More like tap dancing on landmines. Eggshells don’t obliterate you when you step on the wrong one.
No it’s not. Unless (generic) you are prone to being a misogynistic jerk to begin with.
The adults are talking
Poster B got a warning because it was the second time in the thread he had made a personal insult, which is has always been a bright-line violation. It doesn’t matter if he’s white-knighting Betsy DeVos against misogyny, you cannot straight-up call someone a misogynist outside the pit. That’s what the report button is for.
The concerted push to tamp down on misogynist language is only 6 months old, IIRC, so Poster A was within the rules at the time (sadly). The rules have now changed (gladly!). So if you are sincerely upset at the misogynistic speech you’ve found, Shodan’s fate should be a welcome example and strengthen your resolve to report such concerning speech when you see it. If, indeed, that’s what your real motive here is.
But really, it all comes down to what gets reported. I am 100% confident that when this gets reported it gets sanctioned. If you cherry pick 100 times a liberal called someone a ‘cunt’ and didn’t get warned for it, I think you’re seeing 100 times that conservatives read it without giving a damn. So it’s kind of hilarious now to see conservatives calling out others for misogyny and simultaneously arguing that Shodan got shafted. Pick one and run with it.
Yeah, it was different in the ‘80s and ‘90s. Cecil himself could say anything he wanted.
But…eh. I understand the new directives against shitheadedness. I’ve been reprimanded at least twice for noting that Grace Slick exposed herself onstage during Jefferson Airplane concerts in the 1960s. And I myself have been mocked because I don’t wear underpants.
Hey, Jen! How’s yer embouchure holding up?
Did you see Jumpbass’s thread in Cafe Society about his brand new fucking HELICON? (Envy envy envy bad sin envy)
I don’t have a lot of strong opinions on banning or no-ban.
I didn’t see eye to eye with Shodan, but I knew enough about him to conclude he wasn’t all bad. He adopted children - that’s not something typically associated with a douchebag.
If it works like that, how many old ladies do I have to help across the street before I can get away with robbing a bank?
42
This seems like a ticky tack ban. I don’t often visit the more turbulent forums like GD and P&E though I read, but seldom post to, the Pit. I’m not happy reading about Shodan’s language in those forums but I simply can’t get banningfully outraged about this last straw infraction either.
I recommend reinstatement with a topic ban and restriction to certain forums with tighter rules. Make clear the short leash and hope for the best.
Are you kidding me? That’s always the excuse people trot out when someone they know does despicable things. She abused her kids, but she was a Girl Scout leader and everybody loved her. He beat his wife, but he was a policeman and saved lives. He flew a confederate flag, but he’s the town mayor and was re-elected five times.
We’re online. That a poster may do good things in the real world doesn’t decide how his posting record should be judged. Or maybe it does: it’s even worse that a supposedly good person wastes our lives by being an asshole on our message board. Why do we need to be his targets?
Unbelievable.
Are you seriously comparing robbing a bank to using a bad word ?
The fact that you fail to understand the point that the poster was making and believe that he is comparing the moderation staff to the murderers of Emmett Till is a prime example of the rather poorly thought out moderation of this board at times.
As someone who lurks here more than he posts I can understand why they banned him. That being said I will miss Shodan’s posts; they could occasionally be entertaining. I haven’t been this disappointed in a banning since Diogenes the Cynic was banned.
I wouldn’t say (and I didn’t say) that I’d consider it “proper”. What I said is that I don’t think it would be considered seriously offensive if someone used “harpy” in response to a vicious nasty malicious disgusting diatribe on the part of a woman. I referenced Coulter and McDonald as two examples of women that some might consider (from different ends of the political spectrum) as engaging in vicious nasty malicious disgusting diatribes.
Horseshit. Nowhere did Shodan suggest that he believed Dr. Bartholet to be engaging in a vicious nasty malicious disgusting diatribe. He simply disagreed with and disapproved of her reasonable, and temperately and rationally expressed, opinion about homeschooling.
It was no more appropriate to call Dr. Bartholet a “harpy” in that context than it would have been to call her a “whore”.
But I’ll bear it in mind that you were okay with it. :dubious:
Moderator Notes
Don’t tell anyone to shut up in ATMB. You don’t get to decide who can say what.
madmonk28 clearly used the word to discuss potential moderation about the word. Your comment is just provoking a fight. Do not intentionally stir things up in ATMB.
Do not belittle other users. Treat others with respect in this forum.
Both of you need to dial it back and be more respectful to others.
Completely agree and understand your position. But this kind of illustrates the point I was making earlier. Quicksilver called Ivanka Trump a cunt in MPSIMS and not a single person reported it. But I’d cheerfully bet everything I own that if Shodan had, say, called Hillary Clinton a cunt outside the Pit it’d have been reported, like, 50 times. And before any morons chime in with ”Oh, but Ivanka is a cunt and Hillary isn’t” well … only one of them spent years opposing gay marriage and only one of them voted for Iraq. It’s not the moderation per se that’s unbalanced, it’s the reporting.
But, I mean, there is a real world where patterns of behavior exist. Maybe awareness of those patterns, particularly as they relate to superficially similar insults, leads some people to read in a certain meaning based on context, and that just because they had to “read in” that meaning doesn’t mean they were wrong.
If Ash (just to pick a name at random) wants to get across a point that is in line with misogyny, but hopes to sneak it in under the radar by coding it with what might otherwise be taken as something neutral or borderline (a sort of dog whistle), but then Shannon (another name at random) reads what Ash wrote and picks up on the misogynistic undertone that Ash was really only hoping their “fellow travelers” (let’s call them) would pick up on, is it really Shannon’s fault that they picked up on the intended signal, even as Ash was hoping only certain people (other than Ash) would pick up on it?
And conversely, if Shannon has the social intelligence to see similar phrasing used, but in a different context, and realize that there isn’t necessarily a “dog whistle” kind of thing going on, can Shannon be blamed for electing not to report it? Even if they grant that it’s at best ambiguous?
Put another way… if you read misogyny into something, maybe you should report it? Because the same or similar words strung together can, in fact, convey different undertones, different meanings, based in part on the context, both societal and relative to other words/names in the phrase, in which they are used.
Again, this board is not some pristine self-contained ecosystem. There is a real world where, not only do words have meaning, but certain “memes” exist that may tend to signal things that the words themselves, in isolation, may not.
None of that is to say I am endorsing what was said about Ivanka Trump. Only that I don’t necessarily see it fitting into the same mold as similar comments that tend to signal support for misogyny.
On an infinite timeline, every moderated message board will head towards an echo chamber.
Certainly better than the alternative, especially in this case. If Shodan had been banned any sooner I’d have been surprised, but I was literally not surprised at all to see him banned just now. He’s gotten worse and worse and worse, all the time just keeping his head above the troll line. It’s like he didn’t learn anything from Clothahump and Ditka’s departures. That’s the key in my opinion. F-P and Velocity realize that they need to be more civil even if others get to be more hostile, just because their opinions are seen as hostile, while Shodan seemed to take the banning of the others to mean that some conservative troll had to step up their game to keep the liberals in line. It was trolling the entire time; we just couldn’t tell for sure because there were worse trolls.
Personally, I wish they’d suspend people who are long time posters like that for several years, just to give them a good time away from the board, and have them do something else with their life for a while and see if they ever manage to return. One month or shorter bans are really weak sauce; unless it’s at least 3 months, it really doesn’t change people’s lifestyle all that much, which I think is the point of the suspensions. It really wrankles me looking at past threads and seeing a lot of people banned, and many of them for such a long time they’d probably never come back if they were unbanned but not notified. If they were just 5 year bans, it wouldn’t look like the board used to be full of trolls in those old threads. People who sit out 5 years and come back you’ll be able to tell right away whether they’ve changed, and you can get the permaban out then.
The 2017 example is a great example of how Bone was a biased mod, routinely doing exactly what you p look interesting out – letting misogyny slide while using the “personal insults” rule to nail anyone who pointed misogyny out.
I hope you reported the second post Because it was highly inappropriate. I have.