I’m on my phone so linking is hard, but I started a thread on this a couple of weeks ago. The conclusion I got was that it’s not nice to mock people’s appearance, but we’re not going to make rules against it.
If that were clearly stated as a rule, I doubt **aceplace57 **would have started his “cute model” thread, sparing us the horrors contained within.
It also means that the slobber-drool contained within the Kellyanne Conway thread would have to be foregone, but I don’t think there’s any great loss there. It was basically a list of women that got Doper’s motors going, not some grand intellectual discussion.
If we’re trying to avoid objectifying women, that seems like a good starting point. At least it would be one piece of clear guidance.
Sure, there might be other ways that misogyny can creep into the site, and mods wouldn’t be constrained in using the other rules to control it when they see it elsewhere, but that would cut down significantly on one of the dumber thread types we’re semi-regularly subjected to.
Could you suggest a rule about misogyny that you would understand and feel comfortable with?
By the way, banning all comments about physical appearances and/or features is a no-go for obvious reasons, and the bit about no insulting people due to their physical appearances? “I wasn’t insulting her when I said she was stacked like a brick shithouse!”
Why? What are these “obvious reasons”? Instead of playing coy, why don’t you try to spell them out? Will we be deprived of too many “orange cheeto” jokes? What’s the loss if we just say “no more commentary on physical appearance”?
apologies to Bone for the questions. I didn’t see an obvious way to rephrase this post to eliminate them.
People could neither start or participate in threads about changes they have made to their appearance, and any thread about discrimination due to color, size, shape or physical handicap would be banned. Could you suggest something a little less vague/all encompassing?
First of all, it’s not “vague” at all. I can understand a request for something less “all encompassing”, but one of the key benefits of my proposed rule (at least in my eyes) is precisely that it is not “vague” at all.
As for “any threads about discrimination due to color, size, shape or physical handicap would be banned”, I don’t think that’s necessarily true. One could still condemn being mean to a handicapped person or a brown-skinned person, or a large / pear-shaped person, without commenting on that individual’s physical appearance. Isn’t that what those threads usually consist of (post after post of “bigotry is wrong”)? I don’t recall many posts along the lines of “she doesn’t look all that pear-shaped to me” which would be prohibited by my rule.
First of all, I don’t recall any threads which consisted of vague “bigotry is wrong” posts-they usually get into detail about what bigotry is being discussed. As to your former statement, I’m not seeing how such a thread would work…unless your goal was to stifle conversations about specific issues concerning bigotry.
At the risk of incurring more of Bone’s ire, the quoted portion of my post is a question. You’re saying the onus is on me to answer my own question. I don’t see it that way.
Then where did you get the idea that "those threads usually consist of (post after post of “bigotry is wrong”? What have you seen that gave you that thought?
It was a bit of guesswork based on my perception of the SDMB as primarily a left-wing venue filled with virtue-signaling.
You’ve claimed my guesswork is faulty and that, in reality those threads “usually get into detail about what bigotry is being discussed”. I’ve asked you for a cite, or even an example of such a thread. Do you have one?
I’d support this modification. If a Doper wants to share their recent weight-loss success, for example, and invite others to celebrate with them, or solicit opinions about their new hair style, those could be exceptions.
If that’s all you’ve got to support that “question” then I don’t have to give cites to contradict you, since you have provided absolutely nothing of substance to contradict.
Ok, the answer is “no”, which brings us back to “they usually get into detail about what bigotry is being discussed”. If that’s true, I’d like to see some examples to inform my own opinion about whether the absence of such threads substantially harms the SDMB. It’s possible that such threads are so plentiful and contain such significant intellectual discussion about the nuances of bigotry that I’ll become convinced that my proposed rule will leave us with a significant loss and abandon the proposal. Do you have any examples of such threads? Or are we discussing unicorns and objecting to my proposed rule because it will scare away all such unicorns?