Saint_Cad:
Two questions:
So women can view an alleged misogynistic post dispassionately but men can’t?
No.
Can we implement a council of Republicans to mod the “All Republicans are deplorable ignorant racist women-haters.” posts?
No.
(I mean, I’m not a mod, but your questions ain’t rocket science)
Roderick_Femm:
Then what do you have left? Your solution pretty much guts the board of non-trivial content.
Filmore , I don’t normally go this route, but if you don’t like these threads, don’t open them, don’t read them. Also don’t deny them to everyone else.
(emphasis mine)
This is the approach I recommend to everyone (feminists, trans-, Republicans, African-Americans, whatever).
HurricaneDitka:
(emphasis mine)
This is the approach I recommend to everyone (feminists, trans-, Republicans, African-Americans, whatever).
Your idea is no better than his, and your analogy is completely off-base. What thread can I safely open with certainty that it won’t contain vile and hateful posts against whatever group I identify with? It’s one thing to suggest banning entire subject matters; it’s a very different to suggest banning troll posters so that the rest of us can have rational discussions about those subject matters.
Roderick_Femm:
Filmore , I don’t normally go this route, but if you don’t like these threads, don’t open them, don’t read them.
HurricaneDitka:
(emphasis mine)
This is the approach I recommend to everyone (feminists, trans-, Republicans, African-Americans, whatever).
Yes, we know, that you two, are in favor of keeping the misogyny and misogynists around.
You might want to check my posting history before throwing charges like that around. Or stop posting drunky.
filmore:
Maybe what we need to do is ban discussion threads about controversial topics, like politics, sexism, religion, guns, etc…
Ya, probably best to just have two forums:
Cats & Kittens 24/7 would be derailed by endless online shouting matchings regarding declawing.
The same day the forum was opened, someone would post a thread titled “Kitten drowning: Bag, or no bag?”
Says the guy telling other people if they are bothered with misogyny they should just not look at those threads.
“Because the free expression of ideas, like misogyny, is more important than people.”
How else is that not advocating for keeping misogyny on this withering website?
And apparently, revenue, for this dying place.
Tuba.
filmore:
Maybe what we need to do is ban discussion threads about controversial topics, like politics, sexism, religion, guns, etc. I’m tired of gun threads getting taken over by posters who want unlimited access to guns for everyone. I’m tired of political threads getting taken over by conservative derp. I’m tired of sexual assault threads getting taken over by nitpickers who insist it didn’t happen unless there’s recordings from 4 video feeds and everyone is visibly holding their drivers license. Those kinds of threads are always going to be controversial and antagonistic. There are plenty of other places on the web to discuss those topics. …
So I would say that rather trying to deal with trollish behavior in these controversial topics, just prohibit those kinds of threads altogether.
Roderick_Femm:
Then what do you have left? Your solution pretty much guts the board of non-trivial content.
Filmore , I don’t normally go this route, but if you don’t like these threads, don’t open them, don’t read them. Also don’t deny them to everyone else.
Drunky_Smurf:
Says the guy telling other people if they are bothered with misogyny they should just not look at those threads.
“Because the free expression of ideas, like misogyny, is more important than people.”
How else is that not advocating for keeping misogyny on this withering website?
Here is the context. Filmore was advocating banning whole subject matters, because he was tired of how they got derailed. I suggested that, rather than deprive everyone of the ability to discuss those topics, he should just not open threads on those topics. The fact that HurricaneDitka chimed in and used my comment out of context has apparently steered you wrong. After which you invented a quote and, by implication, attributed it to me.
Now that you have read all this (which you should have done in the first place) I’m holding my breath for an apology.
kayaker
October 1, 2018, 7:20pm
113
He’s not logged on. Maybe start breathing for a bit at least, then take and hold a deep breath once he’s aware of the situation.
That was intended to be deeply ironic, since an apology is the last thing I would expect from that poster.
How did I use your quote out of context? I quoted the entire post. That quoting contains a link back to the original and where it landed in the thread. How is any of that “out of context”?
I don’t care. Your post added onto mine made it seem, to sloppy readers like Drunky, that my post agreed with yours. It doesn’t, my post was completely unrelated to what you posted.
Roderick_Femm:
I don’t care. Your post added onto mine made it seem, to sloppy readers like Drunky, that my post agreed with yours. It doesn’t, my post was completely unrelated to what you posted.
Since you don’t care, perhaps you don’t realize, but my post was basically an “I agree with this” post.
Roderick_Femm:
Here is the context. Filmore was advocating banning whole subject matters, because he was tired of how they got derailed. I suggested that, rather than deprive everyone of the ability to discuss those topics, he should just not open threads on those topics. The fact that HurricaneDitka chimed in and used my comment out of context has apparently steered you wrong. After which you invented a quote and, by implication, attributed it to me.
Now that you have read all this (which you should have done in the first place) I’m holding my breath for an apology.
You are correct.
I read that wrong and mixed you up with someone else.
I apologize for my stupidity.
kayaker
October 2, 2018, 12:06pm
120
See, now aren’t you glad you breathed?!
