Discussion on sexism

EmmetSpiceland · 05-04-2021 12:01am

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

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.

I think everyone can agree that it is a “necessary evil”. Can you imagine the rest of the site if it wasn’t there?

As others have stated, it would unrealistic to expect these people to “change” but, for me, containing them in one place is the only “workable” solution.

Maybe more could be done to stop these “types” taking root in other, more normal, forums?

knucklehead6 · 05-04-2021 12:01am

anewme wrote: »

But you've posters saying what if it's TRUE?

Are they neanderthal too ?

One poster. And I’d be fairly certain they were speaking metaphorically.

Do you think that any comment made in a non complimentary way about two specific women, or even any one specific woman is sexist? Leaving aside the comment that you’ve quoted about 6 times here, a different comment. Any non complimentary comment at all. Let’s say there was a woman who was incompetent at her job, and someone comments on it. Is that sexist?

CtevenSrowder · 05-04-2021 12:02am

anewme wrote: »

No, you've people saying it was ok because of the people involved. Strawberry Milkshake for example condones all insults. They dont think its insulting. They are fine with it.

And you've posters saying what if it's TRUE?

Are they neanderthal too ?

Who has said it was OK? Where has SM condoned the insults? You are making things up.

knucklehead6 · 05-04-2021 12:03am

You keep on going back and editing your posts, making it look like I’m indulging in selective editing. I’d appreciate it if you stopped that.

anewme · 05-04-2021 12:07am

knucklehead6 wrote: »

You keep on going back and editing your posts, making it look like I’m indulging in selective editing. I’d appreciate it if you stopped that.

I edit posts about 2 minutes after I post them.

It's because I've bad eyesight.

I want to ensure my posts reflect what I want to say.

So, you will have to accept that or not.

99nsr125 · 05-04-2021 12:09am

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

They cannot be educated. People have different opinions. It's not up to anyone on a message board to educate anyone on a board.

The comments are reported and the mods have dealt with it.

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

Not that's blatant sexism right there

You are painting all men as the same, not one or two but all

Omackeral · 05-04-2021 12:10am

anewme wrote: »

This thread is for feedback.

There has been a denial that there is a problem.

Posts such as these indicate there is.

You haven’t answered my question. What do you think should be done, for example, to Strawberry Milkshake in the above quoted post.

knucklehead6 · 05-04-2021 12:11am

anewme wrote: »

I edit posts about 2 minutes after I post them.

It's because I've bad eyesight.

I want to ensure my posts reflect what I want to say.

So, you will have to accept that or not.

Ok. But if you could add in an edit tag or something I’d appreciate it. I hate selective quoting, it’s a real bugbear of mine. As it can take an entire post out of context.

Anyway, back to the thread....

Earlier on I referred to an obvious case of sexism where I used work. Or common sense.

What would your viewpoint be in that? Because it was definitely a generalisation.

CtevenSrowder · 05-04-2021 12:13am

99nsr125 wrote: »

Not that's blatant sexism right there

You are painting all men as the same, not one or two but all

They aren't though. The insinuation is that some men post sexist comments, but you can't neccesarilly know which ones. So only a blanket ban would stop it.

It's sexist in that it assumes only men do this. But JmcJ isn't sexist and is quite a fair poster, so likely posted in haste.

jam_mac_jam · 05-04-2021 12:18am

99nsr125 wrote: »

Not that's blatant sexism right there

You are painting all men as the same, not one or two but all

Apologies. I don't mean to say all men are sexist. It's only some men.

But you just don't know in advance which ones. So as long as you have men on the internet some of them will be sexist.

knucklehead6 · 05-04-2021 12:21am

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Apologies. I don't mean to say all men are sexist. It's only some men.

But you just don't know in advance which ones. So as long as you have men on the internet some of them will be sexist.

And women too. Both genders can be sexist.

Actually that should be all genders in today’s world.

jam_mac_jam · 05-04-2021 12:22am

knucklehead6 wrote: »

And women too. Both genders can be sexist.

Actually that should be all genders in today’s world.

Of course. Women can be sexist against men.

99nsr125 · 05-04-2021 12:23am

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

Because somebody might be promiscuous
That's how it could be true.

No I'm proving a point about you making assumptions where no material fact is present, without material fact any statement is as likely to be true as not.

Oh ffs

Is this some sort of ruse to post the donkey reference over and over again.

Do you enjoy doing it, like is it the chance you needed to be crass about the two women because there's some sort of inner jealousy about their trip to Dubai or breast enlargement.

anewme · 05-04-2021 12:25am

knucklehead6 wrote: »

One poster. And I’d be fairly certain they were speaking metaphorically.

Do you think that any comment made in a non complimentary way about two specific women, or even any one specific woman is sexist? Leaving aside the comment that you’ve quoted about 6 times here, a different comment. Any non complimentary comment at all. Let’s say there was a woman who was incompetent at her job, and someone comments on it. Is that sexist?

If people are incompetent at their jobs that’s people being incompetent at their jobs.

If you believe that incompetence is because they are women, that is sexist.

knucklehead6 · 05-04-2021 12:29am

anewme wrote: »

If people are incompetent at their jobs that’s people being incompetent at their jobs.

If you believe that incompetence is because they are women, that is sexist.

Fair enough. So one comment is about a single person, and is not a generalisation about their gender, therefore it’s not sexist.

If the comment was in reference to her being a woman and the incompetence stems from their gender, then it is a generalisation then it’s sexist.

For what it’s worth, I agree.

What about the alarm call issue I referred to? Is that sexist against women? Or men?

anewme · 05-04-2021 12:36am

99nsr125 wrote: »

Because somebody might be promiscuous

Is this some sort of ruse to post the donkey reference over and over again.

Do you enjoy doing it, like is it the chance you needed to be crass about the two women because there's some sort of inner jealousy about their trip to Dubai or breast enlargement.

This is the type of view that I believe is dangerous.

Poster condoned nasty post and now accuses the person highlighting it.

I was not crass about the women.

Highlighting it is not crass.

Making the post or condoning it is.

99nsr125 · 05-04-2021 12:38am

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Apologies. I don't mean to say all men are sexist. It's only some men.

But you just don't know in advance which ones. So as long as you have men on the internet some of them will be sexist.

As long as there are people let alone the internet there will be quickly posted comments. We will all make them.
I'm not going to throw my toys out of the pram but I will highlight something that I think needs addition

Your post was good to highlight a broad generalization easily spoken but rarely meant.

05-04-2021 12:40am

anewme wrote: »

This is the type of view that I believe is dangerous.

Poster condoned nasty post and now accuses the person highlighting it.

I was not crass about the women.

Highlighting it is not crass.

Making the post or condoning it is.

What do you think should be done about this "dangerous" post

99nsr125 · 05-04-2021 1:00am

anewme wrote: »

This is the type of view that I believe is dangerous.

Poster condoned nasty post and now accuses the person highlighting it.

I was not crass about the women.

Highlighting it is not crass.

Making the post or condoning it is.

I never condoned it or condemned it but it doesn't mean the descriptors are ones I would use, however exclusion of language based on semantics only serves to shut down debate

You are continually posting it
That means you are proliferating the poor commentary

Even the people defending the ability to debate with such descriptors are not quoting it.

If there was a news report on television of a racist incident where someone was called a Nïgger and the report over and over again used Nïgger in the commentary that lends legitimacy to calling someone a Nïgger.

That's exactly what you're doing, the persistence repeating of the comments is tacit approval of them from you.

anewme · 05-04-2021 1:06am

99nsr125 wrote: »

I never condoned it or condemned it but it doesn't mean the descriptors are ones I would use, however exclusion of language based on semantics only serves to shut down debate

You are continually posting it
That means you are proliferating the poor commentary

Even the people defending the ability to debate with such descriptors are not quoting it.

If there was a news report on television of a racist incident where someone was called a Nïgger and the report over and over again used Nïgger in the commentary that lends legitimacy to calling someone a Nïgger.

That's exactly what you're doing, the persistence repeating of the comments is tacit approval of them from you.

You did condone it.

You asked but what if it is ttrue.

It was such a despicable comment that there is no way it could possibly be true.

Why would you even think it ok to ask that question?

From your posts it’s evident you don’t have respect for women.

05-04-2021 2:13am

anewme wrote: »

You did condone it.

You asked but what if it is ttrue.

It was such a despicable comment that there is no way it could possibly be true.

Why would you even think it ok to ask that question?

From your posts it’s evident you don’t have respect for women.

What do you think should be done about someone asking if it was true?

99nsr125 · 05-04-2021 2:23am

anewme wrote: »

You did condone it.

You asked but what if it is ttrue.

It was such a despicable comment that there is no way it could possibly be true.

Why would you even think it ok to ask that question?

From your posts it’s evident you don’t have respect for women.

Other posters have suggested you em . .don't quite accurately represent comments and quotes, I'll simply say
Go back and read

What if it were true was a comment I made about promiscuity which we have no way of knowing one way or the other, so it could either be true or not.

It's important to question, it eliminates inaccuracies and advances us

A despicable comment does not reduce it's propensity to be factual or not.

On the contrary, women are the heart of society but it doesn't mean the standards applied should be different, that is inherently sexist and hurts us all

TheValeyard · 05-04-2021 2:24am

How is any of this feedback?

Tokyo · 05-04-2021 4:05am

TheValeyard wrote: »

How is any of this feedback?

Admin: I would agree with the above sentiment. One thing the last 170 or so posts prove though is that perceptions certainly differ with respect to where the lines are with respect to what constitutes many of the -ism's prevalent on the site, which by definition makes it a complex area to police.

That being said, the purpose of feedback is to, well, give feedback to the community managers and admin, not the place for posters to debate back and forth. If we can limit posts to actual feedback, I would appreciate it.

Leg End Reject · 05-04-2021 4:50am

Tokyo wrote: »

Admin: I would agree with the above sentiment. One thing the last 170 or so posts prove though is that perceptions certainly differ with respect to where the lines are with respect to what constitutes many of the -ism's prevalent on the site, which by definition makes it a complex area to police.

That being said, the purpose of feedback is to, well, give feedback to the community managers and admin, not the place for posters to debate back and forth. If we can limit posts to actual feedback, I would appreciate it.

Duly noted, it has gotten personal rather than general.

It's still important to note, and relevant, that a particular demographic will view things differently.

It's also important to note that a huge amount of leeway has been allowed here.

CtevenSrowder · 05-04-2021 6:19am

Tokyo wrote: »

Admin: I would agree with the above sentiment. One thing the last 170 or so posts prove though is that perceptions certainly differ with respect to where the lines are with respect to what constitutes many of the -ism's prevalent on the site, which by definition makes it a complex area to police.

That being said, the purpose of feedback is to, well, give feedback to the community managers and admin, not the place for posters to debate back and forth. If we can limit posts to actual feedback, I would appreciate it.

I think it is quite evident, on this thread at least, that most are happy with the forum and don't want to see a change in moderation whether that be it become more stringent or less stringent.
Again, I will state it certainly appears to be a tiny minority of posters who have a problem, and I would urge mods not to give in to the will of the minority, regardless of how persistent they are.

pwurple · 05-04-2021 7:07am

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

I think it is quite evident, on this thread at least, that most are happy with the forum and don't want to see a change in moderation whether that be it become more stringent or less stringent.
Again, I will state it certainly appears to be a tiny minority of posters who have a problem, and I would urge mods not to give in to the will of the minority, regardless of how persistent they are.

Why, because you shouted the loudest?

Normalised , constant uncommented sexism is the rule and you like it that way. You’ve piled on, bullied, shouted down and demanded that the status quo remains.

Here’s the status quo though.

No comment is ever made by mods when people read that string of crap about “slapped tits” etc and object to it. If some terribly oversensitive difficult woman reports it, then reluctantly, it gets deleted, completely silently.

Anyone that raises a discussion on the volume of it is ranting.

Any time they do so is most inconvenient.

That’s the situation now, and that’s what a handful of posters apparently want to remain.

No guidelines, no policy, no education needed. No improvement possible, just shrug and ignore. Maybe those difficult oversensitive crazy (ugly too and in need of a boob job) vocal women will just go away.

Omackeral · 05-04-2021 7:40am

pwurple wrote: »

Here’s the status quo though.

No comment is ever made by mods when people read that string of crap about “slapped tits” etc and object to it. If some terribly oversensitive difficult woman reports it, then reluctantly, it gets deleted, completely silently.

That’s the situation now, and that’s what a handful of posters apparently want to remain.

Aside from the charged language, and the direct accusation to one poster in particular of being a bully, what basis have you got that things are “reluctantly deleted/actioned” by moderators.

pwurple · 05-04-2021 7:54am

Omackeral wrote: »

Aside from the charged language, and the direct accusation to one poster in particular of being a bully, what basis have you got that things are “reluctantly deleted/actioned” by moderators.

My own eyes. This is my typical experience.

I report posts with that kind of language when I see then. They typically get deleted. There is never a comment on it.

If I report a slew of them, I sometimes pm the mod and ask could they put up a comment so I don’t have to keep reporting. They usually don’t, and just say keep reporting.

Look at it this way... One of your children is hitting an other child with a stick. The injured child comes running to you. You bandage up the cut , but don’t take the stick off the other child or tell them not to do it again. What do you think continues to happen?

anewme · 05-04-2021 7:59am

sydthebeat wrote: »

I think the boards wide policy of moderators deleting posts without notification or indication is a terrible action for this whole forum.

Posters who have had posts removed are not notified that their posts are removed (I've experienced this myself).
Therefore I don't see the point, as the posters behaviour wont change...

Also, posts which are replies to "fresh air" look off Topic and ridiculous.

Who came up with this as an acceptable moderation action???

It's obviously not a full thought through policy

Omackeral wrote: »

Aside from the charged language, and the direct accusation to one poster in particular of being a bully, what basis have you got that things are “reluctantly deleted/actioned” by moderators.

This post was very early in in the thread. I've seen it happen too.

Deleting the posts when the poster does not know is not going to improve quality.

So, could the mods leave the post either as is or with the bits snipped out as sometimes happens. Then at least there is some consistency and transparency.

Given that some people here dont believe there is a qualitative issue as when posts are deleted, it looks like someone else is speaking into thin air.

In the interests of transparency, this would be a good step to improve quality.

anewme · 05-04-2021 8:21am

pwurple wrote: »

My own eyes. This is my typical experience.

I report posts with that kind of language when I see then. They typically get deleted. There is never a comment on it.

If I report a slew of them, I sometimes pm the mod and ask could they put up a comment so I don’t have to keep reporting. They usually don’t, and just say keep reporting.

Look at it this way... One of your children is hitting an other child with a stick. The injured child comes running to you. You bandage up the cut , but don’t take the stick off the other child or tell them not to do it again. What do you think continues to happen?

Deleting comments are deleting the history.

If boards are committed to improving quality, then the policy needs to change here.

People were not happy that I posted the deleted comment. Although it could have appeared pedantic to post it, what it demonstrated was that (a) extremely nasty content was posted and (b) some people some people were ok with it.

Some even said they would not have seen it had I not posted it. A good few thanked that post, which would read as if they would not have read it either. So if people are not seeing misognistic comments, is it any wonder they don't believe there are any.

Same happened with the fat pig who should not go out in public post. Deleting it allowed it disappear, again, poster was posting again on the thread a few minutes later standing over the post.

So, by deleting comments, it is allowing it appear there is no problem. Next week, most wont remember there was a sexist/misogynistic/racist (or whatever) comment there. All they will see is there is someone weirdly giving out about nothing.

CtevenSrowder · 05-04-2021 8:26am

pwurple wrote: »

Why, because you shouted the loudest?

No, because the numbers don't appear to be in agreement with you.

pwurple wrote: »

Normalised , constant uncommented sexism is the rule and you like it that way.

There is not 'constant sexism'. If you view any negative comment about a women as sexist then sure, there is 'constant' sexism. But that view would not equate to what sexism actually is. Judging by the manure study you posted earlier, it would seem that this is what you think. As I said, you should lay off the academic feminism. It is rarely legitimate research.

pwurple wrote: »

You’ve piled on,

Noone has been 'piled on'. It may be that your view is the minority one.

pwurple wrote: »

bullied

Where here has someone been bullied? What is your evidence? Again seems to be a case of you throwing your toys out because people don't agree with you. If you can't handle the heat don't step into the arena. I'd be curious to know out of the reported posts, how many different accounts did the reporting.

pwurple wrote: »

shouted down and demanded that the status quo remains

Again noone has been shouted down. I mean, a totally ridiculous suggesting. How can one be shouted down on a discussion forum on the internet. We can't shout. Yes the status quo that works, that for the most part lets robust discussion take place.

pwurple wrote: »

Here’s the status quo though.

No comment is ever made by mods when people read that string of crap about “slapped tits” etc and object to it. If some terribly oversensitive difficult woman reports it, then reluctantly, it gets deleted, completely silently.

These are you words. Noone cares that you are a women bar you. Maybe try stop seeing everything through the lens of gender. People aren't opposed to your suggestions because you are female. Oversensitive I would agree with.

pwurple wrote: »

Anyone that raises a discussion on the volume of it is ranting.

Any time they do so is most inconvenient.

That’s the situation now, and that’s what a handful of posters apparently want to remain.

No guidelines, no policy, no education needed. No improvement possible, just shrug and ignore. Maybe those difficult oversensitive crazy (ugly too and in need of a boob job) vocal women will just go away.

No, no education needed. Again with this arrogant notion of 'if people were just educated they'd agree with me'. CA/IMHO is there to do exactly what it does. Allow for discussions that may at times not meet the posting standard of the politics forum (that years ago near moderated itself out of existence). The modding is fine, with posts that are supposedly sexist dealt with even by your admission. As Emmet put it, it may be a 'necessary evil'.

You also seem to take those comments personally, as if a negative post about a women is a negative post about all women and as such about you. It isn't.

If you want sanitised debate then go post in TLL or other such fora that are more to your taste. Leave CA alone, as most appear happy with how it is.

Buddy Bubs · 05-04-2021 8:33am

Why are you so bothered about people not being offended or upset by posts?
I can't remember last time I got upset at something I saw posted. I'm sure there are corners of the internet where I can see things that upset me but I don't go there. But certainly peoples lack of outrage is none of my business, or anyone else's business. You are denying people an opinion, and telling them how they should think.

Sure, some crass comments get thrown in about 2 people none of the posters know, have met or have even seen. But it's not against women in general. It's about the Dubai 2.

I read anti male stuff all the time, I don't get offended.

Signore Fancy Pants · 05-04-2021 8:36am

My feedback is:

1. This thread is an abomination. While it has merit and I believe sexism is present on the site to an extent, being male, I'm not tuned into spotting it everywhere, thats is my issue I suppose.

However, it seems others are very sensitive about it, to the extent that any criticism of women is default sexism, irrespective of context. Maybe that is their problem and projecting and equating their personal experiences against these posts does not automatically make them just.

Just because you class something as sexist, doesn't make it so. Thats only your opinion, and boards has zero responsibility to ensure you are catered to. It is indeed a community, a community with a diverse pool and opposing opinions are everywhere.

2. Posters here want things to change, even though the most quoted post has already been actioned. It has been dealt with, why that is not good enough is bizarre. Indeed so too is labelling anyone as a supporter of sexism in some twisted fashion and does nothing for debate. It certainly won't get someone to see your point of view and you have no business educating people in order for them to agree with you.

3. Others here want people to adopt their point of view, while openly saying that they have no interest in anyone else's perspective. The same person wants the thread closed because they don't like differing views. Thats not very genuine at all and contrary to community debate.

4. This thread is bogus. It is designed to quell debate from those that don't believe sexism is rife here. It is also designed to pressurise Mods/Admins into implementing god knows what and acting spuriously anytime a topic about women comes up.

Calling sexism when there is latitude to refute it, really damages a posters reputation and makes a mockery of the subject. It may turn people to be indifferent or at least be blind to it if debate is stiffled as has been evident here today.

But obviously, I'm just a big sexist bastard and have no right to be posting about it.

CtevenSrowder · 05-04-2021 8:38am

anewme wrote: »

Deleting comments are deleting the history.

If boards are committed to improving quality, then the policy needs to change here.

People were not happy that I posted the deleted comment. Although it could have appeared pedantic to post it, what it demonstrated was that (a) extremely nasty content was posted and (b) some people some people were ok with it.

Some even said they would not have seen it had I not posted it. A good few thanked that post, which would read as if they would not have read it either. So if people are not seeing misognistic comments, is it any wonder they don't believe there are any.

Same happened with the fat pig who should not go out in public post. Deleting it allowed it disappear, again, poster was posting again on the thread a few minutes later standing over the post.

So, by deleting comments, it is allowing it appear there is no problem. Next week, most wont remember there was a sexist/misogynistic/racist (or whatever) comment there. All they will see is there is someone weirdly giving out about nothing.

I'd agree that these supposedly sexist or racist comments should remain and not be deleted. But no doubt if they aren't we'll eventually have posters claiming that those comments remaining creates an 'unwelcome' environment and we'll be back to square one.

The fact remains however, that the sexist, racist etc. comments are a tiny minority of all comments posted.

anewme · 05-04-2021 8:49am

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

I'd agree that these supposedly sexist or racist comments should remain and not be deleted. But no doubt if they aren't we'll eventually have posters claiming that those comments remaining creates an 'unwelcome' environment and we'll be back to square one.

The fact remains however, that the sexist, racist etc. comments are a tiny minority of all comments posted.

That's why I also said they could be snipped if they are bad enough, which removes most of the content, but not the fact that there is an issue.

If posters posting this content are exposed, then they will either end up banned via transparency or give up posting that kind of content as they know the quality is being tracked.

CtevenSrowder · 05-04-2021 8:53am

anewme wrote: »

That's why I also said they could be snipped if they are bad enough, which removes most of the content, but not the fact that there is an issue.

If posters posting this content are exposed, then they will either end up banned via transparency or give up posting that kind of content as they know the quality is being tracked.

If they are snipped one doesn't know what was said. A comment can be snipped for all sorts of reasons outside of sexism, racism whatever.

The posters posting it are exposed. The comment that you posted 7 or 8 times, the poster was instantly banned. The quality is tracked. Read dispute resolution and mods will at times refer to a poster's disciplinary record when deciding if to overturn a ban or not.

If posters constantly post sexist, racist things they are banned. So it may be that these things aren't posted as much as you think, and the procedures in place work. None more are needed.

pwurple · 05-04-2021 8:57am

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

No, because the numbers don't appear to be in agreement with you. Noone has been 'piled on'. It may be that your view is the minority one.

no-one is piling on or shouting down? Except you is it? You've 2 and a half times more posts here than I even do.

The numbers you say?

My replied in this thread: 10
CtevenSrowder, LegEndReject,99nsr125,Omackeral: 26+10+17+7 = 60.

600% more posts is a pile-on from where I'm sitting.

Where here has someone been bullied? What is your evidence? Again seems to be a case of you throwing your toys out because people don't agree with you. If you can't handle the heat don't step into the arena.

What toys are you talking about? Again, I've made a few short posts. From you I see missives, diatribes, acres and acres of text whinging and whining that I'm oversenstive. The only oversensitive person I see here are those trembling for the right to continue slandering women.

Again noone has been shouted down. I mean, a totally ridiculous suggesting. How can one be shouted down on a discussion forum on the internet. We can't shout.

. You know what... saying the same thing over and over and over again is shouting down. Not making any new point, just pestering. Not only have you said the same inane things 260% more often than me, you've said them over and over again in the same post multiple times. Not shouting down? Give me a bloody break. It's all you do.

Oversensitive I would agree with.

Oh cheers, thanks! I really live for that, if only people would make personal insulting comments on me all the time my life would be complete. Can you see what you write? Can you tell when it's ignored that it's from politeness? Because it would be rude to point out the absolute fool you make of yourself repeatedly? Saying you never make personal comments, in the same breathe as making a personal insult...

No, no education needed. Again with this arrogant notion of 'if people were just educated they'd agree with me'.

I have never said that once, what are the quote marks for?

The modding is fine, with posts that are supposedly sexist dealt with even by your admission. As Emmet put it, it may be a 'necessary evil'.

You can think it's fine, and I can disagree. I guarantee you , you don't even see the posts I see, because they are removed before they pollute your eyes. I'm soundly fed up with that roundabout.

If you want sanitised debate then go post in TLL or other such fora that are more to your taste. Leave CA alone, as most appear happy with how it is.

I don't want sanitised debate. I don't want to be a pseudo-mod. I want improved commentary on thread and an actual position instead of dancing around on pinheads.

anewme · 05-04-2021 8:59am

Signore Fancy Pants wrote: »

My feedback is:

1. This thread is an abomination. While it has merit and I believe sexism is present on the site to an extent, being male, I'm not tuned into spotting it everywhere, thats is my issue I suppose.

2. Posters here want things to change, even though the most quoted post has already been actioned.

If threads are being deleted, then you cant be spotting it because it's gone.

In respect of the most quoted post, the reason for quoting it is not about the post itself, but to demonstrate the number of posters (here in this thread) who were ok with it. That's the real crux of it. But people are deliberately missing that point.

If people clearly cannot identify or acknowledge that it was a sexist post or not ok, then they are not going to ever see a sexist or unacceptable post.

Leaving the posts in some state will quickly identify if there is problem and if there is a pattern to it. That would be a way to seeing the level of change required, if any.

knucklehead6 · 05-04-2021 9:04am

anewme wrote: »

If threads are being deleted, then you cant be spotting it because it's gone.

In respect of the most quoted post, the reason for quoting it is not about the post itself, but to demonstrate the number of posters (here in this thread) who were ok with it. That's the real crux of it. But people are deliberately missing that point.

If people clearly cannot identify or acknowledge that it was a sexist post or not ok, then they are not going to ever see a sexist or unacceptable post.

Leaving the posts in some state will quickly identify if there is problem and if there is a pattern to it. That would be a way to seeing the level of change required, if any.

No posters were ok with it. But most posters didn’t see a comment made about 2 particular women as a generalisation about ALL women.

You seem to be offended that people are able to decide for themselves whether or not a comment that is NOT a generalisation is sexist.

That’s what I was getting at last night/this morning. For a comment to be sexist it has to be a generalisation, about all women, or a large subset. A comment about 2 women in particular isn’t.

pjohnson · 05-04-2021 9:08am

So now its cleared up that if you dont take offence you are sexist against all women for not supporting the actions of two women now before the courts, and if you dont agree with everything above you are also sexist.

But yet there is a need for clearer discussion.

It actually just seems like there is a need for a Borg hivemind tbh anything less is just a sexist pile-on.

anewme · 05-04-2021 9:08am

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

If they are snipped one doesn't know what was said. A comment can be snipped for all sorts of reasons outside of sexism, racism whatever.

The posters posting it are exposed. The comment that you posted 7 or 8 times, the poster was instantly banned. The quality is tracked. Read dispute resolution and mods will at times refer to a poster's disciplinary record when deciding if to overturn a ban or not.

If posters constantly post sexist, racist things they are banned. So it may be that these things aren't posted as much as you think, and the procedures in place work. None more are needed.

I've seen in some cases, mod snip to remove racist content or whatever. If that process were implemented more consistently, it would improve quality.

The poster who said fat women in yoga pants were pigs and should wear sacks in public was not banned, despite this content. His post was deleted but he was still back 5 minutes later. He only got threadbanned because he kept making the comment worse.

pjohnson · 05-04-2021 9:11am

Is yoga pants going to be todays Lasagne?

CtevenSrowder · 05-04-2021 9:11am

pwurple wrote: »

no-one is piling on or shouting down? Except you is it? You've 2 and a half times more posts here than I even do.

And? What's your point. I'm discussing the issue particularly with anewme.

The numbers you say?

pwurple wrote: »

My replied in this thread: 10
CtevenSrowder, LegEndReject,99nsr125,Omackeral: 26+10+17+7 = 60.

600% more posts is a pile-on from where I'm sitting.

The majority of posts against this have been in repsonse to anewme. So you aren't even capable of identifying the correct person who would be a victim of this pile on. Hint, it wouldn't be you.

pwurple wrote: »

What toys are you talking about? Again, I've made a few short posts. From you I see missives, diatribes, acres and acres of text whinging and whining that I'm oversenstive. The only oversensitive person I see here are those trembling for the right to continue slandering women.

You accusing people of bullying. What is your evidence? People disagreeing with you is not bullying.

pwurple wrote: »

. You know what... saying the same thing over and over and over again is shouting down. Not making any new point, just pestering. Not only have you said the same inane things 260% more often than me, you've said them over and over again in the same post multiple times. Not shouting down? Give me a bloody break. It's all you do.

No it isn't. You can not be shouted down on an internet forum. Shouting down means to shout so someone can not speak. One cannot do that on a forum such as this. So suggesting anyone being shouted down is absurd.

pwurple wrote: »

Oh cheers, thanks! I really live for that, if only people would make personal insulting comments on me all the time my life would be complete. Can you see what you write? Can you tell when it's ignored that it's from politeness? Because it would be rude to point out the absolute fool you make of yourself repeatedly? Saying you never make personal comments, in the same sentence as making a personal insult...

You are the one who brought people being oversensitive into the discussion. Stop now trying to play the victim.

pwurple wrote: »

No guidelines, no policy, no education needed. No improvement possible, just shrug and ignore. Maybe those difficult oversensitive crazy (ugly too and in need of a boob job) vocal women will just go away.

pwurple wrote: »

No, no education needed. Again with this arrogant notion of 'if people were just educated they'd agree with me' I have never said that once, what are the quote marks for?

Then why do people need to be educated? What is the purpose? Why are you assuming they are not already educated?

pwurple wrote: »

You can think it's fine, and I can disagree. I guarantee you , you don't even see the posts I see, because they are removed before they pollute your eyes. I'm soundly fed up with that roundabout.

I don't want sanitised debate. I don't want to be a pseudo-mod. I want improved commentary on thread and an actual position instead of dancing around on pinheads.

How can you guarentee that? You say you don't want to be a pseudo-mod yet t seems like you are one already. Do you go looking for these posts?

If you have your way, instead of 'dancing on pinheads' we'll be walking on eggshells. It remains, that the contributors to this thread in the main think the moderation is fine and that nothing should change, or can be done necessarily.

Princess Calla · 05-04-2021 9:11am

anewme wrote: »

Deleting comments are deleting the history.

If boards are committed to improving quality, then the policy needs to change here.

People were not happy that I posted the deleted comment. Although it could have appeared pedantic to post it, what it demonstrated was that (a) extremely nasty content was posted and (b) some people some people were ok with it.

Some even said they would not have seen it had I not posted it. A good few thanked that post, which would read as if they would not have read it either. So if people are not seeing misognistic comments, is it any wonder they don't believe there are any.

Same happened with the fat pig who should not go out in public post. Deleting it allowed it disappear, again, poster was posting again on the thread a few minutes later standing over the post.

So, by deleting comments, it is allowing it appear there is no problem. Next week, most wont remember there was a sexist/misogynistic/racist (or whatever) comment there. All they will see is there is someone weirdly giving out about nothing.

See I honestly don't know how what you want can be achieved.

I don't particularly like the policy of straight up deletion. I don't like returning to a thread when this has happened because the flow of conversation is completely altered especially if a mod acted like a ninja and didn't leave a message.

However I do appreciate that the ratio of mods to posters. I don't think they can physically deal with every post and write a paragraph as to why that post is not acceptable*

I've seen this issue pop up in other forums and nothing to do with any "ism"

The problem though if you leave a post without deleting it , say that post is on page 5, but the thread is up to page 20, you will have a latecomer to the thread get offended , report it, maybe quote it and fight against it...so that post will then pop up on page 21 ...however a mod dealt with it on page 7.....so that too will kill the thread. ....now maybe a mod could alter the original post to say something like "actioned" so latecomers know to leave it alone. ....however some posts don't deserve to be seen, or can be fairly inflammatory. Again that's subjective and will fall on a mod to decide do I delete or write actioned....if they go with actioned will it open the mod up to more abuse....so it's seriously a no win situation.

I'll be honest I wouldn't have known about the comment until it was posted here. I did read the thread but I read it about 5 mins after it opened so there were only a few posts and I knew what direction it would take....the same way if I see a rowdy bunch of people in real life I avoid...no good can come of it. The subject matter had all the elements for turning into a "clusteref*ck" and it appears it did.

*Now there could be a log thread where posts removed are posted and the the reasons why. Again very labour intensive , but it would make for a great read. I'm only half joking.

pwurple · 05-04-2021 9:23am

pwurple wrote: »

Thanks for this, and I hope that because I post late at night it’s understood that it suits me to do so at that time, and certainly is not that I expect a response there and then or even anytime over a holiday weekend.

I also appreciate the actions that were taken, a very good idea to remove that one entirely.

I continue to note in this thread itself, there is a post stating something like “but the thread was about tits” , which again reinforces that some people think that any thread whatsoever that mentions women (in this case about women breaking the current quarantine law) means it’s a free for all on women’s bodies. The “boys club”, locker room mentality is unfortunately pervasive.

Back when I modded (not here, this was back in the late 90’s in early bulletin boards) we found it useful to have guidelines on racism, sexism, lgbt bullying etc. Definitions on what each of these were, with real world examples. And the appropriate actions that should be taken. They were pretty basic. first instance of it on the thread was a mod note to stop. Second was a card or warning, and third was a lock on the thread for an hour. 61 reports on a thread is certainly a flag something is amiss.

Ideally forums become self-moderating to some extent, once the user community is educated on what’s tolerated, and what is not. That education is generally done through the charters and the on-thread notes from mods. I asked the mod who was taking action at the time was there a guideline on misogyny or sexism, and the answer was no, it’s entirely at the mods discretion. This is an opportunity for improvement.

We are a community and all of us on here, deserve to be written about with respect.

So, as there is no mission statement, no guidance, can I ask is there there intention to create this? Is it just not here YET, but it’s in the works, or is the intention to leave things as they are indefinitely?

Reposting this as I see it wasn’t responded to with all the other noise.

I’ll wait.

anewme · 05-04-2021 9:31am

Princess Calla wrote: »

See I honestly don't know how what you want can be achieved.

I don't particularly like the policy of straight up deletion. I don't like returning to a thread when this has happened because the flow of conversation is completely altered especially if a mod acted like a ninja and didn't leave a message.

However I do appreciate that the ratio of mods to posters. I don't think they can physically deal with every post and write a paragraph as to why that post is not acceptable*

I've seen this issue pop up in other forums and nothing to do with any "ism"

The problem though if you leave a post without deleting it , say that post is on page 5, but the thread is up to page 20, you will have a latecomer to the thread get offended , report it, maybe quote it and fight against it...so that post will then pop up on page 21 ...however a mod dealt with it on page 7.....so that too will kill the thread. ....now maybe a mod could alter the original post to say something like "actioned" so latecomers know to leave it alone. ....however some posts don't deserve to be seen, or can be fairly inflammatory. Again that's subjective and will fall on a mod to decide do I delete or write actioned....if they go with actioned will it open the mod up to more abuse....so it's seriously a no win situation.

But if, as is claimed here there are only a tiny number of posts requiring action, then its not a big deal. Just to agree a more defined process. If the Mods have to delete it anyway...a one liner...deleted due to racist(or whatever) content...will be enough.

Deleting leaves the mod open to the same abuse unfortunately, why did you delete my post?

If the post is left up with a Mod edit to say actioned, then the latecomer can see actioned and not start it again.

It would be a change mindset and it's not 100 percent foolproof but could improve quality or lack there of.

Again, I know Mods are volunteers, so am unaware of how if any training or calibration guidance is given.

knucklehead6 · 05-04-2021 9:31am

pwurple wrote: »

Reposting this as I see it wasn’t responded to with all the other noise.

I’ll wait.

It seems as if you want a set of rules regarding sexism that the mods and admins have to follow, and if you don’t agree with those rules then you’ll be offended.

This site has always operated on the ethos of don’t be a dick. It allows for a bit of personal interpretation of posts by the mod team.

Tho lasagne post fell way short of don’t be a dick, but it wasn’t sexist

knucklehead6 · 05-04-2021 9:32am

anewme wrote: »

But if, as is claimed here there are only a tiny number of posts requiring action, then its not a big deal. Just to agree a more defined process. If the Mods have to delete it anyway...a one liner...deleted due to racist(or whatever) content...will be enough.

Deleting leaves the mod open to the same abuse unfortunately, why did you delete my post?

If the post is left up with a Mod edit to say actioned, then the latecomer can see actioned and not start it again.

It would be a change mindset and it's not 100 percent foolproof but could improve quality or lack there of.

Again, I know Mods are volunteers, so am unaware of how if any training or calibration guidance is given.

This reply works for you too

It seems as if you want a set of rules regarding sexism that the mods and admins have to follow, and if you don’t agree with those rules then you’ll be offended.

This site has always operated on the ethos of don’t be a dick. It allows for a bit of personal interpretation of posts by the mod team.

Tho lasagne post fell way short of don’t be a dick, but it wasn’t sexist

anewme · 05-04-2021 9:34am

pjohnson wrote: »

Is yoga pants going to be todays Lasagne?

Mod has asked people to stick to feedback for mods/admins to improve quality.

Would be great if you could do that.

Thanks.

Discussion on sexism

Comments