Right. And none of the condescending hand waving about fucking stupid we both are, or how our mamas didn’t teach us right, or how we are social recluses, explain the differences between these two posts or point to any coherent policy as to why one of the posts fall on the good side and the other on the bad.
All I have been asking for is a real rule without weasel words. No a Lexicon, just a fucking rule. You can talk about a person’s physical appearance, but only in cases of X, Y, and Z. You can call Trump a fat fucking slob, and you can say that he wants to fuck his daughter, but you can’t say that she is pretty. You can say ugly but not pretty. You can say that Michelle Obama is ugly, but not that she looks like a man: your reason for saying that she is ugly.
You can comment about race, transgender issues, or same sex marriage, but if the mods don’t think you are articulate enough, then you are a troll or “being a jerk” because we want reasoned debate. But call Trump a cheeto or Bush a chimp, then it is all good. It’s becoming an echo chamber.
Yes, there are inconsistencies in every application of the ‘don’t be a jerk rule’, because every act of moderation is a judgement call. None of us agree with every application. We’ve almost all been caught out with a toe over the line, and shocked that’s how it’s seen. But we get over it and move on, understanding that is the nature of a moderated board. We are so understanding in recognition of how hard making those calls must be, and because we can all see how the board benefits from the civility the rulings encourage.
Besides, whether they make a new rule or define A,B, or C, the same players are STIIL going fight every application, split every hair. The same arguments, from the same players are sure to ensue, rule or not, defined or not. So what difference does it really make for the handful of posters who just can’t grasp it? A large majority would seem to understand.
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.
Of course nobody’s SAID he or she wants to skirt any rules. It’s not something people announce. Nobody says, “Hey, could you make a rule so I can skirt it?”
There are only some women out there who have no issue with misogyny. And what’s considered misogynist is not changing by the hour. To imply it is is to imply it’s frivolous. Is that your intent? To say it’s frivolous? Capricious? There are lots of terms that become less acceptable over time and as we learn, such as the term “a cripple.”
Hypersensitive? You think recognizing misogyny is a matter of how sensitive a woman is? And your knowing one woman who you think loves to get told she’s hot proves nothing. There are undoubtedly some people on the SDMB who love–or at least don’t mind–personal insults. That doesn’t mean there should be no rule against it.
Do you truly not understand that making sexist or misogynist remarks about one woman has an impact on everyone else? If so, it’s no wonder you have trouble with the SDMB policy.
Pulls the misogyny card? Seriously? You think calling out misogyny is a game, one with a magical card that gives people (not just women) the power to shut down the discussion? No policy would ever satisfy you if you see banning misogyny on the Dope as some kind of hip-to-be-offended BS.
All women. All women are affected by it. Who would make the rule? The mods, with input from Tuba Diva, I presume, and whomever else they see fit to consult. Because that’s the way it works here. Are you saying you should know the gender of the mods so you can protest if this would-be policy is not to your liking?
So you don’t understand when vulgarity is misogynist?
Link? Or are you just assuming this is the case because you assume the mods are all liberals? If you’re referring to the Kelly Ann Conway thread, I’ve already said I didn’t like the thread. But I accept the mod’s explanation. And BTW, getting called out by other Dopers does not constitute a rule: it constitutes explanations or arguments, but not rules.
Reasonable according to whom? You? Me? And who gets to decide what’s vulgar? A bunch of nuns? Howard Stern? Why, I’d be enraged if–oh, wait. Neither of them are mods, and this isn’t their site. See how that works?
Look, whatever the policy would be (if there were to be one), it’d be the mods who make the call. You or I might not agree with the call, in which case, we can argue about it on this thread. But the mods are the refs. You don’t get to make the call from the bench. And if you think–wrongly, from my perspective–that all the mods are raging liberals who only side with the progressive few, then you won’t like how any policy is applied.
I don’t know why good people keep wasting their time. It’s obvious Ditka, Vires, and their buddies have no interest in not being offensive to women (or POC or LGBTQ). Their interest is in arguing about having to not be offensive. They want to keep promoting their intolerant views with impunity and are pushing back hard.
Did you read my proposed rule? It’s pretty obviously not designed to argue “about having to not be offensive” but to instead provide some clarity about what is considered offensive. It seems like a good first step since (despite it allegedly being obvious to all) even the participants in this thread can’t seem to agree if something simple like “hot” is offensive or not.
The problem is that you are asking for prescriptive guidance, and the mod team relies more on descriptive guidance. These two approaches do not intersect, therefore you will not receive anything further on prescriptive guidance.
There are instances where our rules take the prescriptive form, like, don’t threaten the board, etc. Pretty clear cut and easy to provide that type of guidance because there isn’t any grey area.
But things like talking about the appearance of someone is not so clear cut and as a result prescriptive guidance doesn’t work. For those instances we rely on more descriptive guidance, things like not being demeaning towards women as a gender and don’t be a jerk. Is it possible to demean a particular woman because of something substantive? Probably, but not because said person is a woman. Like, saying that Susan Collins is awful for voting to confirm Kavanaugh, or Clinton’s actions wrt Lybia were poor public policy, etc. That’s not going to earn rebuke unless off topic or in an inappropriate forum.
This is also part of the reason that context is so important in moderation - because context can transform something that would otherwise be verboten into something that is not, and vice versa as well. So asking for what can be said, how can something be said, and comparing dissimilar examples won’t be productive. The words used are a big part of the calculus, but not the only part. What is said by one poster may be acceptable, but from another be totally unacceptable. There is no prescriptive rule for that and there won’t be.
So where does that leave you? I’d suggest trying to make arguments or offer commentary in threads rather than trying to call out inconsistencies or score points. We’re all better when there is more discourse, and worse when that discourse gets subsumed by sniping, one upsmanship, or playing gotcha.
After 288 posts can we all agree Raquel Welsh is hot?
A lot of effort went into her hair, makeup, costume, lighting, and cinematography to make her look that way. We should be able to at least acknowledge their efforts. Without wandering into graphic details of her appearance.
I’ve rarely seen any poster say more than she’s got a nice figure. Thankfully, the graphic posts you might see on a sex board never appear here. People here are respectful and understand there’s a wide variety of people reading the board. I certainly wouldn’t want to offend anyone or create an uncomfortable environment.
It would be very disappointing to see rules so restrictive that we’re afraid to even mention the appearance of a man or woman.
If someone posts creepy stuff, they may get warned or banned. This can include posting their sexual thoughts and preferences in threads not explicitly soliciting them, oversharing, making unsolicited comments on other posters’ bodies or appearances, or simply posting anything that the moderators deem to be objectively gross or inappropriate.
When someone argues that it’s impossible to know what’s OK and what isn’t too fucking bad. If one doesn’t know how not to be a creep, one has far bigger problems than their ability to avoid warnings on a message board.
So I take it from all of that is that there will be no written policy regarding this topic, only random warnings or mod notes when it strikes a particular moderator as bad?
Look, we are told how simple it is to not break the rule and how 99.9% of posters are absolutely fine. If it is so easy, then make a rule and quit talking in circles. We know that criticizing Collins for voting to confirm Kavanaugh is not misogyny. What a strawman that is! That is not a helpful example.
Why not answer some of the questions actually posed in this thread? Can a poster use the term “fairer sex”? Can we talk about how attractive/not attractive a public figure is? Does it matter if the public figure is a politician or a movie star or a random person in the background? Can we describe someone as “hot.”
Conversely, can we say someone is fat, ugly, a cheeto, or a chimp? It is surely not the board policy that we can insult men but not women. Is insulting Trump’s appearance given a free pass because we don’t like him anyways?
These questions have been asked repeatedly and they can have a simple answer either way. Why is the board playing hide the ball?
Grasp some social awareness.
Don’t be a jerk.
Don’t be a creep.
This thread is all around ridiculous. Look, use some social awareness. If you’re on the wrong side of the fence you may get a mod note: big deal? Learn from that experience and move on.
I actually did try to help you understand. You seem to have ignored my post.
Colibri has a point: you have no Warnings or Notes in this area, so it seems that you inherently understand it, just like everyone else. Maybe not intellectually, but you can feel where the line is.
Just because something is easily understood doesn’t mean it is easy to explain to someone who doesn’t get it. I literally have no idea what is causing you trouble. It seems self evident to me in the same way the “don’t be a jerk” rule is. The only thing you need is to know what level is acceptable, and you’ve been told what is acceptable.
It’s not in this board’s interest in this case to lay down specific rules, because people will attempt to push up to the line, and then still technically be in compliance. But we want a place where pushing up to the line is itself discouraged, where everyone will err on the side of caution.
I don’t know what else to say. It starts to feel like you just are more interested in complaining than in at least trying to understand.
No, you have not been told any such thing as “the rule”. You’ve been told over and over that all that is required is general decency and respect for others. To forebear from posting crude sexist [racist] [homophobic] remarks. To simply not to be a jerk.
No rules are necessary to post this way. No rules are sufficient to enjoin deliberate violators.
Mods, haven’t we circled around this drain a sufficient number of times? Isn’t it time to close this thread and let the posts fall where they may?
I feel like I was pretty clear. I stated with no ambiguity that there will not be a prescriptive ruleset. Our rules are descriptive for the most part. This isn’t hide the ball - there is no ball. It’s not like there is a secret set of rules that exist that we aren’t sharing.
If the thrust is to ask for a set of delineated prescriptive rules - then the answer is no. That will not be forthcoming. We don’t craft our rules that way and there is no intention or inclination to start now.
Could you perhaps answer the questions that I asked since it is so easily understood?
And, again, I don’t understand the “skirting right up to the line” argument. If you have a line, then anything that falls on the good side of it is just fine, even if it is right up next to it. A person can drive 70mph.
A person who just turned 21 yesterday can buy booze. Nobody says that the kid is trying to take advantage of the bright line drinking age by pushing right up against the line and therefore we can have no drinking age at all.
Nobody says that I cannot apply for Medicare on my 65th birthday, even though if I was a single day younger, I would not be eligible and am pushing the line.
These lines are there because on this side, everything is fine. On that side, it is not. If a person makes a comment about women on this board that falls on the good side of the line, then all is well.
But we won’t set a line in this topic because it seems that the powers that be want to allow the most vocal critics and the most hypersensitive to control the terms of discourse in the name of left wing political correctness. I could take a poll or submit emails from women who do not mind being called “hot” but that would not matter as the left has spoken.
Except when it hasn’t. We can talk about KellyAnne Conway’s attractiveness or Donald Trump’s lack thereof because mumblemumble.
Sure. Close the thread. That’s what always happens to these threads and why they keep reappearing. “General decency and respect for others”? That is a rule only for this topic as it is not at all followed in any other area.
Well, respectfully, that is horseshit and you might as well close the thread. My questions were pretty simple. I guess someone will have to post them and see if they are modded when they could have been given an answer here. This thread is Exhibit A on how this board is becoming a left wing echo chamber.
