I am having trouble thinking threadshitting as a no-no in the Pit. People drop in all the time there and say “weak pit and you suck more than what you’re pitting”. If you want to topic ban a few assholes, ok, but “no threadshitting in the Pit” is bullshit.
At this point we might as well allow anonymous guest posters in the pit and rename it PitChan.
And they’re STILL doing it. A new thread was just started to discuss the male circumcision hijacks. They don’t care. COME ON.
In a forum where a person can post a topic and the very first response can be to tell them that their topic sucks and they suck and everything they ever do will suck until the end of time, it seems quite strange to me to object to hijacking and threadshitting.
Here is a trivially easy solution - post topics where hijacking and threadshitting are not allowed. Like, every other forum on the board.
the answer to them from now on
Faisez bien gaffe parce que moi j’ai mon super gilet jaune
That’s veering into quarry-throwing territory, but to save other folks time, the Google translation is, “Be careful because I have my super yellow vest.”
Mods, please read this piece by an eminent Yale bioethicist specifically arguing that it is wrong to segregate discussions of male and female genital cutting. If you judge discussing one gender in a thread nominally about another to qualify as “hijacking”, he very persuasively argues, you are implicitly taking a stance. And not one that looks very likely to be judged well by history.
It is possible to consider circumcision as barbaric a practice as FGM* and still object to hijacking of discussions of FGM because it’s not about the similarities between FGM and circumcision, it’s about MRAs using it as a transparently obvious tactic to drown out discussion of women issues on this board.
Just like you can think men are disadvantaged in divorce courts, as I do, and still not man-jump into every discussion about how terrible patriarchy is for women with “what about the men…”
*I know I do, but perhaps it’s because I come from a country where one set of cultures still does circumcision to teenage boys with rusty spears in a makeshift brush hut without painkillers or antiseptics and counts a score of needless deaths every year as par for the course. And I don’t really see a moral difference between that and doing it to a baby anywhere
The problem with that: All rants go in the Pit.
There is no forum where we can complain about FGM and also not allow people to hijack it. If you make a rant outside the Pit, it will either be closed or moved there.
There is no other forum that the FGM Pit thread could have gone in, since it is most certainly a rant.
I can think of two possible solutions: The first is to allow there to be Pit threads where hijacking and threadshitting aren’t allowed. The second is to allow rants in MPSIMS.
Well, there is a third: treat hijacks of women’s topics differently. Say that the rule about not allowing that applies in the Pit as well.
Terrible idea. The carve-out itself is unwarranted (and genital cutting is not just a women’s issue, that’s the whole point the Yale bioethicist is trying to make). But more broadly, anyone who knows anything about tax or trade policy knows that if you carve out an exception for one group, every other group is going to start bleating for their own safe harbor and decry the unfairness (and narrowly speaking, they will be right).
I’d say the general “rule” would be to more heavily moderate hijacks where you turn a women’s issue (e.g. FGM) into a men’s issue. Crack down before they take over the thread, at the first attempt.
Your post made it sounds more like people need to make a special request in the OP. Like an FGM debate thread would have to explicitly say, “Male circumcision is off topic.” I think that should just be the default.
Note that this is in addition to my previous post, not a substitution.
So could someone then start a thread about female rape victims and explicitly state that discussion of the rape of transwomen is not allowed, or maybe only allowed if they are postoperative and no longer have penises? :dubious:
Yeah, we should totally allow hypothetical transphobic misogynists to get to define what "female’ means, good thinking, the parallels are so starkly obvious…
Only if you consider transwomen to NOT be women… if you view transwomen as women then of course the rape of transwomen would be on topic in a thread about women being raped.
Seriously, can we STOP being obsessed with the state of peoples’ genitals? Between the penis-worshippers and the folks wanting minute details about whether not some other people have this or that equipment and the other folks wanting to change whatever equipment they or someone else have… don’t these people have something else important to think about, like working to pay the bills, what’s for dinner, or the time of sunset in their area?
To use a legal analogy, let’s compare the concepts of “colorable claim” versus a “frivolous claim.” A colorable claim is:
This is in contrast with a frivolous claim:
SlackerInc linked to an article by Brian Earp, an Associate Director of the Yale-Hastings Program in Ethics and Health Policy at Yale University. Mr. Earp argues that male and female genital cutting are sufficiently similar to be compared with one another. Even if Earp is ultimately shown to be wrong, his arguments should have sufficient gravitas to be considered a colorable claim and not dismissed as frivolous. He is precisely the type of authority that might be called to testify in court over this issue.
And yet, nobody cares, because you’re still making a thread about female genital mutilation all about circumcision. The fact you can find a bioethicist to make a pathetically weak argument for you doesn’t change that fact. That you didn’t post that until page 8 of an ongoing thread, a thread where your first post was on page 3, talking about circumcision, makes it even worse. You made 22 off-topic posts in a thread about female genital mutilation, ending with a really weak defense of why you were constantly threadshitting! SlackerInc was right - I didn’t read the post the first time around. Because why should I? It’s off topic, and I can tell that from the first fucking line! Really, I could tell by the time I was done reading the postbit.
And yes, I do say really weak. It’s a terrible fucking argument. Putting it in a spoiler here…
[spoiler]I’m going to get into this not because I want to drag up the FGM/Circumcision debate, but because it’s entirely germane to the question “was that threadshitting” (it was). Brian Earp’s blog post is long and winding, but one important point to justify all of his further arguments is this:
So it depends on what you’re talking about. Do those who oppose FGM (and that includes me) think (as I do) that even certain “minor” or “medicalized” forms of such cutting—done without consent, and without a medical indication—are inconsistent with medical ethics, deeply-rooted moral and legal ideals about bodily integrity, the principle of personal autonomy, and a child’s interest in an open future? Or is it only the wholesale removal of the clitoris – with a broken piece of glass – that inspires such condemnation?
His argument is based in the context of comparing like and like. FGM is bad, but a lot of male circumcision is done in brutal and unclean contexts, which is similarly bad. Also, some FGM isn’t really all that bad, and is comparable to circumcision. That’s a necessary premise to even continue arguing about this. And in the context of the thread, that’s not the case. Several of the girls in question had their entire clitorises removed. Meanwhile, your argument against circumcision is entirely general and based on the concept of basic human rights. Which is all well and good, but removing your foreskin is not the equivalent of cutting off your clitoris. That’s why the law against FGM has never faced any serious challenge in court on the basis of “discrimination” - because these things are tangibly different in ways that matter.
This painfully bad argument was not responded to in the thread because by that point it was already page 8 and people were sick and tired of dealing with this nonsense. It may have something to do with the fact that, of your previous 16 posts in the thread, exactly one was on-topic, and some of them were absolute fucking howlers:
(Bolding mine. Holy shit, dude. I’m stupid enough to hit on my polyamorous girlfriend’s sister and not realize this is an obvious no-go, and even I can tell that that’s about as tactful as Trump’s twitter feed!)
And you have the unmitigated gall to say, “Now that I actually am talking about female anatomy and moving on from penises, I’m still getting complaints.” :mad: Geez, I cannot imagine why.
[/spoiler]
In short: virtually every post you made in that thread was off-topic threadshitting. And since it’s clear that, despite our urging, you’re not going to stop doing that, it would be nice if the moderators would encourage you to do so.
Also, this guy probably isn’t going to stop threadshitting in FGM threads either. So we’re left with two options:
- The moderators fix the problem
- The problem continues
Can we please, please fix the problem? 
The basic rule is pretty much always the same. Report the post, make your case in the report. Moderators will make the call. Happily, in a forum with more than one moderator, you only need to convince one of us.
Or hell, start a thread, report it yourself and ask for an early intervention where a moderator states that such discussion is for FGM only. If we agree, we can state it early and leave it be. There are no guarantees of moderator action, but it’s an approach that might work.