Your “they” is worthless without links. It appears to be nothing but unicorns; you’ve made this rhetorical-question-clad claim about threads, without specifying which threads you’re talking about. If you want to win via rhetorical flourish, consider a less transparent flourish.
That’s what I said, to Czarcasm. You realize that quote comes from him, in post #230, right?
Because really, aren’t men the true victims here?
I said I was done, but I lie a lot. 
I am not asking for a Lexicon at all. I have said that several times. A bright line rule or even a more vague rule is not a Lexicon. Nobody in this thread has suggested a desire to skirt any lines or any rules. We just want to know what the rules are because things that we have said all of our lives, not meant with any malice, are by the hour becoming offensive to only some women.
The first rule that I need defined is what type of person sets the standard. Is it the most hypersensitive woman in the world? A reasonable woman? I work with (in court) a female attorney who LOVES when she gets compliments on her appearance. Loves it. Probably a little insecure in herself, but if she heard that someone called her a “hottie” then she would be happy for days. As a woman, why is her opinion not the standard?
Likewise, my comment in the Kavanaugh thread discussing the “hot chick” seated behind him was mod noted. What if she, subjectively, would have liked to see a random guy that she doesn’t know comment on her attractiveness? What if she hated it? Why is there a board rule that we take the default left-center-left position that the woman would not like to be called attractive?
Then, of course, there is the subjectiveness of it. Many women would love to be called attractive, but if I said she was ugly or average, then as is human nature, one gets upset and then pulls the misogyny card.
In short, which women are we talking about here in regards to the rule?
And the second part is what is the rule? The only standard I have seen mentioned or argued is that one can respectfully comment on appearance, but not have a juvenile reference to his own penis. Well, that’s not enforced anywhere else on the board. This place allows profanity and vulgarity with regard to any topic. I can say fuck in any thread. Only in this area of discussion do we return to the 1867 standards of Victorian morality.
And that is not the rule because I can say that I want to bang Jennifer Aniston (because she is an actress and makes her appearance relevant, according to the latest incarnation of the rule) but if I say I don’t want to bang Michelle Obama because she looks manly, then the buzzer goes off.
I don’t need or want a Lexicon. I don’t want to call a woman a bitch or a cunt or have a debate about why those words are different. There is no line I want to approach. I think first that the rules should be reasonable and not in response to only the most vocal critics, and that second, they should be consistently applied to similar circumstances, with vulgarity not being a consideration unless we want to apply that across the board.
For fuck’s sake: here, here, here, here, and hundreds more-threads that discuss various forms of bigotry that do not consist of posts that are mere “Bigotry is wrong” toss-offs.
I want to note a caution on this modification. I should have posted it with the original post. The exception might not be desired.
I was thinking about this post in the #metoo backlash thread that got a lot of support.
Maybe a social message board is different enough from a workplace, but maybe not. If it’s not, then comments about anyone’s physical appearance might be fraught with potential inappropriateness. Even inviting comments on one’s own physical appearance might not be a good idea. It might be a good standard for everyone to follow, although Bone doesn’t enforce it on anyone else in that setting.
I agree with Bone in that post that bright lines are easier to navigate than gray areas.
Please also note that the modified rule of: disallow any comments on another individual’s appearance without their explicit invitation does away with disallowing comments about groups. I see less potential for offensiveness there because, as has been pointed out, it will largely get called out for bigotry.
Nope.
Apparently women ( which is in of itself an archaic and male-originated designation and is frequently deemed profoundly offensive and limiting by non-CIS humans ) are the only victims here, yes?
Fortunately, “ Don’t Be A Jerk “ doesn’t mention genitalia at all.
So. “ Hen-pecked “ is unacceptable, yes?
Appears that plenty of words and phrases ought to be unacceptable regardless of context or phrasing.
To Wit:
Dressed down.
Slack-Jawed.
Cold-cocked.
Pumped.
Stoked.
Unseemly.
Unmanly.
Unladylike.
Just a start.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
How would you phrase an anti-misogyny rule?
This is a really interesting step. In the world of a Message Board dedicated to fighting ignorance, we are now presented with these two (more or less) identical eventualities:
- “ My husband’s testicular cancer surgery went as well as could be expected. They think they got it all. He will go through the rest of his life with one testicle, and hopes to remain pain free. “
THAT poster has to expect crickets. Nice comments about being cancer free. Zero remarks are permitted regarding the loss of the testicle. Survivors are not permitted to discuss the loss of a testicle, because consent has not been granted.
- “ My wife endured a surgery of over 8 hours. She has had a radical mastectomy and chose not to have reconstructive surgery at this time. “
THAT poster has to expect crickets regarding his/her wife. Nice comments about hoping she is cancer free. Zero remarks about the reconstruction issue. The OP there did not explicitly say, “ I hereby solicit all remarks from all Dopers regarding my post and give full consent for them to reference, discuss and analyze my wife’s breast surgery. “
Lacking that level of consent, well- no remarks are permissible in either situation described above.
Hey, that’s the kind of message board we are now, right on.
Please make the new rules and regulations stickies so those of us who are used to actually communicating and speaking freely on various topics will be able to modify their speech accordingly.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
“ We all know hate speech when we see it. Don’t do it.
Don’t Be A Jerk. “
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I can’t think of a single situation where “We all know (blank) when we see it” is actually true, otherwise threads about sexism, racism, body-shaming, pornography and so many other controversial subjects would dwindle to almost nothing.
That is just a stupid idea, just like the original idea. Celebrities make a issue of their appearance, not commenting on it is infantile. We dont need ridiculous rules, just
“dont be a jerk”.
This coming from the poster that thinks “Raquel Welch was sure hot during her dance number!” is tasteful and classy.
Anything to say about the cites you requested and I provided in post #245?
That paraphrase of Justice Stewart’s concurrence has been used frequently. However, it was also criticized in many dissents and in many law review articles.
It was a stupid fucking thing to say as a Supreme Court Justice and remains stupid today. Any fucking moron can decide that a particular bar, or movie, or magazine is too offensive for him. The law should not depend on Justice Stewart’s own personal moral values.
The “we know it when we see it” is very funny and very apt at times, but it does not lead to anything meaningful in law or board policy. Everyone has their own moral code. This board can set its own moral code. I just want to know what that is.
Everybody on this board knows what the code is, except for a handful of [white] [straight] men who crawl out of the woodwork every single time sexism or racism or homophobia or other such slime is targeted for disapproval. The same names asking the same questions and getting the same answers.
How many more times must we go through this charade before those slow learners get the message that it’s them, not the board, who need to change?
And it is, since she was meant to be.
Since it is so obviously simple, such that any idiot can understand, can you tell us what it is?
Not without a promise that you will never ask this or any closely related question again.
If you will answer it, then there is no need for a follow up question. But if you use vague terms and weasel words, then there will be such a need.