It has not been.
You’ve asked this several times. I think you’ve gotten your answer: “Nope.” Do you not think you’ve gotten that answer?
I was trying to be pithy, and a bit humorous with a side of sarcasm, yet still giving sound advice. More generally, I would say you won’t get yourself into trouble if you keep comments about sex and attractiveness out of discussions not related to those topics. That might be a broader rule than the mods would hold you to, but your fellow posters (especially of he female persuasion) will probably thank you for it.
I can’t speak for the mods, so take that as just someone who appreciates you as a poster and wants to see you stick around.
:rolleyes: Fine, substitute “acceptable” then. And I can save you the trouble: you don’t get to define what’s acceptable; the mods do.
I appreciate the kind words and they are returned in full. I think you are a great poster and always look forward to your responses and they are on point and advance a cognizable position, even if I disagree with it. The board is better for having you here.
But, we still need real rules that don’t depend on subjective applications. I will follow whatever rules the board says. I thought I was following them. I would like to know the new rules.
I don’t think that’s possible, and it’s clear that it’s not a goal of the moderators. A certain amount of subjectivity is baked into the system. The best we can hope for is to minimize it, hence my earlier posts about what appeared to me to be widely differing advice from tom and Bone.
I do agree that the newly raised issues of misogyny here does open questions beyond crude comments towards women, and it’s appropriate to get all that stuff out in the open without being poo-hooed by calls of white fragility or faux oppressed male syndrome or whatever.
If we’re going to have rules about gender, sex or race topics/comments, let’s keep it simple and apply the rules evenly across all categories. I’d hate to see special rules for men vs women or whites vs asians vs latinos vs blacks. If whites or men are seldom the subjects of demeaning posts, then moderating the few times they are should not be a problem.
FWIW, I disagree (to everyone’s tremendous surprise). Rules that require historical blindness are not superior to rules that acknowledge historical inequities.
The line is if the comment will trigger a report from those who belong to a subset who have taken it upon themselves to tone police with regards to the cause of the moment or not.
Sigh. This is exactly the attitude which those “subsets” are battling, decrying, accusing, and mocking.
I lost interest in this thread after confirming that casual misogyny is alive and well on this board. It’s also another reason that I don’t really go over in GD is that the arguments turn into this type of thing more often than not.
At a time when membership is declining, it’s interesting that people are so eager to support the right to creepy comments, and its those comments that drive off women.
I wonder if those making the argument that people comment about Trump’s appearance are really aware that this give the strong impression that they are supporting misogyny?
First of all, yes, people do make disparaging comments about Trump’s appearance. And to be honest, they probably shouldn’t do that, either. But the vast majority of discussion about Trump (here and I imagine almost everywhere) is not based on his appearance, but on things like his wisdom (or lack thereof) and policies (or lack thereof). By contrast, 100% of the discussion here about Ms. Bash, and the vast majority of it elsewhere, is about her appearance. There’s the double standard.
Second, why all this talk of clarification of rules? Who ever said this was a matter of rules in the first place? If calling someone a hot chick were a violation of the rules, then that post would have earned a Warning. But just because it’s not a violation of the rules doesn’t mean that it’s appropriate, and so it still gets moderated.
They are if they are easier to implant and will end up generating fewer controversies. Rules that require you to determine the racial, sexual, socio-economic background of the players are needlessly complex.
One rule to mod them all, and in the lightness bind them.
Rules violations are mod noted, not warned, all the time. In fact, I would say more often than not.
I don’t think that’s really the issue. Comments on Trump’s appearance are insulting to him. Calling him a Cheeto says nothing about men in general. In contrast, referring to some unknown woman as the “hot chick” is insulting to women in general. It’s not really a comment about her, but about a generic woman.
If you’re looking for analogies on the male side, it’s nothing like an insult like “Cheeto”. I think a better comparison would be someone asking “who was that sperm-provider behind Trump?” I’m guessing that would be modded as well.
You value consistency above accuracy. I’m the opposite.
I question your assumption about accuracy, but no, I don’t value consistency above accuracy. I value ease of moderation over complicated, unnecessary divisiveness.
…the “one rule to mod them all” here is the rule “don’t be a jerk.” Its a rule that quite often demands the moderators make judgement calls based on nuance, context, even societal norms at the time. It isn’t “needlessly complex.” It does rely on the subjective judgement of the moderating team though, which is unavoidable.
Do you object to the “don’t be a jerk rule”? Do you need greater clarification on what it means to “not be a jerk?” Do you need an itemized list of every single possible instance of “being a jerk?” Or are you content to rely on the judgement of the moderating team to be able to make a judgement based on tone, context, nuance, and historical rulings? With the caveat that if you think the moderators “got things wrong” on a particular occasion, there is a process in place (ATMB) to register your objection?
It really is amazing to see the calculated way language is twisted to mean its opposite.
“Fake news” is now largely used to mean “true facts that I want people to ignore.” Objections to sexually objectifying language are now “divisive” and “tone policing,” when those terms mean almost the opposite.
No, that is not even a remotely accurate summary of what I said. Not even close.
Here’s a rule for you that’s foolproof. Don’t comment on sexual attractiveness unless it’s to a woman with whom you’re in a relationship. You will NEVER get in trouble. OK? Glad I could help.
Bullshit like you’re spewing is why women feel unwelcome here.