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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Discussion on sexism

12467…14

Comments

  • #92
    anewme
    Registered Users Posts: 11,859 ✭✭✭✭anewme


    Deub wrote: »
    What is your solution?

    See Pwurples post above.


  • #93
    anewme
    Registered Users Posts: 11,859 ✭✭✭✭anewme


    jam_mac_jam wrote: »

    Unless you ban men from the internet there are going to be sexist comments.

    Some men.

    And some women.

    They should be called out on it.


  • #94
    99nsr125
    Registered Users Posts: 1,183 ✭✭✭99nsr125


    anewme wrote: »
    CtevenSrowder wrote: »

    The problem is if people here dont see that obvious sexist post as sexist, then they actually wont ever see a sexist post.

    The people here defending it are part of the problem. That's the issue.

    Perhaps you are seeing sexism where there is none and conflating being challenged on a point as challenging a sex.

    Challenging someone of a different sex isn't sexism

    But not challenging them because they are a different sex IS, it is censorship and repression.

    Most relevant though this is an anonymous forum we don't know people's sex which allows debate to flow with logic and evidence primarily.


  • #95
    Deub
    Registered Users Posts: 1,281 ✭✭✭Deub


    anewme wrote: »
    See Pwurples post above.

    So what does “requesting continued improvement in this aspect of moderation” mean?
    What so they need to improve?


  • #96
    Omackeral
    Registered Users Posts: 32,956 ✭✭✭✭Omackeral


    anewme wrote: »
    Theres different opinions and then there is abuse. This is one post I reported, which was subsequently deleted.

    F***ing gravel donkeys need new faces and bodies never mind tits.the state of them.fannies like a punched lasagne prob
    anewme wrote: »
    You think it's ok to desk about women like this?

    F***ing gravel donkeys need new faces and bodies never mind tits.the state of them.fannies like a punched lasagne prob
    anewme wrote: »
    F***ing gravel donkeys need new faces and bodies never mind tits.the state of them.fannies like a punched lasagne prob
    anewme wrote: »
    How could this possibly be true?

    You are proving my point here about condoning hate.

    F***ing gravel donkeys need new faces and bodies never mind tits.the state of them.fannies like a punched lasagne prob

    The post was dealt with anewme. It's done. The poster was banned.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    pwurple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,449 ✭✭✭✭pwurple


    CtevenSrowder wrote: »
    Are you honestly linking to an article published in a journal that takes a 'feminist perspective' and expecting me or indeed anyone to take it seriously?

    No, I have no interest whatsoever in your perspective to be honest. It is not directed at you, it is not about you, it is a feedback thread to the moderation team.

    Kindly take your condescending interruption elsewhere.


  • #98
    anewme
    Registered Users Posts: 11,859 ✭✭✭✭anewme


    Dr Turk Turkelton wrote: »
    So basically have a forum with people who only post what you approve of?

    Sexism/ racism/ Islamophobia are against the charter here.


  • #99
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    anewme wrote: »
    I'm posting with regard to the bigger picture though and in the interest of feedback to improve.

    Why do you think posters here in this thread are denying it was sexist?

    Poster above asks what if it's true for example.

    Its not the lasagne person thats the real issue here.

    It's the people who believe lasagne persons post was not sexist.

    They are not chortling away.

    They are deadly serious.

    That's the core issue.

    Personally , I believe highlighting this plus the fat pig type comments clearly demonstrate there is a tolerance towards sexism here., not from Mods, but a small cohort of posters.

    Short question here- should posters be allowed to disagree with you on this


  • #100
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    anewme wrote: »
    Sexism/ racism/ Islamophobia are against the charter here.

    I'm against all those things but they actually aren't mentioned in the Current Affairs charter. It's left deliberately vague.


  • #101
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,545 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    anewme wrote: »
    I
    It's the people who believe lasagne persons post was not sexist.
    I'd have seen it as misogynist more than sexist.


    But even more than that, I think some people use CA as the place to unleash their inner obnoxious d!ckhead, and it might be those women today, but it'll be trans people tomorrow, or the homeless, or muslims, or whoever else.


    And, in my opinion, Boards is unbelievably slow at rooting out these posters who just enjoy being the biggest w@nker they can be for as long as they can get away with it.


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    Buddy Bubs
    Registered Users Posts: 3,444 ✭✭✭Buddy Bubs


    Posts like that should not be tolerated. I had a nice lasagne in the fridge defrosting for tomorrow but it's gone in the bin now.


  • #103
    Princess Calla
    Registered Users Posts: 5,776 ✭✭✭Princess Calla


    anewme wrote: »
    No, it does the opposite. It highlights there is an issue with sexism together with a lack if acknowledgement.

    Why do you think people here are saying the post was not sexist ?

    A number of posters here did not believe it to be so. Is that ignorance or deliberate?

    If posters cannot see obvious sexist posts, that indicates there is a wider issue. This post and the pig posts demonstrate the very worst of boards.

    Yet there are defenders.

    How should they be educated?

    Why do you feel the need to educate them though?

    I get this is a topic close to your heart.

    However the majority of posters come here to post an opinion, some frame it in a rather vulgar way for shock value, but they don't come for an education.

    If they stop receiving the "shock value" they'll either up the ante and get banned or get bored and find something else to do.

    You have to remember everyone's perception of something is different, so while one person might be extremely offended by a comment it may not even register with someone else, we all have our own personal bias.


  • #104
    anewme
    Registered Users Posts: 11,859 ✭✭✭✭anewme


    Omackeral wrote: »
    The post was dealt with anewme. It's done. The poster was banned.

    What do you think about the posters here on this very thread who are denying that post was sexist?

    Why would people be supporting content like this?

    The point is not about that post, but about the posters who defend it.

    That's where feedback is being requested.

    Less defence of obvious sexism.


  • #105
    pwurple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,449 ✭✭✭✭pwurple


    Would I be out of line here to ask the mods to lock this one temporarily to stop the usual trolls diluting the conversation yet again?

    This is the same circular rubbish all over again, it doesn’t get any less annoying without that policy in place.

    Why the heck people need to be able to defend talking about slapping random women’s tits around constantly is beyond me.


  • #106
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    pwurple wrote: »
    No, I have no interest whatsoever in your perspective to be honest. It is not directed at you, it is not about you, it is a feedback thread to the moderation team.

    Kindly take your condescending interruption elsewhere.

    Well it was directed to people in general no? So it was de facto aimed at me. And no, it's a feedback thread, my 'interruption' is exactly were it should be. The moderation team should absolutely not be referring to bogus feminist studies research when deciding how to mod a forum. A journal that takes a 'feminist perspective' is engaging in one big game of confirmation bias. Paul Dirac's famous remark of 'worse then wrong' would sum it up nicely.

    It noticeable how you edited out the part of my post were I specifically dealt with what was in the study, showing how the examples given weren't in and themselves sexist.


  • #107
    Curse These Metal Hands
    Registered Users Posts: 1,065 ✭✭✭Curse These Metal Hands


    anewme wrote: »
    What do you think about the posters here on this very thread who are denying that post was sexist?

    Why would people be supporting content like this?

    The point is not about that post, but about the posters who defend it.

    That's where feedback is being requested.

    Less defence of obvious sexism.

    I don't think Tokyo could have been any clearer that they have no interest in defending sexism. The overwhelming majority agree the post was a bad post. People are going to post stuff you don't like, it can't be stopped, use the system in place to have it dealt with.


  • #108
    anewme
    Registered Users Posts: 11,859 ✭✭✭✭anewme


    Princess Calla wrote: »
    Why do you feel the need to educate them though?

    I get this is a topic close to your heart.

    However the majority of posters come here to post an opinion, some frame it in a rather vulgar way for shock value, but they don't come for an education.

    If they stop receiving the "shock value" they'll either up the ante and get banned or get bored and find something else to do.

    You have to remember everyone's perception of something is different, so while one person might be extremely offended by a comment it may not even register with someone else, we all have our own personal bias.

    The education is not required for the poster posting for the shock value (maybe or maybe they believe this)

    It's for the posters unable/unwilling to acknowledge that it is sexist and have more of an issue with people objecting to it than the poor content itself.


  • #109
    Dr Turk Turkelton
    Registered Users Posts: 2,894 ✭✭✭Dr Turk Turkelton


    anewme wrote: »
    Sexism/ racism/ Islamophobia are against the charter here.

    There was no racism, no Islamaphobia and very little sexism in the thread (and what was in it was sanctioned promptly by the mods).
    What there was though was a lot of insults at the two women and who can blame posters for insulting them as they laugh at the rest of us in lockdown as they swan off a couple of times in a month to an area that is rampant with covid for cosmetic operations that cost in the region of 10k while claiming social welfare.
    Their obvious disdain for the rest of the population then became clear as they had no intention of following the government's rules on quarantine.
    So no I don't feel one bit bad for them or their families having to take all the abuse and insults they are getting all over the Internet not just in boards.
    But hey one person made a sexist comment (that was promptly actioned)so no one else should be allowed have an opinion in case a tiny number of posters should be offended.


  • #110
    99nsr125
    Registered Users Posts: 1,183 ✭✭✭99nsr125


    anewme wrote: »
    Do you think this post was sexist?

    Do you believe the Mods made the right decision to delete it and ban that poster?

    F***ing gravel donkeys need new faces and bodies never mind tits.the state of them.fannies like a punched lasagne prob

    Jesus

    Do you see the people with opinions that differ to you constantly repeating that post.

    No is the answer.

    I don't know is that the third or second time you posted that. You're feeding into it like you don't want there to be good debate, you just want to shut down the debate because people's opinions differ to yours.


  • #111
    anewme
    Registered Users Posts: 11,859 ✭✭✭✭anewme


    Curse These Metal Hands wrote: »
    I don't think Tokyo could have been any clearer that they have no interest in defending sexism. The overwhelming majority agree the post was a bad post. People are going to post stuff you don't like, it can't be stopped, use the system in place to have it dealt with.

    No Tokyo was very clear.

    The people here defending it prove there is an underlying issue with it though.

    Then you have people here complaining that people are reporting posts that go against standards. Is that not the point?


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    pwurple wrote: »
    Would I be out of line here to ask the mods to lock this one temporarily to stop the usual trolls diluting the conversation yet again?

    This is the same circular rubbish all over again, it doesn’t get any less annoying without that policy in place.

    Why the heck people need to be able to defend talking about slapping random women’s tits around constantly is beyond me.

    'Lock the thread because people aren't agreeing with me.'

    It may just be the case that the majority are happy with how CA/IMHO is and don't want it changed. You don't have a divine right to your own personal feedback with the modds in this forum, or have the forum ran as you want it.

    The matter of fact is that it is best left as is, and as how it was originally intended to be.


  • #113
    anewme
    Registered Users Posts: 11,859 ✭✭✭✭anewme


    99nsr125 wrote: »
    Jesus

    Do you see the people with opinions that differ to you constantly repeating that post.

    No is the answer.

    I don't know is that the third or second time you posted that. You're feeding into it like you don't want there to be good debate, you just want to shut down the debate because people's opinions differ to yours.

    Its not an opinion though.

    Its toxic and disgusting.

    Why are you defending it and asking if it could be true?


  • #114
    knucklehead6
    Registered Users Posts: 6,736 ✭✭✭knucklehead6


    anewme wrote: »
    What do you think about the posters here on this very thread who are denying that post was sexist?

    Why would people be supporting content like this?

    The point is not about that post, but about the posters who defend it.

    That's where feedback is being requested.

    Less defence of obvious sexism.

    It was a disgusting post. It has no place in civilised discourse.

    But the poster was dealt with. I didn’t even look at their name and have a look at other posts to see if there were indications of a genuinely held belief. Personally speaking I think it was a post, as alluded to earlier, of someone who was looking for a reaction.

    As for sexism, there are times when a certain degree of sexism is seen as common sense. Many moons ago I worked for a retailer and NO women were allowed be on alarm call. By which I mean if the alarm went off in the store after everyone was gone home there were no women called. It was always the men. That can be seen as sexism. It’s also common sense. But there were still nights that I had to leave my home, leave my family and young children, drive 20 miles to a shop because an alarm was going off when a childless woman lived 4 miles away. But I’d do that any day of the week. And I wouldn’t expect the childless woman to be called. As a matter of fact I’d be pissed about it if she was. Is that sexism? Not in my book. It’s common sense.


  • #115
    Omackeral
    Registered Users Posts: 32,956 ✭✭✭✭Omackeral


    anewme wrote: »
    Its not an opinion though.

    Its toxic and disgusting.

    Why are you defending it and asking if it could be true?

    Would you perhaps consider reporting posts that you find disgusting but maybe also put posters you find to be consistently toxic on ignore. Two pronged approach.


  • #116
    pwurple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,449 ✭✭✭✭pwurple


    No, this is just another pile on to silence the initial discussion.

    It’s further proving my point tbh.


  • #117
    anewme
    Registered Users Posts: 11,859 ✭✭✭✭anewme


    CtevenSrowder wrote: »
    It's always the same suspects complaining of rampant sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, islamophobia, etc. etc. Always the same people.

    I'd hazard a guess that it is a tiny handful of people that report posts continuously, with a simple aim of getting discussion shut down.
    Dr Turk Turkelton wrote: »
    There was no racism, no Islamaphobia and very little sexism in the thread (and what was in it was sanctioned promptly by the mods).

    This was the poster who brought Islamophobia into the conversation.

    Perhaps take in up with them.


  • #118
    banie01
    Registered Users Posts: 16,461 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    99nsr125 wrote: »

    I don't know is that the third or second time you posted that

    5th or 6th time at a guess at this point I think.

    Perhaps if it's repeated often enough we'll start to agree? ;)
    If it wasn't likely to be deemed sexist, I'd quote each instance of its repetition with a Helen Lovejoy meme!


  • #119
    anewme
    Registered Users Posts: 11,859 ✭✭✭✭anewme


    Omackeral wrote: »
    Would you perhaps consider reporting posts that you find disgusting but maybe also put posters you find to be consistently toxic on ignore. Two pronged approach.

    I reported the post in question which is the one deleted.

    This is a feedback thread and as there are many posters excusing that post, that is the relevant point here in the feedback thread.


  • #120
    Tom Mann Centuria
    Registered Users Posts: 10,902 ✭✭✭✭Tom Mann Centuria


    pwurple wrote: »
    No, this is just another pile on to silence the initial discussion.

    It’s further proving my point tbh.

    Surely you've seen what the powers that be have let CA/IMHO become? I think it's admirable but incredibly unrealistic that you think they'll do anything differently now.

    Oh well, give me an easy life and a peaceful death.



  • Advertisement
  • #121
    knucklehead6
    Registered Users Posts: 6,736 ✭✭✭knucklehead6


    anewme wrote: »
    I reported the post in question which is the one deleted.

    This is a feedback thread and as there are many posters excusing that post, that is the relevant point here in the feedback thread.

    NOONE is excusing the post. The post was deleted and the poster banned.

    I’d say there are some posters on this thread who wouldn’t have seen it only for one small detail. YOU keep on posting it.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement