Feedback requested "...bitch..."

4zn76tysfajdxp · 15-10-2008 8:34pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

Wow and the this thread title is not skewing the debate or feed back ?
grow up.
and there you were laughing at me saying that people don't report posts in AH due to the attitude of the mods, thank you for such a prime example.

Yeah. Jesus Karoma, why don't you give threads about blowjobs the respect they deserve?

Gordon · 15-10-2008 8:36pm

I think the problem with the thread was the fact that the user created the thread title hence showing him up as having possible misogynistic tendencies, or extremely youthful inexperience concerning wordplay towards women (and men). If anyone should be lambasted it should be him for choosing the thread title, it is a rather poor choice of word mixture. And the thread was the perfect place for such distaste to be lambasted upon, because it's Afterhours, the MacDonalds of boards digestable content, practically anything goes there.

What exactly is the problem, the fact that someone posted the title, the fact that it was not edited by a moderator, the fact that the thread was allowed to be discussed? Would it be ok if the title was changed to "Swallow, you, it's for your health"? Or if it was "Swallow, babe, it's for your health" would it be ok?

Don't get me wrong, AH should have boundaries, and it does, the mods are great on AH and they have a really f*cking tough job, but where exactly is that boundary in this case? And how can we have boundaries enough to not detract from the very thing that makes Afterhours special - The Cheeseburger.

Nerin · 15-10-2008 8:40pm

Nehaxak wrote: »

Could also change the word "bitch" to "fag" and the contents of the story within to refer to gays instead of women - bet you wouldn't get as many complaints then.

Or maybe you would...

I dunno

if i knew whether fag was allowed or not,i'd report it. But i don't really know.

Karoma · 15-10-2008 8:41pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

Wow and the this thread title is not skewing the debate or feed back ?
grow up.
and there you were laughing at me saying that people don't report posts in AH due to the attitude of the mods, thank you for such a prime example.

Aimed at me? It's the word that's offensive... it's...what?! *boggles* Double quotes added. I somehow doubt it'll be enough.

There was a thread in AH recently entitled "Would you travel to peru to eat pussy". This was on the front page also.
...
Any complaints about this? Or are people picking and choosing what they complain about?

Picking and choosing. In fairness, that's not a direct comparison. There's context to be considered, not just the double-entendre.

Galvasean · 15-10-2008 8:48pm

Can't really see why it poses such a big problem. It's AH. Everything is a bit mad/tongue-in-cheek there.
Okay granted the B word showing up on the title page might be a problem. Maybe the title should be censored as not to draw unnecessary attention from passers by who might not 'get' AH.

Karoma wrote: »

Picking and choosing. In fairness, that's not a direct comparison. There's context to be considered, not just the double-entendre.

Well 'eating pussy' would show up on the homepage too so IMO it's on the same level as the 'Bitches' title.

dr.bollocko · 15-10-2008 8:58pm

Swallow bitch, it's good for your health.
If that sentence, in its context, was ever used in a real life situation it would be construed as offensive.
Unless being a sub is your kink.
To say something like "I had a bitch of a day" or "Ain't life a bitch" is quite different to the literal meaning of this thread and to its placement on AH. The glorious altar of boards. The glowing beacon of this forum. The finger on the pulse of the nation.
I love AH. I hate censorship, but when I saw that, I was fairly shocked it wasnt locked away all nicely or editted all ninja like cos it just comes across as juvenile.
But of course I am what your granny may refer to as a gentleman.

St Bill · 15-10-2008 9:01pm

Is it usually the case that if a thread/post is reported, the moderator can drag the whole topic through After Hours to make fun of the fact that it was reported? If so, there doesn't seem to be any function for the report post/thread button other than to make a show of anybody who uses it.

Regarding the original thread in After Hours, I found it offensive. And as some other people have said, it's almost as if After Hours is over-run with people of a frat boy mind set. Usually with threads in After Hours, I think 'they're not getting any in real life' and move on. But I was surprised to see that the 'swallow' thread was allowed. The over-riding impression I get from the 'swallow' thread is that it's harmless to talk about women in a derogatory way. And on top of that, if anybody dares to say they're offended and report the thread, they'll be made fun of in After Hours. I suppose that's another way of telling people what they should and shouldn't be saying....make fun of them in public.

Nevyn · 15-10-2008 9:01pm

If the word pussy is an issue for the front page then request that it be put on the same word filter as anal. The word anal can from time to time appear in the title of PI threads and a request was made to have it starred out when such thread show up on the front page and it was done.

Gordon wrote: »

I think the problem with the thread was the fact that the user created the thread title hence showing him up as having possible misogynistic tendencies, or extremely youthful inexperience concerning wordplay towards women (and men). If anyone should be lambasted it should be him for choosing the thread title, it is a rather poor choice of word mixture. And the thread was the perfect place for such distaste to be lambasted upon, because it's Afterhours, the MacDonalds of boards digestable content, practically anything goes there.

I didn't see the point of attacking him as it is not the thunderdome,
I followed what is boards policy and reported the post.

Gordon wrote: »

What exactly is the problem, the fact that someone posted the title, the fact that it was not edited by a moderator, the fact that the thread was allowed to be discussed?

Title is the issue.

Gordon wrote: »

Would it be ok if the title was changed to "Swallow, you, it's for your health"? Or if it was "Swallow, babe, it's for your health" would it be ok?

Either of those imho would be acceptable.

Gordon wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, AH should have boundaries, and it does, the mods are great on AH and they have a really f*cking tough job, but where exactly is that boundary in this case? And how can we have boundaries enough to not detract from the very thing that makes Afterhours special - The Cheeseburger.

Funny there are boundaries when it comes to racism but not sexism.

Macha · 15-10-2008 9:02pm

Ok, it says in AH forum that racism isn't allowed. And accordingly, a guy who made racist comments about Americans in a "Most controversial opinion" thread was banned.

So why is it not allowed to say derogatory/discriminatory/offensive things about people of another race, but it's OK to use a derogatory term for women? I suppose it's all about consistency, that way people know where they stand.

dang - you got in there before me Thaedydal

Edit: I was a bit offended but that offense was tempered by the fact that it's AH..

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 15-10-2008 9:04pm

this is some seriously ridiculous **** right here.

Nerin · 15-10-2008 9:08pm

this thread isn't helping my confusion on whats ok,what isn't on after hours. The *******s don't understand why the term 'swallow and bitch' are annoying the ******s. People are accusing people of being anal,or should i say ****(?). And i'm just more and more confused by what other boards***s think is ok. I'm one confused boards***.

AlmightyCushion · 15-10-2008 9:10pm

Nerin wrote: »

this thread isn't helping my confusion on whats ok,what isn't on after hours. The *******s don't understand why the term 'swallow and bitch' are annoying the ******s. People are accusing people of being anal,or should i say ****(?). And i'm just more and more confused by what other boards***s think is ok. I'm one confused boards***.

It's really quite simple. ***** and **** are not acceptable under any circumstances but *****, **** and ***** are acceptable and will result in all users showering your post with thanks.

dr.bollocko · 15-10-2008 9:12pm

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

It's really quite simple. ***** and **** are not acceptable under any circumstances but *****, **** and ***** are acceptable and will result in all users showering your post with thanks.

*****!

Nerin · 15-10-2008 9:13pm

*faints*

Gordon · 15-10-2008 9:20pm

I find it a bit strange that by changing the negatively connotated word "bitch" to a more positive connotation of "babe" can delete the sexism aspect of the sentence. The sentence still has connotations of an instruction to a woman to swallow a mans bodily fluids, if you ask me. So in essence the problem is not the dominative demanding aspect of the title but the connotation that 'woman' is seen in a negative light as opposed to positive? But the dominative, demanding aspect is still ok?

If that's the case then a simple thread title edit shouldn't be a problem. I'm still a bit confused about the sexism aspect though.

dr.bollocko · 15-10-2008 9:23pm

Gordon wrote: »

I find it a bit strange that by changing the negatively connotated word "bitch" to a more positive connotation of "babe" can delete the sexism aspect of the sentence.

#1
hey buddy. I don't see what the problem is.
#2
Hey bastard, I don't see what your problem is.

Not an insult at all BTW. Just trying to show you the that it is the context in which we use these words which controls why they are offensive.

Nevyn · 15-10-2008 9:27pm

The use of the term babe softens it to a request rather then a macho porn like demand or command. The orginal reported post for the title was not for sexism but for being

disrespectful and frankly misogynistic

Steve · 15-10-2008 9:30pm

Not particularly offended but my 2c on the first post -

It the title was meant to be funny then some humorous or witty banter in the post (which the OP is more than capable of) would have justified it - as it stands, it's just an article quote with a not so funny comment added.

Had I been a mod there, I would probably have moved it to S&S where outside of the title, the article would have some actual relevance (and maybe convince the OP to part with some loot to follow it

).

Which leads me to

Thaedydal wrote: »

Title is the issue.

Would you have allowed it there (by changing the title)?

Nevyn · 15-10-2008 9:37pm

If it had of been moved to S&S then yes I would have edit the title but let the thread remain.

Dyr · 15-10-2008 9:41pm

And how would do you like your tea?

Stormy please, with two lumps of righteous indignation and a slice of high horse as well please

lordy, what a palaver

Handsome Bob · 15-10-2008 9:43pm

I'm not offended, people should know better as it is well known that basically anything is fair game in AH.

Nerin · 15-10-2008 9:54pm

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I'm not offended, people should know better as it is well known that basically anything is fair game in AH.

actually,it isn't,and thats confusing,which is a problem.

Handsome Bob · 15-10-2008 9:58pm

Nerin wrote: »

actually,it isn't,and thats confusing,which is a problem.

Then why am I always told to suck it up when I take offence to obvious racist or discriminating posts? I don't go to AH because I know I'll be pissed off with people shielding their unfounded views due to it being AH.

RoundyMooney · 15-10-2008 10:04pm

Someone should have told Ziggy Stardust...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbDbQc3QdXU

May the terminology used on a bloody discussion forum on the web be the biggest of your worries ffs.

Galvasean · 15-10-2008 10:05pm

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

It's really quite simple. ***** and **** are not acceptable under any circumstances but *****, **** and ***** are acceptable and will result in all users showering your post with thanks.

Reminds me of that speech in Team America.

Ponster · 15-10-2008 10:06pm

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Then why am I always told to suck it up when I take offence to obvious racist or discriminating posts? I don't go to AH because I know I'll be pissed off with people shielding their unfounded views due to it being AH.

You shouldn't ever be expected to "suck it up".

AH is the asshole of Boards where the assholes hang out doing their asshole stuff. It's easy to get the impression there if you're a mod that you're being strict while in reality it's still a place where almost everything goes.

It's the Fox News of Boards.

Nerin · 15-10-2008 10:11pm

RoundyMooney wrote: »

Someone should have told Ziggy Stardust...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbDbQc3QdXU

May the terminology used on a bloody discussion forum on the web be the biggest of your worries ffs.

well with that attitude,wtf is the point moderating anything at all on the net?! Isn't boards moderated because its private,we love it,its a community,we don't want it to get in trouble and blown up. I agree with LZs view on AH tbh. It seems(just seems,and i'm only saying to me) that since i've joined,AH or at least the users has/have been getting more extreme.

Handsome Bob · 15-10-2008 10:14pm

Ponster wrote: »

You shouldn't ever be expected to "suck it up".

AH is the asshole of Boards where the assholes hang out doing their asshole stuff. It's easy to get the impression there if you're a mod that you're being strict while in reality it's still a place where almost everything goes.

It's the Fox News of Boards.

I would have gone with CNN myself.;)

You've said it yourself, "AH is the asshole of boards" so why go there? I mean, a fellow poster told me about a thread yesterday in AH and I had to check it out. One particular poster went on a rant about this subject and I couldn't believe what he was saying. I mean his argument was ridiculous, made null and void by the ECHR and Charter on Fundamental Rights.

Yet he didn't get banned for what he was saying because it seemed to the general population of boards (that didn't have all the facts in front of them) that his argument was valid.

That's AH for you. It's the norm so don't go there.

AlmightyCushion · 15-10-2008 10:16pm

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I would have gone with CNN myself.;)

You've said it yourself, "AH is the asshole of boards" so why go there? I mean, a fellow poster told me about a thread yesterday in AH and I had to check it out. One particular poster went on a rant about this subject and I couldn't believe what he was saying. I mean his argument was ridiculous, made null and void by the ECHR and Charter on Fundamental Rights.

Yet he didn't get banned for what he was saying because it seemed to the general population of boards (that didn't have all the facts in front of them) that his argument was valid.

That's AH for you. It's the norm so don't go there.

People are allowed to have opinions even if they are idiotic or just plain wrong.

Karoma · 15-10-2008 10:18pm

St Bill wrote: »

Is it usually the case that if a thread/post is reported, the moderator can drag the whole topic through After Hours to make fun of the fact that it was reported? If so, there doesn't seem to be any function for the report post/thread button other than to make a show of anybody who uses it.

No. What are you basing this on? The anonymity of the post reporter(s) and the voters in this poll has been protected. This is a genuine request for views. The matter was being discussed in the Reported Post forum, and was gaining a few polarised views. I, and some of the others, feel that it's a matter of concern for the general masses who view the thread not just moderators and as such should have their say.

I am confused, like Gordon, by the option of "babe" to replace bitch as it's still sexist and demeaning... bitch can at least be considered over the top and thus somewhat (?!) humorous, applies to men as well (bitch isn't as gender-specific as you think...prison bitches swallow too y'know.) So, it's open to the floor.

Feedback requested "...bitch..."

Comments