Getting back to the OP, I still would like to see a proposed answer as to how “shut up and nod” would be done in practice.
Are the mods really supposed to step in and say “All of you who are not Category X, shut up and nod when Category X talks?” That sounds ripe for all kinds of abuse.
That was what I wondered as well - anyone can claim to be a woman, black, Jew, or transgender on the Dope - but the OP did say that “when women are unanimous, men should shut up and nod.” So, presumably a male MRA who poses as a woman, and says things that aren’t in line with what other Dope women are saying, wouldn’t see his opinion prevail. However, it could, still undermine what would have been unanimity for other, real, women.
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
nm
Women’s views about what is, in some sort of objective sense, offensive, should not be given more weight, and I don’t think that’s what is meant.
Women’s ability to recognize misogyny, and even more specifically, misogynistic tropes, will tend to be more accurate than men as a group. This is from the experience of being steeped in it on a regular basis. As humans we have an ability to learn to see patterns in things that are harmful to us. Recognizing a misogynistic pattern is easier when it most directly affects you.
When a man, or a group of men, declare that something – conduct or words, whatever – is not misogynistic, but numerous women disagree, the man or men should strongly consider that they are failing to recognize something that is obvious to the women, but about which the man or men lack experience. It is not shameful to lack the experience (being a woman in society) to recognize the pattern. It is shameful to refuse to consider the relevance of all or most women disagreeing with the assessment of the men.
In addition, on the topic of offense, while there is no single authority on what is objectively offensive, if a whole bunch of individuals from one group are saying they are offended by something, and say they feel unwelcome because of it, then you have to decide if you care about that. Because, absent some showing that a whole group is being disingenuous, people are offended by what they are offended by. You can’t say, I deem your feeling of unwelcomeness to be unfounded. So, if you care that a particular group is feeling unwelcome or denigrated, you’ll need to decide if it warrants some remedial action. But it won’t work to tell the group members to not feel offended.
I should also mention that such false claims may not necessarily be malicious or conspiratorial. It could be as simple as giving people false info in an attempt to protect their own privacy (which Essjay had claimed to have done in the previous controversy I mentioned, though I am dubious), or maybe they don’t set out to be an agent provocateur but just make a false claim because they feel their opinion should count and nobody will take them seriously unless they claim to be a member of some subgroup. That doesn’t make such claims any less false, though, and they still undermine the idea that a person’s claimed status should hold preference.
Honestly I try to take most people at their word. If you say you’re a gay black WWII veteran, I don’t have a reason to call you a liar. I like to believe that most people who volunteer info about themselves are honest. I try to be. But if you’re setting board policy you should not do so based on the idea that you have unanimous support or condemnation from a certain demographic because that information is not verifiable. Just try to do what seems objectively fair.
Frankly, I think one of the most refreshing things about discussions on the Internet is that it can sidestep all those issues wrapped up in “identity”. People can have their opinions / arguments taken and considered on their own merit, without having them discounted because they’re young, or old, or male / female, or black / white, etc.
I hate the trend to start out discussions / arguments / opinions with “As a (insert various “identity” characteristics here)_, I think …”.
Yup, I enjoy the privilege that comes from being a white male too. I never have to worry about my perspective being ignored.
I don’t think this logically follows. People affected by [whatever] are less likely to overlook it when it happens but are also more likely to see it where it doesn’t actually exist, simply because they’re highly sensitive to it. (More on this below.) Hard to say with certainty how it shakes out overall, but no inherent reason to assume that they would see it with more accuracy, as opposed to just more frequently.
If you add up all the women asserting that this or that is misogyny, that’s a minuscule percentage of “women”. For example, I know several RL women off the top of my head who have expressed views of Ms. Ford which are far harsher than what HD said (or anything I’ve seen on this MB) and the same applies to media people. The women who post to these threads are a self selected group who are predisposed to take the viewpoint that they take. Even beyond my prior point, there’s no logical reason for anyone to be particularly swayed by the views expressed by this small and self-selected group.
I disagree with this too, for a couple of reasons.
For one, how much weight to give to the fact that someone is offended, when balanced against other considerations, is absolutely dependent on - among other things - how reasonable that feeling is. For example, suppose a poster tended to take any disagreement with his position as an implication that he’s a moron and get insulted, no one would say “hey, bottom line is that this guy is offended and it makes no difference how rational this feeling is”. The fact that the guy’s feeling - however genuine it is - has no valid basis would be a major component in what would likely be the decision to disregard his feelings on this issue.
In this case, the competing consideration is the limits on the ability of other people to express viewpoints about issues based on some people saying their offended by it. In another current thread on the topic, someone claimed that asserting that Ms. Ford was deliberately lying is a misogynistic statement. Making that type of position verboten is pretty limiting, and in that context, how reasonable that feeling of offence is should absolutely be a factor.
But the second point is about expectations. My position when this issue came up a few years back was that the increasing dissatisfaction on this MB over these issues was based on raised expectations and a greater sense of entitlement regarding them. Partly this is based on societal changes and on changes in the composition of this MB, but it’s also the case that making it clear that you feel beholden to satisfy these feelings of offense increases a sense of entitlement in this regard, and increases dissatisfaction. (See related: Revolution of Rising Expectations.) In the couple of years since then, with the staff here cracking down harder and harder on the matter, ISTM that people are not any happier with the situation in this regard - the opposite, if anything. I am not surprised.
Note this does not mean that you shouldn’t do the right thing. But it does mean that “hey, bottom line is that they’re offended, rightly or wrongly” shouldn’t carry much weight, because satisfying any particular demand won’t really change this.
Do you feel the need to start out statements with “as a white male …”? Do you think people whose opinions you care about are going to give your opinion extra weight because of it? When you read / hear opinions that start out with "as a PoC / LGBT / woman / whatever minority “identity”, do you discount those opinions because they’re not white & male?
never mind
No, because “white male” is the default. That’s my privilege.
Unfortunately yes, because white male is the default.
Not intentionally. Because I recognize that I have extra privilege as a white male, I make a point of trying to consider things from other perspectives. But because the white male view is so ingrained in all parts of society, I’m not always successful. Sometimes I need a reminder.
@AnyMod: Have you guys counted the very vocal troglodytes?
And you throw up your hands in impotence because…
Just limit the number of posts anyone can make in any given thread per day: I would say 3 posts per thread per day should be enough for anybody. 4 of you have something new to say and exempt commenting on live events and games.
Let us see if cutting down the volume lessens the noise.
I am astonished that a thread about moderation and board policy has been up for six hours and not seen a single post by a mod. How is this possible?
I don’t think they have any sort of guaranteed response time. Maybe they’re all busy (or, alternatively, sick of our collective shit).
They are volunteers, and have jobs/family/other responsibilities?
They haven’t stopped laughing yet?
I feel like something about bodily autonomy / “their body, their choice” would fit in nicely here.
The Dope is dead, and the trolls dance on its grave
Miller is like chopped liver. See post #4.
For me, I see the OP addressed in post #123 of the previous thread:
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21980648&postcount=123
I don’t have much to add beyond that, other than your interpretation isn’t wholly accurate. Either way, I’m on a plane, so there’s that too.