persons automatically assumed I was talking about a part of hot young lesbians, not a pair of middle-aged so-so looking lesbians.