In this thread some posters are now saying that they would like sexism to be banned from this message board. What definition of “sexism” would be used in this context?
Discriminating, I’m down with that. We need threads to define ‘prejudice’ and ‘sterotyping’.
It is truly the height of pedantry that this thread even needs to exist. Do you want a textbook definition, or a list of example posts that should have been moderated under “don’t be a jerk / misogynist”?
What I want is for those that want “sexism” striken from this board to tell me how narrow or broad a definition they wish to be used for this purpose, and whether there is a general concensus.
Fairly new poster here, are posts advocating or evocative of other unpopular stances (racism, religious bigotry, homophobia) forbidden on the SDMB?
Not yet, for the most part.
Ok. I vote that it stays that way. If the other positions were forbidden, adding sexism to the list seems reasonable, but if they aren’t, it seems baseless to forbid sexist speech.
No, though you have to watch out for the ‘don’t be a jerk’ rule. Most of the posters who attempt threads on racism, religious bigotry, homophobia, etc and are banned aren’t banned because of the subject, but because they are obviously trolling and/or being complete jerks. The real danger is that long time posters sometimes get a bit worked up and can pick up warnings, but I think the mods are good about seeing provocations and taking that into account. AFAIK, there aren’t a lot of forbidden subjects on this board though, as long as you keep ‘don’t be a jerk’ rule in mind.
So answer my question. Do you want a definition, or examples?
I think a definition, with examples if you think it would clarify. Personally, I think the dictionary definition is too vague and too open to interpretation to be used for the purpose proposed here, but I’m sure others will disagree.
Because with absolute certainty I can predict what will happen either way. If you are provided with a definition of “sexism” as it pertains to posters and statements on this board, you’re going to be privy to the most concerted “reductio ad absurdum” you’ve ever seen in your life. Put forth, I would imagine, by the charming contingent of gentlemen in the ATMB thread you linked in your OP. They will put forth arguments aiming to demonstrate that if you seek to moderate misogyny on this board, that I also would have you destroy puppies, happiness, the smiles of babies, and free speech and expression as we know it.
If I give you a laundry list of examples, including examples that have been moderated in both Pit threads and the ATMB thread, that same charming contingent will argue that these were jokes, I am oversensitive, need to toughen up, and that my examples are insufficient to demonstrate any accused “sexism” and therefore the whole thing should be dropped.
Care to take bets?
No-I’d rather just try to have an honest discussion, rather than try to predict how a conversation will go before it has even started.
Can I have a definition for “trolling” and “being a jerk” that would be acceptable to you? Because it’s largely going to piggyback off of that definition.
That’s likely to happen. But you haven’t provided a definition or examples in the context of the OP, which is what we are seeking. This is GD, so ‘oversensitive’ and ‘toughen up’ arguments will have to be carefully constructed or they’ll get modded. There are other threads available to argue through invective, here we’re hoping to get some objective discussion on the topic.
I’d go with obvious and deliberately demeaning language towards someone of the opposite sex in an attempt to troll a reaction and spark some heat. Same as with racism or homophobia…we’ve had racists (hell, there is a thread in GD right now with several of them in there), as well as threads pertaining to homophobia, but they have been allowed to progress as long as the folks touting those philosophies don’t troll and stay within the ‘don’t be a jerk’ (rather nebulous) rules. So, sexists would presumably be banned the same way racists or others would be, by over stepping the rules…not because of the subject, but because of how they pursued debating or discussing it.
That’s my take anyway, FWIW.
That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. One can be just as much of a jerk in furtherance of a mainstream, culturally-normal position like “all races should be legal equals” or “women should be allowed to vote” as in furtherance of a racist or sexist position.
“Deliberate attempt to troll a reaction and spark some heat.”
Would you include jokes?
We don’t need a sharp definition. “Jerk” isn’t a bright-line definition. Vagueness is just fine for parties and messageboards.
Some jokes, sure. Others, not.
I think it depends on context. I also think that people who are being misogynists always think they are “joking” regardless of what the impact is on the target.
Would you consider this post a joke? Because I’m certain that if you asked him, he would say he was only joking, no harm meant, etc. But that’s kind of the problem, that this kind of behavior can easily be shrugged off as “just jokes” when someone takes real, actual offense to what’s being said. That’s going to have to be the job of a moderator, to determine what jokes are funny and what jokes are trolling and inappropriate.
I think that it is a joke that is in bad taste and insensitive that didn’t belong in forum, let alone in that thread. Using XT’s definition of “sexism” I think it would fall under that heading, too.
BTW, do you agree with XT’s definition, or would you modify it?