Of course good manners has to do with the content of the speech–how could it not?
If I know someone whose husband just committed suicide, and I’d like to let them know that I believe suicides go to hell, there is no polite way to convey this sentiment to them.
And if you despise that, fair enough.
If you just opened this like I told you to, tie yourself down to whatever chair you’re sitting in, because this email is going to be a rough fucking ride.
(emphasis added)
Well, right there’s an interesing example - jtgain’s question includes an ironic use of slut-shaming language, which many consider an expression of social misogyny and by extension harmful to all women in the “creates a hostile environment” sense. Absent clarification of intent, it can be interpreted as done in all earnestness and thus an example of those who Don’t Get It, or it can be interpreted as done deliberately ironically in order to show up the disconnect in the discourse.
Considering that most women I know, even if the obscenities (and references to what sounds like an extremely uncomfortable act of genital violence) were removed and rephrased, would object to many of the basic ideas in the sorority leader’s message anyway, I could imagine that they would prefer to keep that thread focused on her message and style rather than hear jokes about “hey, is it wrong this turns me on”. (Even if, to themselves, their first reactiom may be indeed have been to think “sorority sluts!”)
There’s something seriously wrong here - I find myself in agreement with magellan01.
April R’s comment was not off topic. It was explicitly on topic, starting with directly quoting the comment made by the girl in question. The girl’s rant was very much along the lines that her sorority sisters were not doing enough to make their fraternity brothers happy. And then that girl injudiciously chooses her words and phrases an inadvertent double-entendre that sabotages her intent. It is fully on topic to point out the unintended double-entendre and the effects of that. Doing so in a humorous way is a bonus.
Happy Lavender’s comment is also not off topic. I would also argue it does not cast all women as sex objects. It does cast this particular woman’s behavior as inadvertently sexy, but that does not make a grander statement about women.
I accept that Ellen Cherry was attempting to start the awareness-raising on how sexist attitudes are going to be more tightly moderated under the “don’t be a jerk” rule, and I appreciate that she started with a mod note rather than jumping to warnings. I feel this particular instance was the wrong place to start and the wrong approach to trying to make a meaningful difference in board culture.
In general, it does not make sense to start at the weakest offenses. Rather, jump on the obvious and worst-case situations that are unambiguous, and work from there. If you hit the Drunky Smurf kinda comments hard and fast, the message will sink in a lot faster and clearer, and people will begin to assess their own responses more carefully.
Furthermore, I agree with Oakminster that courtesy to board participants directs that there should be an announcement in all Forums about how the moderation on this topic is being tightened. Even if it is not an official new rule, it is a new perspective and new enforcement. Quibbling over “it’s not a new rule” and “we’re not required to” is poor form from Marley23. It looks like excuse mongering and whiny defensiveness. At a minimum, consider the tone of the responses if providing clarification, i.e. “We’re not creating a new rule, but yes, we are increasing scrutiny on sexist and mysoginistic comments via the “don’t be a jerk” rule,” rather than “We didn’t make any new rules.”
There is a difference between “she is such a slutty sorority chick” and “sorority chicks are such sluts”. One directs the comment about a specific woman, the other is a comment about a class of women. Although I do see JRDelirious’ point about slut-shaming language and how it is evident in both remarks.
However, in this instance, I see both comments were more of a comment against one specific woman.
[deleted - separate ongoing thread]
That is not a matter of political correctness equivalency to manners. You made the equivalence, not me, I don’t have to justify it.
I was gonna step up in defense of Drunky, who is really getting slammed here, but fuck it.
First, I think the answer ought to be obvious but seems to have escaped people: there is a nontrivial distance between language that compliments or praises, e.g., a person’s attractiveness, and language that objectifies or denigrates. (I’d add that there is alsoo zelf-mockery about one’s reactions, which is what I at first took Happy’s comment to be – some people find another “talking dirty” to be a real turn-on, and others don’t, and I’d thought he was mocking his own physical reaction.) Compare "Not only can she act, but she has a figure like a sex scene " and “Lookit the rack on that ho.” Me, I very much like civility, and think sophomoric dirty jokes at women’s expense (or indeed anyone’s) is out of place. But there’s also something in me that says that censoring content is wrong – that making people worry whether expressing what they think will get them in hot water is precisely the wrong move. If someone chooses to act like a misbehaving boy hitting puberty, the proper weapon to bring him in line is social opprobrium.
And as regards your other point, my impression is that the staff want to hit misogyny on all fronts, not just directed at another Doper. Same support-with-reservations comments as above apply here too.
He’s getting slammed because he was trolling the shit out of threads on this topic. It would seem he wanted to be made an example of.
That’s the exact issue here. You guys keep making the assumption that the thread was already sexual to begin with. But there is absolutely nothing sexual about the girl’s rant, unless you think using “fuck,” “suck,” and “cunt” automatically make something sexual. She advocated good PR for her sorority during Greek Week. She did it in a mockably stupid way, but it is horribly misogynistic to think “stupid girl” means “slut” or “whore.”
It was April and Happy who decided to take the comments sexual. That’s what made the comments off topic. The general gist of the misogyny thread was that sexual jokes made about women in non-sexual topics counted as misogyny. So that’s the direction Ellen took. At no point did anyone say it should only be about posts directed at another poster.
If anyone made a mistake, it was you guys for not saying what you wanted. Particularly those of you like Oakminster who were here to see the thread but didn’t comment in it or possibly even read it. If you refuse to participate in ATMB, don’t go whining when things change in ways you don’t like.
Not that those in the thread escape unscathed. You guys asked for clarification, didn’t get it, and then just stopped. I tried to get at least a little bit of clarification, but everyone else seemed to be happy and moved on, some to anti-religious bigotry, and others to stuff TubaDiva specifically told you not to talk about, forcing the thread to be closed.
Was this moderation overdone? sure. But stop blaming them when you guys were the ones who were unclear.
You gotta be kidding me. Those words may not approach the mathematical singularity of “must make a sex joke” but they sure IMO come damn close, particularly given the overall context of her screed.
Honestly. I can’t say it better than a dozen other posters have already but IMO the mods are so far off the mark here it’s embarassing.
If I was a mod here I’d keep a sticky nearby. And I’d make sure to note that about every tenth one would get retraction with a WTF? was I thinking.
Are you serious? Did you even read the whole email?
Well, let’s see. Here is an excerpt from that email:
Yeah, nothing sexual here at all, nope. :rolleyes:
As usual, BigT comes in with an idiosyncratic take on the facts.
Is there even one poster who thinks Happy’s joke was an example of something wrong with the boards’ culture? Even those who think misogyny is an issue don’t seem to think so.
Regards,
Shodan
Fine.
I believe that Alice, being white, committed a sin when she married a black man. What is the polite way for me to tell her about my belief?
Where did I imply she was a “stupid girl?” And how does that translate to being a “slut” or “whore?” Quit reading into things that aren’t there.
BigT and Marley it would seem. I would seriously love to hear from others who think it was wrong.
I don’t see it that way. “Fuck” “suck” “dick” etc. are always being used in nonsexual ways on this board. In fact, I roll my eyes when I read comments like “what’s wrong with something sucking? Sucking isn’t a bad thing.”
Again, all those words can be used so sexual meaning is beside the point. Using “cockblock” in a nonsexual way is edgier than using suck and cunt in nonsexual ways, but I don’t think Ms. Sorority Queen Bee was actually saying that her sisters were keeping the fraternity boys from having sex. She was just saying they were being “boners” and not keeping the party lively.
Eleen Cherry says the posts were reported, so probably, yes.
You say you would like to discuss a matter of sinful behavior on her part, and if she agrees to the discussion make than statement. There’s nothing impolite about it in my book. It may not be the book you like though. And it has nothing to do with political correctness. Political correctness would have you say “Alice, being a European-American you have committed a sin by marrying an African-American”, as if it made any difference by the use of the different racist terms than the ones used in your post.
Sometimes? Yeah. Frequently? Probably. ALWAYS? Hells no. And to repeat yet again IMO (and many others) that sorority girl’s tirade taken as a whole (heh) was vertitable garden of sexual jokes and inuendo.
And, to be honest your example of something “sucking” resulting in a “sucking isnt bad” joke “sucks” (in other words it is a tangent that has little to do with the discusion at hand (heh again)".
First, that’s totally rude. Second, if the PC thing is to use different terms, that actually maps closer to the good manners we’re discussing on this board, where we’ll allow people to say terrible things as long as they are sincere and use polite language while they say them.
“Always” in the sense of regularly and notably, as in “clocks are always ticking” or “policemen are always writing tickets.” Not in the sense that there is never an example of it not happening.