Fair enough.
Lets go with THAT definition of “always”. Which is pretty much my other definition of always and therefore your point is mooooot.
Oh. I didn’t know that. OK.
When we talk about this whole brouhaha in years to come, can we refer to it as “Bonergate,” since it grows increasingly obvious that I’m going to be best remembered for one of the stupidest and most sophomoric posts I ever made anyway.
Of course not! That sort of misandrist language cannot be allowed to stand!
:rolleyes:
Which is rude, my entire post or my suggested manner of discussing an offensive concept? Either way, I don’t agree with the idea that political correctness is the same as politeness. Political correctness can descend into dishonesty and censorship when it extends beyong the concept of acceptable words, which it often does. I’m not disagreeing that a level of politeness should be used on the board though.
The latter: there is no polite way to tell someone that you think God is sending them to hell. Sometimes it’s worth it to be rude, but it’s definitely rude.
Can you give me an example on this board of polite behavior that’s condemned by political correctness?
I’m not sure what you’re asking for. It doesn’t sound like something I said existed.
Pssst: Irishman. The new policy is a work in progress. The mods aren’t sure where they’re going with this, so announcing a yet-to-be-conceived rule would be premature. Or so I gather, AFAIK, YMMV, blah blah.
[hijack] Awkwardly, even complements tend to denigrate. Weird: I know: but that’s what the data indicates. Kevin Drum:
I think message board posting has a different context than the article linked. Which is why this is a hijack.
Here’s Why “Good Looking” Is Wrong and Damaging – Mother Jones [/hijack]
Even though I was mentioned in the OP I can’t seem to be able to comment. The stupidity of this new unnamed rule has rendered me speechless. I usually comment on the small percentage of moderator decisions I disagree with but the overall quality of moderation is one of the things that keep me here. But if knee jerk reactions become the rule here I’ll have to rethink that. I know, I know, won’t be missed don’t let the door hit you on the way out…
You’ve just used the phrase “you guys” four times in that comment, apparently referring to 4 different sets of people. I can’t tell who did what and who you’re blaming for what.
I don’t think anyone is equating “stupid girl” with “slut” or “whore”. I don’t think it’s ridiculous to recognize that her poor choice of words undermines her message and makes her sound like she’s complaining that her sorority sisters are not getting frisky enough with the fraternity guys. Particularly when you consider other remarks from her twitter account.
Like it or not, the use of sexual slang terms does bring sex into the discussion. Just because you don’t mean for the sexual inuendo does not remove it.
I would agree that a culture of mysogyny is not just about comments about other posters directly, and displaying attitudes about women in general should be considered. I don’t see that the specific remarks crossed that barrier. This thread was nothing like the context of someone asking medical advice and getting a booby joke.
Bullshit. No one can read every thread and participate in every discussion. It’s one thing to see a topic in ATMB and decide not to participate, and then when an outcome is made you disagree with the result. Okay, you missed your opportunity to participate. But Oakminster’s point was not that he didn’t get to affect the decision, his point was that he was unaware that a decision was even made. Policy changes, whether it is the creation of a new rule or it is the reinterpretation of an existing rule to cover a new situation, should be clearly expressed to all members rather than buried pages deep in a thread.
But can you not see how her choice of terms makes it look like she’s bringing sex into the conversation? That her unintended double-entendres undermine her message?
I’m not one to throw in my two cents to an ATMB thread -
But REALLY? After reading that filthy mouthed little tart’s profanity laden email - one of only a few appropriate responses would be “Bitches be crazy”…
And if that type of commentary, about that type of topic, isn’t appropriate - then I’m happily inappropriate 
Sure I can see how it looks like she’s bringing sex into the conversation. It’s a kick for people young and old (especially young) to throw sexual terms into non-sexual conversation. Fuck me running if it ain’t. And like any conversation, you have to bring in fresh material to keep things interesting, so the trendy kids might use cunt punt and (female) boner.
My point in the post you’re quoting was that the diatribe was not actually sexual. And to me that’s what made Happy Lendervedder’s remark somewhat witty: a confused reaction to vast helpings of sexual terms used gratuitously in a non-sexual context by a frighteningly self-assured woman. And directed at other women.
I was saying that a sexual response would not have been entirely justified, but a confused response, yeah. Any titillation a male took from it would be unintentional on the writer’s part.
Why not?
Why would any response be off-limits with that type of OP/thread?
Answering that would involve some fine hair splitting and probably a reenactment of several very long recent threads. But I doubt that either the management here or the majority of posters believe “any of response” (totally without restriction) is appropriate for any thread. You may split hairs if you wish.
It was a little bit of both. I do “get it” but don’t disagree with those who don’t “get it.” To believe that young women should conduct themselves in a responsible sexual manner (and so should men) is not an insult or a hatred against all women.
So maybe I really don’t “get it” about the hostile environment stuff. If that same girl said that she smoked crack every morning before class and we said that was a bad thing, do the comments flow to all women?
You seem to be saying that the comments by April R and Happy Lendervedder were inappropriate for that thread. If that is not what you are saying, then please clarify, because my response is with respect to those comments, not what the lady meant with her statements.
It’s very likely she did not mean “you girls should be blowing our frat bro guests”, that what she meant was that they should be actually talking to the guests, not ignoring them, or worse, talking about hanging out with other guys in front of them. And that is certainly a valid point. But her choice of words provoked a misinterpretive remark for humor value. That says nothing about women in general or even casting all sorority members as bad. It just points out an unintended double entendre.
And that is the point that billfish678 was making to BigT. It doesn’t matter that the girl’s remarks were not intended to be sexual. What matters is that the choice of words combined with the message in such a way as to invite the sexual allusion.
I’d still like an answer to this…
me too. Why wasn’t that remark about sororities being training grounds for hos moderated?
If you are referring to this remark of mine:
It was not a misogynistic remark, nor a claim of fact about sororities, nor a defamatory statement about sororities. It was a sarcastic but logical inference following this series of remarks:
Thus, my conclusion about sororities being a training ground for prostitution was ridiculing the argument that the rant represented some kind of furthering of a legitimate and admirable purpose of sororities.