Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

There is a thread in AH that is allowing offensive language about women

Options
135678

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Micky Dolenz
    Registered Users Posts: 44,080 ✭✭✭✭Micky Dolenz


    green_screen wrote: »
    And before anyone asks 'did you report those? We don't always see them if they're not reported by users,' i reported the one aimed at Czarcasm.

    I applaud the fact that the mods stepped in, handed out infractions, and issued an on-thread warning.

    But the thread is just a thread where, in between the discussion, there's plenty of opportunity to slag off the 'fat bitch.'

    I dunno if it's sexist. 'Bitch' is certainly a term used to denote an unpleasant woman. But whether it's sexist or not, I thought AH was better than allowing women to be called 'fat bitches' (or 'fat basterds' if the op were discussing a man).

    Surprised at the amount of posts that were considered decent enough to miss an infraction or a yellow, tbh.


    Yet there is a thread running about a short man, infact he was described as a
    fat arsehole of a man
    . Where do we draw the line, any where or any time any one is offended, even if it's not them that the words are directed toward?


  • Options
    #63
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    green_screen wrote: »
    And before anyone asks 'did you report those? We don't always see them if they're not reported by users,' i reported the one aimed at Czarcasm.

    I applaud the fact that the mods stepped in, handed out infractions, and issued an on-thread warning.

    But the thread is just a thread where, in between the discussion, there's plenty of opportunity to slag off the 'fat bitch.'

    I dunno if it's sexist. 'Bitch' is certainly a term used to denote an unpleasant woman. But whether it's sexist or not, I thought AH was better than allowing women to be called 'fat bitches' (or 'fat basterds' if the op were discussing a man).

    Surprised at the amount of posts that were considered decent enough to miss an infraction or a yellow, tbh.

    It's worth pointing out that banned users don't have any notification beside them, so that doesn't help users see if action has been taken.

    There's also a lot of posts that should be actioned and have been missed, but I don't have a whole lot of time so can only go through that thread at my own pace (hard enough for a 400+ thread, but the worst ones were the priority). So there's still smacks to be handed out.

    As for the "fat bitch" reference, the OP was referring to one person and got an infraction for it. Others who made sexist comments concerning all women were infracted and/or banned.

    Again, it's the minority of posts in a very large thread.


  • Options
    #64
    The Backwards Man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,299 ✭✭✭✭The Backwards Man


    Micky Dolenz wrote: »
    Yet there is a thread running about a short man, infact he was described as a . Where do we draw the line, any where or any time any one is offended, even if it's not them that the words are directed toward?
    By the tone of both threads, I'd rather the line was drawn somewhere before both Micky. But that's just me.


  • Options
    #65
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,694 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    efb wrote: »
    I couldn't report all the posts I wanted cos I had to wait 60 seconds each time

    "This post is _________________

    Also look at #98
    #45
    #87
    #32

    etc."


  • Options
    #66
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    Zaph wrote: »
    The post mentioned above was:

    Posted at 19:06
    Reported at 19:06 and again at 19:08
    Infracted at 19:12
    The first report of the thread any post


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Micky Dolenz
    Registered Users Posts: 44,080 ✭✭✭✭Micky Dolenz


    The Backwards Man wrote: »
    By the tone of both threads, I'd rather the line was drawn somewhere before both Micky. But that's just me.


    And there within lies the issue. What you don't find acceptable, many others do and visa versa. We try and find the common ground. This getting offended on other people's behalf, nameless, faceless people at that, has always perplexed me.

    I'll ask you the same question I asked Czarcasm, does this thread offend you?


  • Options
    #68
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    If the post was 'obviously trolling' why wasn't it locked??? 12.30 approx the first post


  • Options
    #69
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    Micky Dolenz wrote: »
    And there within lies the issue. What you don't find acceptable, many others do and visa versa. We try and find the common ground. This getting offended on other people's behalf, nameless, faceless people at that, has always perplexed me.

    I'll ask you the same question I asked Czarcasm, does this thread offend you?

    The OPs post wasn't offensive, but many in the thread were


  • Options
    #70
    The Backwards Man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,299 ✭✭✭✭The Backwards Man


    Micky Dolenz wrote: »
    And there within lies the issue. What you don't find acceptable, many others do and visa versa. We try and find the common ground. This getting offended on other people's behalf, nameless, faceless people at that, has always perplexed me.

    I'll ask you the same question I asked Czarcasm, does this thread offend you?
    I only read the OP of that thread at the time Micky, I didn't read the rest of it as I had a fair idea the way it would go. It didn't offend me though, but then again I didn't perceive anything sinister in it from the OP either.


  • Options
    #71
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    humanji wrote: »
    If the topic was, "Is it right to defend yourself when attacked", would it be an acceptable thread? Is it just because one of the people happens to be a woman that makes it unacceptable? The OP's attitude to gloating about the incident was childish. The topic was not.


    You'd still have the same sort of ACME violence expressed as posters tried to out-do each other with descriptive expressions of their faux-outrage. Female on male violence is of course a topical social issue, and one that often doesn't get addressed. I'd actually welcome a discussion on the issue, but the whole "I'll drop a bitch that comes at me!", etc, what has that added to the discussion? Fcukall, is the answer to that one.

    Personal anecdotes filled with vitriol about what a poster would or wouldn't do, even hypothetically speaking, to another human being, don't add anything to a discussion. Straw man scenarios add nothing to a discussion, you might as well be asking would I swallow my left testicle for 50 cents - I couldn't give you an honest answer as it's unlikely to be a situation I'd ever find myself in.

    I'd love to see a discussion on the topic of female on male violence take place in AH and be able to read it without thinking "Ohh fcuk off with your shìte analogies, spurious strawmans and hyperbole".


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    efb wrote: »
    If the post was 'obviously trolling' why wasn't it locked??? 12.30 approx the first post
    I think the first reported post was a complaint about backseat modding at 12:45. The first RP about the OP was 15:06.


  • Options
    #73
    nc19
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,395 ✭✭✭nc19


    username123 wrote: »
    And I cant believe it hasnt been closed yet. Its the thread about whether or not its ok to punch a woman. It was brought to attention here yesterday and it is still open and the same terms of reference are still being bandied around.

    The following are just within the first 40 posts:













    Absolutely disgusting language. It been reported since yesterday (I just reported it there now having been mildly admonished in the feedback thread yesterday for not reporting it) and yet it is allowed to continue.

    Very very bad form of boards.ie management to allow use of these derogatory terms on their site.

    Anyone who gets offended by somebody on the internet needs to take a long hard look at themselves.

    im fat. Should i have taken offense by the 'FAT bitch' remark?

    Ridiculous


  • Options
    #74
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    You'd still have the same sort of ACME violence expressed as posters tried to out-do each other with descriptive expressions of their faux-outrage. Female on male violence is of course a topical social issue, and one that often doesn't get addressed. I'd actually welcome a discussion on the issue, but the whole "I'll drop a bitch that comes at me!", etc, what has that added to the discussion? Fcukall, is the answer to that one.

    Personal anecdotes filled with vitriol about what a poster would or wouldn't do, even hypothetically speaking, to another human being, don't add anything to a discussion. Straw man scenarios add nothing to a discussion, you might as well be asking would I swallow my left testicle for 50 cents - I couldn't give you an honest answer as it's unlikely to be a situation I'd ever find myself in.

    I'd love to see a discussion on the topic of female on male violence take place in AH and be able to read it without thinking "Ohh fcuk off with your shìte analogies, spurious strawmans and hyperbole".
    I fully understand what you mean and I hate to say it, but in AH you're going to get that sort of thing. You cant just ban anyone who doesn't want to take things seriously, or who thrive on hyperbole. That would suck the fun out of the forum. Generally the OP dictates the tone and course of the discussion. With the thread in question, it was never going to be highbrow. But the users admirably elevated it from the slump it started out as.

    There really is nothing stopping you starting your own thread on the topic. And you'd be able to stir the direction of it. In fact, if people want to keep things on a more serious level, they can always ask the mods to help out. I'm probably just dumping them with more work, but personally I don't mind keeping an closer eye on a thread if the OP wants to keep things on a certain level. You'll still get jokers, but that's the nature of the internet.


  • Options
    #75
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    nc19 wrote: »
    Anyone who gets offended by somebody on the internet needs to take a long hard look at themselves.

    im fat. Should i have taken offense by the 'FAT bitch' remark?

    Ridiculous

    Can you give more guidelines as to when people can and cannot be offended?


  • Options
    #76
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Micky Dolenz wrote: »
    Out of interest, does this thread offend you?

    I really am not getting the outrage here. To suggest that the AH mods are allowing sexism to slide is simply preposterous.


    A poster being seeking validation for committing violence against a child? Well colour me surprised. Honestly Micky it's less 'offended' and more just simply disappointed that posters think that little of After Hours that they know it's the one forum on Boards where their behaviour, it seems no matter how abhorrent, will be justified and validated.

    I have to wonder, as Boards is a PG-13 website and we're all adults here, should violence be celebrated in such an immature fashion?

    I've already admitted I'm sexist so I'm biased as far as any argument to sexism goes. It's the comical faux violence and vitriolic attitudes expressed I find more tiresome than offensive as they add nothing to a discussion and fall well short of the mark in trying to defend what should be a serious discussion rather than a validation exercise and trumping each other in the faux outrage and faux violence stakes.

    Are we all adults here that should be held to a certain standard of posting, or are accommodations now to be made for posters who want to behave like children?


  • Options
    #77
    Calhoun
    Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    Ah old AH, still on the border between being a light hearted forum and a soft/social politics forum that some folk like to use as a platform :).

    I agree with the points made that just the thread although poorly constructed at its heart has an interesting topic to discuss. It fits with the AH social political type discussions.

    If we can talk about the rights and wrongs of same sex marriage, adoption and the likes i don't see why we cant talk about the rights and wrongs of physical violence from both sexes.

    If we do go down the root of censoring topics i think everything anyway political should be banned.


  • Options
    #78
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    Calhoun wrote: »
    Ah old AH, still on the border between being a light hearted forum and a soft/social politics forum that some folk like to use as a platform :).

    I agree with the points made that just the thread although poorly constructed at its heart has an interesting topic to discuss. It fits with the AH social political type discussions.

    If we can talk about the rights and wrongs of same sex marriage, adoption and the likes i don't see why we cant talk about the rights and wrongs of physical violence from both sexes.

    If we do go down the root of censoring topics i think everything anyway political should be banned.

    The topic of whether to hit a woman is not the issue the tone and language used is


  • Options
    #79
    Calhoun
    Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    efb wrote: »
    The topic of whether to hit a woman is not the issue the tone and language used is

    Hard topic to mod, the topic started off poorly due to the OP and how it was put together. This was then offset by the militant you should never hit a woman view points which in itself is sexist and the language and tone was not nice from this group either. Add the usual AH type of response and well it can make the thread seem fairly bad.

    However, behind this are people seriously engaging in the topic and using level heads to discuss it.

    I think the mods have done a good job bringing it inline. If anything i would say they need to crack down harder on folks trying to derail topics because they dont like the content being discussed.


  • Options
    #80
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,521 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    Personally, I don't really get the issue here. The more guttural posts in the thread were acted on by the mods and rightly so. Considering how bad a thread it's been at times, they've done a fairly impressive job of keeping things under control.

    Using the word bitch isn't a sexist attack on women, it's an attack on one woman. There's really a world of difference. It's hardly classy language, but it's not worthy of closing a thread or banning posters.


  • Options
    #81
    Calhoun
    Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    efb wrote: »
    Can you give more guidelines as to when people can and cannot be offended?

    I would go the other way on this one, allot of topics on AH seems to offend these days. I think we need a list of topics with point of views that are socially acceptable from an AH perspective.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    Calhoun wrote: »
    Hard topic to mod, the topic started off poorly due to the OP and how it was put together. This was then offset by the militant you should never hit a woman view points which in itself is sexist and the language and tone was not nice from this group either. Add the usual AH type of response and well it can make the thread seem fairly bad.

    However, behind this are people seriously engaging in the topic and using level heads to discuss it.

    I think the mods have done a good job bringing it inline. If anything i would say they need to crack down harder on folks trying to derail topics because they dont like the content being discussed.


    Dig at me?


  • Options
    #83
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    Calhoun wrote: »
    I would go the other way on this one, allot of topics on AH seems to offend these days. I think we need a list of topics with point of views that are socially acceptable from an AH perspective.

    Never say anything you wouldn't say in a work canteen


  • Options
    #84
    Calhoun
    Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    efb wrote: »
    Dig at me?

    No, i was commenting on the thread and AH in general. I have no interest or the time/effort in picking a fight with individual users, i am more of a reader.

    On your other point AH has never been like a work canteen and if it was to become like that it would probably be best to stop all political/ social platform discussions and keep to lighter topics.


  • Options
    #85
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    username123 wrote: »
    Bitch is a slang offensive term for a woman, in Ireland.
    Disagree. I've never heard someone in Ireland use "bitch" interchangeably with "woman". It is regarded almost universally to refer to an unpleasant woman.
    I don't think I've ever heard anyone use it in the South Central LA context outside of TV stereotypes, rappers and memes.
    There are plenty of equivalent racist and homophobic terms.
    There are? Honestly, never heard them. "N1gger" is a derogatory term, but it's a general term, it doesn't refer to an unpleasant black man. Likewise, "fag", "dyke". All derogatory terms, but they don't also specifically require unpleasantness.

    I'm not splitting hairs or arguing semantics here. I'm arguing facts. "Bitch" is not colloquially synonymous with "woman", in Ireland. Anyone who thinks it is needs to cop onto themselves and dial down the sensiometer a bit.


  • Options
    #86
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    A poster being seeking validation for committing violence against a child? Well colour me surprised. Honestly Micky it's less 'offended' and more just simply disappointed that posters think that little of After Hours that they know it's the one forum on Boards where their behaviour, it seems no matter how abhorrent, will be justified and validated.

    I have to wonder, as Boards is a PG-13 website and we're all adults here, should violence be celebrated in such an immature fashion?

    ......posts that crossed the line were acted on. Posts deemed not to have weren't. The fact that you don't like certain decisions doesn't make it a crisis, or a reason for hysterical overstatement.


  • Options
    #87
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Nodin wrote: »
    ......posts that crossed the line were acted on. Posts deemed not to have weren't. The fact that you don't like certain decisions doesn't make it a crisis, or a reason for hysterical overstatement.


    Nodin what the hell are you waffling on about now?


  • Options
    #88
    Uriel.
    Registered Users Posts: 8,061 ✭✭✭Uriel.


    If those who are complaining about the thread and the modding of it got their way and the standards and scope of what can and can't be posted followed their intimations, I think I'd personally be far less likely to engage or follow anything in after hours.

    I think there's a definite over reaction and sensitivity on display here.


  • Options
    #89
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    Uriel. wrote: »
    If those who are complaining about the thread and the modding of it got their way and the standards and scope of what can and can't be posted followed their intimations, I think I'd personally be far less likely to engage or follow anything in after hours.

    I think there's a definite over reaction and sensitivity on display here.

    Would this thread not be better suited to feedback?

    eh, where is it?


  • Options
    #90
    Uriel.
    Registered Users Posts: 8,061 ✭✭✭Uriel.


    efb wrote: »
    eh, where is it?

    Touche. For some reason I read it as being elsewhere.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    nc19
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,395 ✭✭✭nc19


    efb wrote: »
    Can you give more guidelines as to when people can and cannot be offended?

    Chosing to open a thread/look at a picture/read a book that offends you just so you can tell everyone how offended you are is pathetic.

    That little red 'X' in the top right of your screen can help with how many things offend you.


Advertisement