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

username123

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:

homerjay2005 wrote: »

but looking at some of the dirty headed scangers around the place

gavindublin wrote: »

If the whale had of hit me

jamo2oo9 wrote: »

she was on the floor, looking up to a 6ft 15st bitch.

iDave wrote: »

Then public opinion would then allow him to launch an attack on the fat bitch.

131spanner wrote: »

But when a ho needs to be put back in line...

pundy wrote: »

plus, as you said, she was a fat b!tch, so it's a case of the OP saying "pick on someone your own size"...

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.

seamus

With the exception of 131spanner's comment, I actually don't see a problem with the rest of them considering that they're fair descriptions of the individual involved, going by the OP.

Change the gender of the story and the comments would be pretty similar, probably replacing "bitch" with "cvnt" or "prick".

It's not exactly the most intelligent of threads on the site, but I don't really see the big deal?

I absolutely detest the use of the word "bitch" (or indeed any derogatory term) as a general term for all women, but that's not the case with this thread.

Artful_Badger

In fairness it was an obvious trolling thread. OP looking for justification for assaulting a girl in a nightclub which he called a "fat bitch". Its no wonder what resulted is the absolute pits in terms of discussion.

The justification for it remaining open is that it got a lot of replies. Start a thread on anything as controversial as that phrased is such a way and you'll get a lot of replies, still wont be any less a trolling thread full of shíte.

The fact it had to be locked and half a dozen or more red cards handed out including for the OP and a dozen more posts deleted should be grounds enough for it to be locked considering its an absolutely worthless thread started in such a trolling way that acts as a magnet for people being offensive which results in a lot of people getting offended.

iDave

I was quoting that threads OP. I forgot to add quotation marks. Please remove my quote from the thread please

humanji

Artful_Badger wrote: »

In fairness it was an obvious trolling thread. OP looking for justification for assaulting a girl in a nightclub which he called a "fat bitch". Its no wonder what resulted is the absolute pits in terms of discussion.

The justification for it remaining open is that it got a lot of replies. Start a thread on anything as controversial as that phrased is such a way and you'll get a lot of replies, still wont be any less a trolling thread full of shíte.

The fact it had to be locked and half a dozen or more red cards handed out including for the OP and a dozen more posts deleted should be grounds enough for it to be locked considering its an absolutely worthless thread started in such a trolling way that acts as a magnet for people being offensive which results in a lot of people getting offended.

The justification for it being kept open was that there was enough of an interest in the topic that people wanted to discuss it. It being a discussion forum and there being nothing wrong with the actual topic people were discussing (is it right to punch a woman?), then there's hardly a valid reason to close it because some people don't like it.

As for the thread being locked, that was because while I was reading over the thread due to reported posts, there were over 40 off topic posts from users bitching at each other. I locked it so I didn't have to delete another 40 extra posts by the time I got to the end of the thread.

As mentioned in the thread warning, which I assume the OP here read, the topic is fine. The way people were trolling and being abusive to each other in it, wasn't.

Will I Amnt

The offensive language is aimed at an individual not a gender.
Should us men all be offended every time somebody calls Larry Murphy an evil bastard?

Artful_Badger

humanji wrote: »

The justification for it being kept open was that there was enough of an interest in the topic that people wanted to discuss it. It being a discussion forum and there being nothing wrong with the actual topic people were discussing (is it right to punch a woman?), then there's hardly a valid reason to close it because some people don't like it.

How else is the interest gauged though other than post numbers. You yourself stated the amount of posts as proof of interest in discussing it. I'm just saying anything controversial will draw a lot of posts. I have no issue with the topic itself of hitting women being discussed, my issue was that the actual thread wasn't just about hitting women (a discussion had many a time) it was about the incident the OP had and whether it was justified. An incident described in a very offensive way that to my mind seemed more like trolling than anything else and had a pretty clear answer as to whether it was justified or not. It wasnt. It was assault plain and simple.

As for the thread being locked, that was because while I was reading over the thread due to reported posts, there were over 40 off topic posts from users bitching at each other. I locked it so I didn't have to delete another 40 extra posts by the time I got to the end of the thread.

No issue with you locking it to stop the off topic posts while you dealt with what needed to be dealt with. I'm just saying its an awful lot of trouble for a pretty pointless thread about the OP assaulting a woman and trying to justify it on the grounds she was a "fat bitch" and had hit his friend.

As mentioned in the thread warning, which I assume the OP here read, the topic is fine. The way people were trolling and being abusive to each other in it, wasn't.

Again I'll just say the topic wasnt just whether its justified to hit a woman (A topic I have no issue with being discussed). The thread was about the OP's incident and whether he was justified in assaulting a "fat bitch" which set the standard from the off and led to the mess and the off topic posts and the abuse and still people who have issue with it.

I understand maybe once it passes a certain point with certain valid topics being discussed mods might not be eager in closing threads and you dealt with it as you seen fit and sorted the mess out. I dont mean to criticise you or the AH mods either, I just personally think it wasnt worth the hassle.

username123

humanji wrote: »

As mentioned in the thread warning, which I assume the OP here read, the topic is fine. The way people were trolling and being abusive to each other in it, wasn't.

No - until you said it here I wasnt aware there was a mod warning on thread, it doesnt say it in the title like it usually does and Ive certainly no intention of reading that thread to find it.

username123

Will I Amnt wrote: »

The offensive language is aimed at an individual not a gender.
Should us men all be offended every time somebody calls Larry Murphy an evil bastard?

There are many offensive terms collectively referencing women on that thread - Ive even quoted some from the first few posts in the OP here.

Will I Amnt

username123 wrote: »

There are many offensive terms collectively referencing women on that thread - Ive even quoted some from the first few posts in the OP here.

Not all women though. Fact is, there are "dirty headed scangers" out there and there should be no censorship in calling them that because someone decides to take offence to it just because of their gender.

Artful_Badger

Will I Amnt wrote: »

The offensive language is aimed at an individual not a gender.
Should us men all be offended every time somebody calls Larry Murphy an evil bastard?

I think the stem of the problem was the OP referred to the girl as a "fat bitch" he danced with so as not to be ignorant while he did a lap of the dance floor lookin his hole. He labelled her a fat bitch because she was a fat girl not because she hit his friend.

And there was posts referring to whales and fat bitches that were subsequently carded. As well a plenty of talk about whether it was more acceptable to hit larger women. So it was all a bit of a mess really and its easy to see why people find it hard to find the line between individual insult and derogatory terms.

Will I Amnt

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I think the stem of the problem was the OP referred to the girl as a "fat bitch" he danced with so as not to be ignorant while he did a lap of the dance floor lookin his hole. He labelled her a fat bitch because she was a fat girl not because she hit his friend.

And there was posts referring to whales and fat bitches that were subsequently carded. As well a plenty of talk about whether it was more acceptable to hit larger women. So it was all a bit of a mess really and its easy to see why people find it hard to find the line between individual insult and derogatory terms.

I haven't read the thread, AH is far from my first port of call on this site.
I'm just going on what was quoted in the OP, apart from the first one they all look to be aimed at the one person. It's a bit of a stretch to say they are referring to an entire gender.

username123

Will I Amnt wrote: »

Not all women though. Fact is, there are "dirty headed scangers" out there and there should be no censorship in calling them that because someone decides to take offence to it just because of their gender.

If you cannot understand how using the term "dirty headed scangers" or "when a ho needs to be put back in line" is offensive to all women then Im wasting my time trying to explain it to you.

Besides which, the terms themselves are offensive and gender specific. If I used the term n*gger to discuss Barack Obama I would be using a racist term regardless of the fact that I was using it to refer to one individual.

humanji

Artful_Badger wrote: »

How else is the interest gauged though other than post numbers. You yourself stated the amount of posts as proof of interest in discussing it. I'm just saying anything controversial will draw a lot of posts. I have no issue with the topic itself of hitting women being discussed, my issue was that the actual thread wasn't just about hitting women (a discussion had many a time) it was about the incident the OP had and whether it was justified. An incident described in a very offensive way that to my mind seemed more like trolling than anything else and had a pretty clear answer as to whether it was justified or not. It wasnt. It was assault plain and simple.

But it's not the amount of posts. It's the amount of posts that have valid content and aren't just trolling the thread, that matters. If you take away the OP's abusive language, you'd have a perfectly acceptable thread. So once you let people know what is and isn't acceptable in the thread, the tone of the thread changes and the trolling stops (well stops to the extent that you normally have trolling in popular threads. But there's no real stopping that, as we all know).

No issue with you locking it to stop the off topic posts while you dealt with what needed to be dealt with. I'm just saying its an awful lot of trouble for a pretty pointless thread about the OP assaulting a woman and trying to justify it on the grounds she was a "fat bitch" and had hit his friend.

Well the reason for there being so much to deal with was because I wasn't keeping an eye on it earlier. If I had been, then I'd have dealt with the problems as they came up. But once I did, as I said above, the tone of the thread changed and the thread was a lot more civilised. So, since so many wanted to discuss it, it's pretty unfair for me to lock it completely just because I dropped the ball.

Again I'll just say the topic wasnt just whether its justified to hit a woman (A topic I have no issue with being discussed). The thread was about the OP's incident and whether he was justified in assaulting a "fat bitch" which set the standard from the off and led to the mess and the off topic posts and the abuse and still people who have issue with it.

I understand maybe once it passes a certain point with certain valid topics being discussed mods might not be eager in closing threads and you dealt with it as you seen fit and sorted the mess out. I dont mean to criticise you or the AH mods either, I just personally think it wasnt worth the hassle.

I don't mind any criticism, it's why I drink.

But I understand what you mean and the problems people had with the thread. But as a discussion forum, it just seems more important to keep as many threads going that people have an interest in contributing to in meaningful ways than to keep closing threads because they got off on the wrong foot and mods weren't about to correct them.

username123 wrote:

No - until you said it here I wasnt aware there was a mod warning on thread, it doesnt say it in the title like it usually does and Ive certainly no intention of reading that thread to find it.

Yeah, that's my fault and I should have changed the title to let people know. I'll change it now.

Artful_Badger

Will I Amnt wrote: »

I haven't read the thread, AH is far from my first port of call on this site.
I'm just going on what was quoted in the OP, apart from the first one they all look to be aimed at the one person. It's a bit of a stretch to say they are referring to an entire gender.

Well all bar two are aren't they ? "Dirty headed scangers" = rough looking women as far as I'm aware. "when a ho needs to be put back in line" doesnt need any explaining. "the whale" in reference to a fat girl. "A fat bitch" in relation to picking on someone your own size.

All of them derogatory and gender specific.

The two being excluded are iDaves one who he was quoting the OP and the 6ft Bitch one.

bumper234

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Well all bar two are aren't they ? "Dirty headed scangers" = rough looking women as far as I'm aware. "when a ho needs to be put back in line" doesnt need any explaining. "the whale" in reference to a fat girl. "A fat bitch" in relation to picking on someone your own size.

All of them derogatory and gender specific.

Actually Skangers are both male and female so that's that one off the list :rolleyes:

Artful_Badger

bumper234 wrote: »

Actually Skangers are both male and female so that's that one off the list :rolleyes:

This was directed at men and women then on a thread about hitting women ?

in general no...


but looking at some of the dirty headed scangers around the place, who look like they'd do serious damage if allow to let lose, then yes...exceptions can be allowed and justified.

I dont think so.

bumper234

Artful_Badger wrote: »

This was directed at men and women then on a thread about hitting women ?




I dont think so.

what i am saying is that the word Skanger is not gender specific. People are getting on moral high ground saying that some of the (offensive for sure) language is aimed at women when in reality it is aimed at one woman.

username123

bumper234 wrote: »

what i am saying is that the word Skanger is not gender specific. People are getting on moral high ground saying that some of the (offensive for sure) language is aimed at women when in reality it is aimed at one woman.

In the context in which it is being used it is gender specific.

Artful_Badger

bumper234 wrote: »

what i am saying is that the word Skanger is not gender specific. People are getting on moral high ground saying that some of the (offensive for sure) language is aimed at women when in reality it is aimed at one woman.

Its not the word skanger thats the issue. The phrase used was "dirty headed skangers who look like they'd do damage if they were let loose". Thats quite clearly aimed at women and has absolutely nothing to do with men.

bumper234

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Its not the word skanger thats the issue. The phrase used was "dirty headed skangers who look like they'd do damage if they were let loose". Thats quite clearly aimed at women and has absolutely nothing to do with men.

No it's aimed at "dirty headed skangers" who happen in this case to be women.

Will I Amnt

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Its not the word skanger thats the issue. The phrase used was "dirty headed skangers who look like they'd do damage if they were let loose". Thats quite clearly aimed at women and has absolutely nothing to do with men.

It's just another way of saying there are plenty of dodgy women out there. It's not aimed at all women.

Artful_Badger

bumper234 wrote: »

No it's aimed at "dirty headed skangers" who happen in this case to be women.

I dunno. Seems to me that "some of the dirty headed skangers out there" equates to "some of the beasts out there" etc. And seems like thats a derogatory statement made about women.

Regardless its one of several posts that the OP used to highlight the issue of the language used in the thread. Some of the posts used imo could be seen to be derogatory and offensive and several posts in that thread already have been deemed to be such and carded. So there is an issue regardless of what dirty headed skangers actually refers to.

iDave

Again I'll ask username123 to remove my misquoted comment from the OP

bumper234

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I dunno. Seems to me that "some of the dirty headed skangers out there" equates to "some of the beasts out there" etc. And seems like thats a derogatory statement made about women.

Regardless its one of several posts that the OP used to highlight the issue of the language used in the thread. Some of the posts used imo could be seen to be derogatory and offensive and several posts in that thread already have been deemed to be such and carded. So there is an issue regardless of what dirty headed skangers actually refers to.

And mods are monitoring the thread. Don't understand why so many want the thread lpsed when it's a valid discussion.

Will I Amnt

username123 wrote: »

If you cannot understand how using the term "dirty headed scangers" or "when a ho needs to be put back in line" is offensive to all women then Im wasting my time trying to explain it to you.

Besides which, the terms themselves are offensive and gender specific. If I used the term n*gger to discuss Barack Obama I would be using a racist term regardless of the fact that I was using it to refer to one individual.

Your second example there is the only one that could be seen as gender bashing IMO, although it could also be argued it was aimed at a specific person.

If you can't see how "dirty headed scangers" isn't an attack on all women then i suppose there's not much point in arguing it with you.

Dades

Agree with Will I Amnt, on this one. I doubt any woman reading the thread in question is going to think "did he just call ME a dirty headed skanger?"

I agree the "when a ho" comment should have been carded though as the wording of it was, imo, inflammatory.

username123

iDave wrote: »

Again I'll ask username123 to remove my misquoted comment from the OP

I havent misquoted you. That is the expression you used in one of your posts on the thread. The entire post is:

iDave wrote: »

I'd say he deliberately starting talking to someone else to provoke her to punch the friend. Then public opinion would then allow him to launch an attack on the fat bitch. Its so obvious. How cant people see this.

Despite asking me to change the quote here I notice you have not changed it in the thread in question?

Im not interested in rewriting history, Im interested in knowing why boards.ie are allowing offensive and derogatory terms of reference about women to be used and not closing the thread in question.

Some of the posts on that thread could be construed as hate speech. If you replaced the gender specific terms and replaced them with racist or homophobic terms I think the thread would have been closed pdq.

seamus

username123 wrote: »

I havent misquoted you. That is the expression you used in one of your posts on the thread. The entire post is:

Despite asking me to change the quote here I notice you have not changed it in the thread in question?

Ah you see, you're letting your offence by proxy cloud your judgement.
Read his actual post again. Look at the context. It's a metaphor. The "fat bitch" comment in his is directly referencing the same in the OP's, it's not iDave calling her a fat bitch.

Some of the posts on that thread could be construed as hate speech. If you replaced the gender specific terms and replaced them with racist or homophobic terms I think the thread would have been closed pdq.

Except that's not the same thing. "Bitch" being a slang term for an unpleasant woman, like "bastard" or "prick" for a man. "Bitch" is not a colloquial synonym for "woman". Certainly not in Ireland anyway.

There is no equivalent specific term to refer to an unpleasant homosexual or an unpleasant black man, so the comparison is invalid.

Czarcasm

username123 wrote: »

Despite asking me to change the quote here I notice you have not changed it in the thread in question?

Im not interested in rewriting history, Im interested in knowing why boards.ie are allowing offensive and derogatory terms of reference about women to be used and not closing the thread in question.

Some of the posts on that thread could be construed as hate speech. If you replaced the gender specific terms and replaced them with racist or homophobic terms I think the thread would have been closed pdq.

Threads of this sort on Boards.ie are only locked and/or deleted when there is a sniff of possible legal action being taken against Boards.ie (such as the recent thread that was locked and deleted because of comments about a specific journalists physical attributes).

That thread was the reason given for modifying the AH Charter at the time to notify posters that the Moderators were cracking down on sexism (but once it's not directed at a specific person or persons who can take legal action against Boards, it's "play ball" apparently!).

Czarcasm

seamus wrote: »

Except that's not the same thing. "Bitch" being a slang term for an unpleasant woman, like "bastard" or "prick" for a man. "Bitch" is not a colloquial synonym for "woman". Certainly not in Ireland anyway.

There is no equivalent specific term to refer to an unpleasant homosexual or an unpleasant black man, so the comparison is invalid.

This is just engaging in silly semantics seamus as I'm sure you're well aware there are plenty of derogatory terms to refer to an unpleasant member of the various minority groups in society. The point about homophobia and racism is equally valid when it comes to sexism. No matter what word play you use to dress it up to justify it, it's still wrong, and shouldn't be tolerated.

iDave

username123 wrote: »

I havent misquoted you. That is the expression you used in one of your posts on the thread. The entire post is:



Despite asking me to change the quote here I notice you have not changed it in the thread in question?

Im not interested in rewriting history, Im interested in knowing why boards.ie are allowing offensive and derogatory terms of reference about women to be used and not closing the thread in question.

Some of the posts on that thread could be construed as hate speech. If you replaced the gender specific terms and replaced them with racist or homophobic terms I think the thread would have been closed pdq.

ok as far as I see your using my comment to bulk up your own OP. The context of my comment, the comment I replied to and my original comment on the thread was making light of a bizarre 9/11 reference in that threads OP. Its very clear to anyone as pointed out here already my comment was a reference to the OPs wording. I did not refer to any individual or grouping in a derogatory way myself.
I even agree with you on the overall thread. I went on to describe it as a dumb thread. Did you read that far?
For the 3rd time please remove my quote.

Dades

iDave, you made the post and you have to stand by it - even if you believe someone has taken it out of context. You don't get to demand that they remove a post you won't remove yourself from a different thread.

What you do get is for anyone reading this thread to make up their own minds with the benefit of your explanation.

iDave

Dades wrote: »

iDave, you made the post and you have to stand by it - even if you believe someone has taken it out of context. You don't get to demand that they remove a post you won't remove yourself from a different thread.

What you do get is for anyone reading this thread to make up their own minds with the benefit of your explanation.

If my username is being dragged through the mud for a comment thats been grossly taken out of context then I can ask for its removal.

Overheal

iDave wrote: »

I was quoting that threads OP. I forgot to add quotation marks. Please remove my quote from the thread please

Yeah, in the middle of your reply? I think not.

Thing is, your comment isn't being taken grossly out of context, it appears to be precisely inside of its context:

iDave wrote: »

Duggy747 wrote: »

I'd say it was an inside job and somebody put explosives inside her to make it look like she was falling from a punch.

Jimminy Mc Fukhead wrote: »

Is there a conspiracy at work here. An inside job as Jim Corr would say. Did she fall from the punch or some carefully placed explosives?


Edit: great minds duggy

I'd say he deliberately starting talking to someone else to provoke her to punch the friend. Then public opinion would then allow him to launch an attack on the fat bitch. Its so obvious. How cant people see this.

Dades

iDave wrote: »

If my username is being dragged through the mud for a comment thats been grossly taken out of context then I can ask for its removal.

You can ask, but that's all.

The Backwards Man

That thread makes a mockery of all the big talk AH mods made about stamping out abuse and sexism imo. The whole thread is a premise to make offensive comments about women with impunity, particularly overweight or 'unpretty' ones, even with its edited OP.

humanji

The Backwards Man wrote: »

That thread makes a mockery of all the big talk AH mods made about stamping out abuse and sexism imo. The whole thread is a premise to make offensive comments about women with impunity, particularly overweight or 'unpretty' ones, even with its edited OP.

No, it isn't. The original post wasn't sexist. It was insulting to one particular girl the guy had dealings with. His insulting language towards her isn't sexist, it's childish. People were told to stop the abuse, and they did. So, what's the problem now?

username123

seamus wrote: »

Except that's not the same thing. "Bitch" being a slang term for an unpleasant woman, like "bastard" or "prick" for a man. "Bitch" is not a colloquial synonym for "woman". Certainly not in Ireland anyway.

There is no equivalent specific term to refer to an unpleasant homosexual or an unpleasant black man, so the comparison is invalid.

Seamus, the above is nonsense and I'm sure you know it. Bitch is a slang offensive term for a woman, in Ireland. Fat bitch is referencing her appearance. Dirty headed scanger is also being used to reference women on appearance and behaviour. Ho is being used to reference women on their sexual behaviour.

There are plenty of equivalent racist and homophobic terms.

As Czarcasm has pointed out, we shouldn't tolerate this kind of language being used to reference one gender.

The Backwards Man

humanji wrote: »

No, it isn't. The original post wasn't sexist. It was insulting to one particular girl the guy had dealings with. His insulting language towards her isn't sexist, it's childish. People were told to stop the abuse, and they did. So, what's the problem now?

Disregarding the edited OP which I think is a two fingers up to the mods and should have been enough to finish the thread off, you don't see anything wrong with the flaming, nastiness, backseat modding, personal abuse and sexism that it still going on that thread?

Fair enough.

humanji

After the warning, when it stopped or those who continued got banned or infracted, and a discussion was had by many?

The Backwards Man

humanji wrote: »

After the warning, when it stopped or those who continued got banned or infracted, and a discussion was had by many?

Oh Czarcasm is here now, everyone go say Three Hail Marys.

Id never punch a pretty girl

Some great discussion alright.

bumper234

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Some great discussion alright.

Lol so now some light banter/slagging (ZOMG I said SLAGging :eek:) between posters is on the same level as "personal abuse and sexism":rolleyes:

humanji

Yeah, but what you didn't realise that those users had been sanctioned. And what you ignored were the other couple of hundred posts in the thread after that warning. If you don't like the topic, just don't read the thread. It's not the greatest thread in the world, but people want to discuss it.

Czarcasm

humanji wrote: »

After the warning, when it stopped or those who continued got banned or infracted, and a discussion was had by many?

I know moderation is a judgment call humanji but threads in AH have been closed for less, and closed permanently, not least for their sexist content, but also advocating, inciting, encouraging violence against another human being.

Does the question of when it's OK to violate another human being REALLY need asking? Irish law says assault is illegal anyway, so the question is effectively moot.

Do we really want AH becoming a breeding ground for "I viciously assaulted someone, am I a hero AH?" type threads?

You call it childish, and on that basis allow the thread to remain open. It took AH long enough to shake off perception that it was a haven for immature knuckle draggers. That thread does nothing good for the forums reputation.

The Backwards Man

humanji wrote: »

Yeah, but what you didn't realise that those users had been sanctioned. And what you ignored were the other couple of hundred posts in the thread after that warning. If you don't like the topic, just don't read the thread. It's not the greatest thread in the world, but people want to discuss it.

I just picked a couple as an example H, many more posts of that ilk, from both sides too I must add.

So that's how homophobic posts are to be treated in future then? Just don't read them?

Artful_Badger

The Backwards Man wrote: »

I just picked a couple as an example H, many more posts of that ilk, from both sides too I must add.

So that's how homophobic posts are to be treated in future then? Just don't read them?

Come on that was carded and he was told not to post again. Pretty quick too I might add.

humanji

The Backwards Man wrote: »

I just picked a couple as an example H, many more posts of that ilk, from both sides too I must add.

So that's how homophobic posts are to be treated in future then? Just don't read them?

The one that got the user infracted and banned from the thread?

humanji

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Come on that was carded and he was told not to post again. Pretty quick too I might add.

And specifically because The Backwards Man reported the post, and brought it to my attention.

The Backwards Man

humanji wrote: »

The one that got the user infracted and banned from the thread?

Quicker than Alan Ladd there, I'll give you that.:pac:

humanji

Czarcasm wrote: »

I know moderation is a judgment call humanji but threads in AH have been closed for less, and closed permanently, not least for their sexist content, but also advocating, inciting, encouraging violence against another human being.

Does the question of when it's OK to violate another human being REALLY need asking? Irish law says assault is illegal anyway, so the question is effectively moot.

Do we really want AH becoming a breeding ground for "I viciously assaulted someone, am I a hero AH?" type threads?

You call it childish, and on that basis allow the thread to remain open. It took AH long enough to shake off perception that it was a haven for immature knuckle draggers. That thread does nothing good for the forums reputation.

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.