Boards unfettered sexism (See Mod Note in first post)

Tokyo · 16-02-2021 5:10am

Admin: Troll and replies to said troll deleted.

meeeeh · 16-02-2021 11:03am

sullivlo wrote: »

Wrong wing views you mean

Ps: banned

I'm sorry but that does make me uneasy. Especially on transportation issues and stuff where more and more people are accused of having wrong opinions and shouldn't be heard.

I'm all against abuse and insults but people shouldn't have the right not to be challenged just because they feel the other person's views are wrong. Then you are getting closed society when only the 'right' thinking is allowed. I grew up in that, it's not a nice happy place of people educated into the right way of thinking.

sullivlo · 16-02-2021 11:21am

meeeeh wrote: »

I'm sorry but that does make me uneasy. Especially on transportation and stuff where more and more people are accused of having wrong opinions and shouldn't be heard.

I'm all against abuse and insults but people shouldn't have the right not to be challenged just because they feel the other person's views are wrong. Then you are getting closed society when only the 'right' thinking is allowed. I grew up in that, it's not a nice happy place of people educated into the right way of thinking.

It was a play on words with a poster who was intentionally trying to wind up other posters.

Gruffalux · 16-02-2021 11:25am

meeeeh wrote: »

I'm sorry but that does make me uneasy. Especially on transportation and stuff where more and more people are accused of having wrong opinions and shouldn't be heard.

I'm all against abuse and insults but people shouldn't have the right not to be challenged just because they feel the other person's views are wrong. Then you are getting closed society when only the 'right' thinking is allowed. I grew up in that, it's not a nice happy place of people educated into the right way of thinking.

Well said. I have friends in eastern Europe who are adamant in their defense of anyone's right to hold politically incorrect views.
Im a bit stumped on transportation

is there a controversial view on that I have not heard about?

A person I would show as an example of one being framed as a right wing bigot who should be deplatformed is Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She has just written a book called Prey. She is absolutely not a racist, an Islamophobe, a transphobe, though she is called all those names for having reasonable, politely articulated views that are not considered right-on at this time.

anewme · 16-02-2021 11:29am

Gruffalux wrote: »

Well said. I have friends in eastern Europe who are adamant in their defense of anyone's right to hold politically incorrect views.
Im a bit stumped on transportation is there a controversial view on that I have not heard about?

A person I would show as an example of one being framed as a right wing bigot who should be deplatformed is Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She has just written a book called Prey. She is absolutely not a racist, an Islamophobe, a transphobe, though she is called all those names for having reasonable, politely articulated views that are not considered right-on at this time.

Difference between holding different views and discussing and constant trolling to upset others and issue out abuse just to stir.

The Mods on any forum should not have to remove 24 re regs a night.

meeeeh · 16-02-2021 11:41am

Gruffalux wrote: »

Well said. I have friends in eastern Europe who are adamant in their defense of anyone's right to hold politically incorrect views.
Im a bit stumped on transportation is there a controversial view on that I have not heard about?

I just noticed that. I should reread posts before I press post button.

Gruffalux · 16-02-2021 11:44am

anewme wrote: »

Difference between holding different views and discussing and constant trolling to upset others and issue out abuse just to stir.

The Mods on any forum should not have to remove 24 re regs a night.

I have not said otherwise at all. I was responding to meeeh talking about a societal enforcement of ''right think'', which has happened in many places in many times in world history, and happens still.

The mystery to me is why anyone would bother re regging even once in a night - and re regging compulsively might be indicative of mental health issues, to be honest.

anewme · 16-02-2021 11:50am

Gruffalux wrote: »

To be devil's advocate, the 'reasons' you say are given by Dudara don't make sense (to me) - an ''amazing'' but ''hate''-filled site - it seems an odd coupling.

I would not see it as odd at all.

I had missed that Poster Dudara too, really lovely poster.

To me, what she is saying makes total sense, there are areas of the site and forums and people on the site who are amazing, I've had lots of help to queries down the years, be they household, personal, or what else.

The other side of it, there are the toxic posters who are hate driven and want to hurt people. Its not about different views, there can be different views without abusing or mocking people.

It is when the good ones leave as a result of the bad ones and that the bad ones are not tackled, that discussions have no barrier or filter (somebody mentioned imigrants should be drowned as an example) that posters like Dudara and indeed many posters who have been honest here dont see an option but to leave or stay away.

Surely that is consorship in itself. Might as well put up a keep out sign.

Gruffalux · 16-02-2021 11:56am

anewme wrote: »

I would not see it as odd at all.

I had missed that Poster Dudara too, really lovely poster.

To me, what she is saying makes total sense, there are areas of the site and forums and people on the site who are amazing, I've had lots of help to queries down the years, be they household, personal, or what else.

The other side of it, there are the toxic posters who are hate driven and want to hurt people. Its not about different views, there can be different views without abusing or mocking people.

It is when the good ones leave as a result of the bad ones and that the bad ones are not tackled, that discussions have no barrier or filter (somebody mentioned imigrants should be drowned as an example) that posters like Dudara and indeed many posters who have been honest here dont see an option but to leave or stay away.

Surely that is consorship in itself. Might as well put up a keep out sign.

On the opposite side of that, I have closed various accounts over the years on boards and stayed away for periods of time, because of personalised abuse I have received persistently from ''right on'' politically-correct long-time boards members who have freely called me names like bigot and hater and phobic and insulted me and so on, because some of my political views - which I believe I generally articulate as best I can without hatred, bar the odd bit of frustrated sarcasm - are not acceptable in polite society these days. The sword is double edged, perhaps. No one likes being labelled disgusting untrue things.

anewme · 16-02-2021 11:58am

Gruffalux wrote: »

On the opposite side of that, I have closed various accounts over the years on boards and stayed away for periods of time, because of personalised abuse I have received persistently from ''right on'' politically-correct long-time boards members who have freely called me names like bigot and hater and phobic and insulted me and so on, because some of my political views - which I believe I generally articulate as best I can without hatred, bar the odd bit of frustrated sarcasm - are not acceptable in polite society these days. The sword is double edged, perhaps. No one likes being labelled disgusting untrue things.

Sorry to hear that you received personalised abuse.

16-02-2021 1:07pm

anewme wrote: »

I would not see it as odd at all.

I had missed that Poster Dudara too, really lovely poster.

To me, what she is saying makes total sense, there are areas of the site and forums and people on the site who are amazing, I've had lots of help to queries down the years, be they household, personal, or what else.

The other side of it, there are the toxic posters who are hate driven and want to hurt people. Its not about different views, there can be different views without abusing or mocking people.

It is when the good ones leave as a result of the bad ones and that the bad ones are not tackled, that discussions have no barrier or filter (somebody mentioned imigrants should be drowned as an example) that posters like Dudara and indeed many posters who have been honest here dont see an option but to leave or stay away.

Surely that is consorship in itself. Might as well put up a keep out sign.

Indeed Twitter is not a medium to express nuance.

Invidious · 16-02-2021 1:07pm

runawaybishop wrote: »

*Cough*

Anyway, 'You ladies want a forum free from sexism racism, transphobia etc.'

Wtf is wrong with that? Doesn't everyone want that. By the very definition of those terms they are negative.

The problem is that sexism, racism, transphobia, etc., are often highly subjective.

For instance, I've noticed quite a few female posters across Boards voicing concerns about male-bodied trans individuals using women's bathrooms and changing facilities, competing in women's sports, being housed in women's prisons, and the like. Started by a woman, the Current Affairs thread "Biological males in women's sport" attracted over 2,000 responses. Other women have voiced concern about language that erases specific female experience from the public sphere -- such as referring to "people who are pregnant" rather than pregnant women, to "chestfeeding" rather than breastfeeding, and so on.

Many regard these as legitimate women's issues that need to be discussed. But others accuse those who wish to preserve certain female-specific spaces, competitions or terminology of being transphobes or "TERFs."

When it comes to racism ... that's obviously another charged issue. For instance, domestic violence, sexual abuse, and coercion/control of women are far more prevalent in the Travelling community than in the settled community — many Traveller girls are pressured into arranged marriages at the age of 16 or 17, and a Traveller woman is 30 times more likely to experience domestic violence than a settled woman. But if Travellers are criticized openly for their treatment of girls and women, such discussions will inevitably attract accusations of racism against an ethnic minority.

To some, a forum "free from sexism racism, transphobia, etc" is a desirable goal. To others, it would create a politically correct echo chamber where important issues — including important women's issues — can't be discussed openly for fear of someone declaring him- or herself offended.

Obviously, it's not just boards. Any site hosting public discourse is wrestling with these same issues — and there are no clear answers.

anewme · 16-02-2021 1:53pm

Invidious wrote: »

The problem is that sexism, racism, transphobia, etc., are often highly subjective.

To some, a forum "free from sexism racism, transphobia, etc" is a desirable goal. To others, it would create a politically correct echo chamber where important issues — including important women's issues — can't be discussed openly for fear of someone declaring him- or herself offended.

Obviously, it's not just boards. Any site hosting public discourse is wrestling with these same issues — and there are no clear answers.

Yes, agree any site has the same issues. But here, there does not seem to be any real appetite to raise the qualitative standards.

There can be a discussion on womens fashion for example, saying what you like or dont like without going into graphic detail about folds, camel toes, fat pigs, etc.

Notwithstanding any discussions or different views, discussions and debate are one thing.....if you read the posts on the leggings thread, you will see why people have had enough.

Referring to any person as a pig is not the level of engagement needed. It is abuse. Same as laughing at someone for their looks, weight. Thread on Tommy Tiernan had numerous posts about a lad who had lost his friend through suicide. Instead of engaging with the topic, there were a lot of insulting comments on the young man's looks.

That type of behaviour is driving people away from Boards and this thread here demonstrates that people have had enough.

For a forum that markets itself as a Community Forum, the base line threshold behaviour level is very low (across certain forums), which unfortunately seems to be creeping more and more into the main.

Annasopra · 16-02-2021 2:04pm

Invidious wrote: »

To some, a forum "free from sexism racism, transphobia, etc" is a desirable goal. To others, it would create a politically correct echo chamber where important issues — including important women's issues — can't be discussed openly for fear of someone declaring him- or herself offended.

Or it becomes the opposite where its an extremely unwelcoming echo chamber that no women, feminists, trans people, travellers, refugees, asylum seekers, black and ethnic minority people, people of colour go near because they are treated with ridicule, bigotry and hate.

anewme · 16-02-2021 2:06pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Or it becomes the opposite where its an extremely unwelcoming echo chamber that no women, feminists, trans people, travellers, refugees, asylum seekers, black and ethnic minority people, people of colour go near because they are treated with ridicule, bigotry and hate.

As is evidenced by people leaving and the low quality threads such as the leggings one remaining.

strandroad · 16-02-2021 2:10pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Or it becomes the opposite where its an extremely unwelcoming echo chamber that no women, feminists, trans people, travellers, refugees, asylum seekers, black and ethnic minority people, people of colour go near because they are treated with ridicule, bigotry and hate.

We'll probably losing sound men too. You don't need to be the "other" yourself to be disappointed in how the dominating discourse treats them.

anewme · 16-02-2021 2:12pm

strandroad wrote: »

We'll probably losing sound men too. You don't need to be the "other" yourself to be disappointed in how the dominating discourse treats them.

I'd say that is a real issue too. Have seen some men rounded on as white knights, wuss etc and worse for not agreeing with the cohort of people we are talking about.

Gruffalux · 16-02-2021 2:19pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Or it becomes the opposite where its an extremely unwelcoming echo chamber that no women, feminists, trans people, travellers, refugees, asylum seekers, black and ethnic minority people, people of colour go near because they are treated with ridicule, bigotry and hate.

See that. A perfect example where a valid debate (on gender theory and identity) that is generally civilised,
apart from some unpleasant types who drop in clangers and are quickly eliminated, thankfully, is casually framed in absolute terms by a person on one side of the issue as being ridicule, bigotry and hate. So I presume the intention is to claim those on the other side of the issue are bigots and haters who ridicule people - which is a complete lie.

strandroad · 16-02-2021 2:47pm

Gruffalux wrote: »

See that. A perfect example where a valid debate (on gender theory and identity) that is generally civilised,
apart from some unpleasant types who drop in clangers and are quickly eliminated, thankfully, is casually framed in absolute terms by a person on one side of the issue as being ridicule, bigotry and hate. So I presume the intention is to claim those on the other side of the issue are bigots and haters who ridicule people - which is a complete lie.

In fairness, how do you think a trans person would benefit from your thread exactly Gruffalux? With all the things you deny them (like agency or bathroom access) and the things you imply (like self-fetishism) they would need to denounce themselves or be a complete masochist to participate. I know that trans posters have left boards in the past and "generally civilised" is a very generous self-categorisation. Try reading it as someone with a trans family member for example and see if it still applies. At least you're not trolling outside of it - so it's somewhat out of scope here.

GingerLily · 16-02-2021 2:55pm

strandroad wrote: »

We'll probably losing sound men too. You don't need to be the "other" yourself to be disappointed in how the dominating discourse treats them.

More generally than sound men, I think it tends to drive away the middle ground, so you end up with just extreme posters from both sides, and no one listening to each other

Gruffalux · 16-02-2021 3:00pm

strandroad wrote: »

In fairness, how do you think a trans person would benefit from your thread exactly Gruffalux? With all the things you deny them (like agency or bathroom access) and the things you imply (like self-fetishism) they would need to denounce themselves or be a complete masochist to participate. I know that trans posters have left boards in the past and "generally civilised" is a very generous self-categorisation. Try reading it as someone with a trans family member for example and see if it still applies. At least you're not trolling outside of it - so it's somewhat out of scope here.

So, I am trolling inside of it? That is your direct implication. I think to accuse someone of being a troll is against boards rules. Perhaps you can withdraw the false accusation now.

I am speaking on behalf of children who are being abused by gender confusion ideology and experimental medication, and on behalf of the rights of women (especially) to maintain their own sex-based rights and protections. Which I will continue to do. There are a good number of prominent people engaged in the debate outside of boards, who are good people but are supposedly on the wrong side of history. Like JK Rowling. Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Joanne Cherry who is presently receiving multiple rape threats from activists and has had to up her home security.
I have always said there must be parallel rights and protections, but women's rights cannot be overthrown.
There are many good liberal women in that thread. I am generally civilised. I do not have to provide references for others. Joey has implied directly that I am a hater and a bigot, not the first time by any means.

Fetish is a large portion of the transgender issue, both in reference to cross dressers and to autogynophiliac transgender people - it is the awkward elephant in the room. Not all of course as I regularly say. But it is an important part of the wider debate no matter how indiscrete you think me for pointing it out.

Yakov P. Golyadkin · 16-02-2021 3:12pm

Gruffalux wrote: »

So, I am trolling inside of it? That is your direct implication. I think to accuse someone of being a troll is against boards rules. Perhaps you can withdraw the false accusation now.

I am speaking on behalf of children who are being abused by gender confusion ideology and experimental medication, and on behalf of the rights of women (especially) to maintain their own sex-based rights and protections. Which I will continue to do. There are a good number of prominent people engaged in the debate outside of boards, who are good people but are supposedly on the wrong side of history. Like JK Rowling. Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Joanne Cherry who is presently receiving multiple rape threats from activists and has had to up her home security.
I have always said there must be parallel rights and protections, but women's rights cannot be overthrown.
There are many good liberal women in that thread. I am generally civilised. I do not have to provide references for others. Joey has implied directly that I am a hater and a bigot, not the first time by any means.

Fetish is a large portion of the transgender issue, both in reference to cross dressers and to autogynophiliac transgender people - it is the awkward elephant in the room. Not all of course as I regularly say. But it is an important part of the wider debate no matter how indiscrete you think me for pointing it out.

You're terribly defensive, unnecessarily so I would say.

There are any number of other threads where you can soapbox, as it is you seem to be distracting from the purpose of this thread.

strandroad · 16-02-2021 3:14pm

Gruffalux wrote: »

So, I am trolling inside of it? That is your direct implication. I think to accuse someone of being a troll is against boards rules. Perhaps you can withdraw the false accusation now.

This thread arose from examples of sexist low level trolling in non obvious threads (like fashion), that's what I'm referring to.

Gruffalux wrote: »

I am speaking on behalf of children who are being abused by gender confusion ideology and experimental medication, and on behalf of the rights of women (especially) to maintain their own sex-based rights and protections. Which I will continue to do. There are a good number of prominent people engaged in the debate outside of boards, who are good people but are supposedly on the wrong side of history. Like JK Rowling. Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Joanne Cherry who is presently receiving multiple rape threats from activists and has had to up her home security.
I have always said there must be parallel rights and protections, but women's rights cannot be overthrown.
There are many good liberal women in that thread. I am generally civilised. I do not have to provide references for others. Joey has implied directly that I am a hater and a bigot, not the first time by any means.

Fetish is a large portion of the transgender issue, both in reference to cross dressers and to autogynophiliac transgender people - it is the awkward elephant in the room. Not all of course as I regularly say. But it is an important part of the wider debate no matter how indiscrete you think me for pointing it out.

Your thread is based on generalising fringe content and behaviours onto the general and benevolent trans population with proposed negative impact on their rights. Would a bog standard vanilla trans person or their close ones benefit from your thread? Is it a problem for boards if they don't or they leave because they can't stomach how they are painted? I don't know, it's an open question, but it seems related to problems discussed.

Gruffalux · 16-02-2021 3:36pm

Haha

at least consult when you are trying to depict someone in a bad light to get the story straight. The last 2 posters cannot decide whether my views are relevant or irrelevant soap boxing.
Anyway I have said my pieces generally on this whole area. I will leave you to it. Between having the words bigot, hate, ridicule, soap boxing, trolling, and defensive directly applied to me by the good folk and how benevolent people cannot stomach how I paint them, I know when I am considered an undesirable. Bye now y'all.

Faith · 16-02-2021 3:40pm

Mod note: A reminder to keep on topic, please.

Invidious · 16-02-2021 4:08pm

anewme wrote: »

Yes, agree any site has the same issues. But here, there does not seem to be any real appetite to raise the qualitative standards.

There can be a discussion on womens fashion for example, saying what you like or dont like without going into graphic detail about folds, camel toes, fat pigs, etc.

Boards has many forums, with different charters and standards of moderation, meaning that what is acceptable in one forum may not be acceptable in another.

The OP linked to a thread in After Hours, which has a completely different set of posting standards from, say, The Ladies' Lounge or Fashion & Appearance.

In the latter two forums, it would be perfectly possible to have a respectful, informative discussion of women's fashion without people discussing the kinds of things that upset you.

On the other hand, AH is frequently irreverent, flippant and off-color. Most Boards members know what to expect when they go there ... and it's not a serious discussion of women's fashion trends. There are other forums on the site that can facilitate that.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Or it becomes the opposite where its an extremely unwelcoming echo chamber that no women, feminists, trans people, travellers, refugees, asylum seekers, black and ethnic minority people, people of colour go near because they are treated with ridicule, bigotry and hate.

After you've deleted all the content and banned all the posters who might offend women, feminists, trans people, travellers, refugees, asylum seekers, black and ethnic minority people, and people of colour, what and who will remain?

Given the financially precarious position of Boards, the adage "go woke and go broke" comes to mind. The degree of censorship required to produce the kind of sanitized, politically correct Boards.ie that some here envision would drive all non-woke progressives off the site and likely result in its immediate collapse.

cee_jay · 16-02-2021 4:15pm

Invidious wrote: »

Boards has many forums, with different charters and standards of moderation, meaning that what is acceptable in one forum may not be acceptable in another.

The OP linked to a thread in After Hours, which has a completely different set of posting standards from, say, The Ladies' Lounge or Fashion & Appearance.

In the latter two forums, it would be perfectly possible to have a respectful, informative discussion of women's fashion without people discussing the kinds of things that upset you.

On the other hand, AH is frequently irreverent, flippant and off-color. Most Boards members know what to expect when they go there ... and it's not a serious discussion of women's fashion trends. There are other forums on the site that can facilitate that.

Ah I see we have circled back to "Log off", "Ignore it" because its to be expected in that forum. This is what we are attempting to highlight. Posts can be irreverent, flippant and off-colour - but that doesn't mean sexist posts along those lines should be acceptable.

anewme · 16-02-2021 4:25pm

Invidious wrote: »

Boards has many forums, with different charters and standards of moderation, meaning that what is acceptable in one forum may not be acceptable in another.

The OP linked to a thread in After Hours, which has a completely different set of posting standards from, say, The Ladies' Lounge or Fashion & Appearance.

In the latter two forums, it would be perfectly possible to have a respectful, informative discussion of women's fashion without people discussing the kinds of things that upset you.

On the other hand, AH is frequently irreverent, flippant and off-color. Most Boards members know what to expect when they go there ... and it's not a serious discussion of women's fashion trends. There are other forums on the site that can facilitate that.

I beg to disagree.

After Hours is described as under the heading of "Social & Fun".

I dont see any fun in calling people fat pigs.

Same as a thread about Television is not to make derogatory personal comments about a grieving young man's appearance.

The overarching charter of Boards is that personal abuse or mysogony or hatred will not be tolerated.

On the report button - it asks you to report posts in the interest of "make boards a better place".

After Hours - more social and fun - less mysogony.

Creating no go areas is exactly what this thread is about.

Invidious · 16-02-2021 4:41pm

cee_jay wrote: »

Posts can be irreverent, flippant and off-colour - but that doesn't mean sexist posts along those lines should be acceptable.

So posters can be as irreverent, flippant and off-colour as they want, as long as they never say anything that could offend women, feminists, trans people, travellers, refugees, asylum seekers, black and ethnic minority people, or people of colour?

This vision of a hyper–politically correct Boards.ie, with cards and bans flying on every thread, would only lead many posters to walk away, leading to the site's immediate collapse. Go woke and go broke.

Grolschevik · 16-02-2021 4:43pm

Invidious wrote: »

So posters can be as irreverent, flippant and off-colour as they want, as long as they never say anything that could offend women, feminists, trans people, travellers, refugees, asylum seekers, black and ethnic minority people, or people of colour?

This vision of a hyper–politically correct Boards.ie, with cards and bans flying on every thread, would only lead many posters to walk away, leading to the site's immediate collapse. Go woke and go broke.

It's not hyper-political correctness. It's just avoiding being too much of a dick.

What sort of things do you think you'd no longer able to say? Is it stuff that would cause hurt to people who already feel marginalised? If not, you've nothing to worry about in terms of political correctness.

I think the best way of conceptualising PC is, fundamentally, as good manners. Don't say or do stuff that makes people who already feel vulnerable feel even more vulnerable or feel bad.

Chips Lovell · 16-02-2021 4:49pm

I think there's a big difference between being "hyper politically correct" and clamping down on women being called "fat pigs in yoga pants". From my reading of the thread, it's the latter that most people are pushing for.

Grolschevik · 16-02-2021 5:01pm

Yeah, a good and simplistic benchmark is the "would I say this to their face?" test.

Invidious · 16-02-2021 5:02pm

Grolschevik wrote: »

What sort of things do you think you'd no longer able to say?

I gave a couple of examples earlier. Threads on whether male-bodied trans individuals should be allowed to compete against natal women in sports would be banned for being "transphobic." Threads on the abominable treatment of girls and women in the Travelling community would be banned for being "racist."

I think the best way of conceptualising PC is, fundamentally, as good manners. Don't say or do stuff that makes people who already feel vulnerable feel even more vulnerable or feel bad.

Saying that people should post only content that doesn't make anyone feel bad sets an impossible standard. If I post about getting a great new job, I risk making unemployed people feel worthless. If I post about going for a walk, I risk making disabled people feel miserable. If I post about losing 10 lbs and getting in shape, I risk making overweight people feel insecure. And so on.

Airyfairy12 · 16-02-2021 5:02pm

Grolschevik wrote: »

Yeah, a good and simplistic benchmark is the "would I say this to their face?" test.

Unfortunately some of them would have no problem saying these things to a womans face.

cee_jay · 16-02-2021 5:10pm

Invidious wrote: »

I gave a couple of examples earlier. Threads on whether male-bodied trans individuals should be allowed to compete against natal women in sports would be banned for being "transphobic." Threads on the abominable treatment of girls and women in the Travelling community would be banned for being "racist."

Saying that people should post only content that doesn't make anyone feel bad sets an impossible standard. If I post about getting a great new job, I risk making unemployed people feel worthless. If I post about going for a walk, I risk making disabled people feel miserable. If I post about losing 10 lbs and getting in shape, I risk making overweight people feel insecure. And so on.

Nobody is saying you can't post about weight loss - however, degrading someone to "a fat slob in yoga pants hurts my eyes earlier in the coffee shop - how dare she wear that" is sexism. A woman does not dress to please a random man on the street.
I would love if there could be a civil discussion on travelers, and the abuse travelers receive - however, more often than not, these threads are piled on by users using it as an excuse to highlight their own prejudices against travelers - and use these stats to say ALL travelers are criminals, lying, cheating ba$tard$ who just sponge off the state. That is a generalisation, i.e. racist, and does not lead to a civilised discussion that allows for the debate.

Invidious · 16-02-2021 5:10pm

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I think there's a big difference between being "hyper politically correct" and clamping down on women being called "fat pigs in yoga pants". From my reading of the thread, it's the latter that most people are pushing for.

From my own reading of the thread, it began with people objecting to gratuitously offensive comments about women's bodies — but then evolved to the point where certain posters are using the opportunity to propose lists as long as their arms of all the categories of people who need to be protected from any offensive remarks. And that's where we get into the realm of wokeness, hyper political correctness, or whatever you want to call it.

Faith · 16-02-2021 5:12pm

Invidious wrote: »

After you've deleted all the content and banned all the posters who might offend women, feminists, trans people, travellers, refugees, asylum seekers, black and ethnic minority people, and people of colour, what and who will remain?

Women, feminists, trans people, travellers, refugees, asylum seekers, black and ethnic minority people, and people of colour.

anewme · 16-02-2021 5:14pm

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

Unfortunately some of them would have no problem saying these things to a womans face.

I don't think they would actually.

Birds of a Feather flock together.

They somehow feel safer to express these views surrounded by their cloak of anonymity behind their keyboard.

I've certainly never had anyone I know speak to me or about others in such an ignorant manner.

anewme · 16-02-2021 5:20pm

Invidious wrote: »

From my own reading of the thread, it began with people objecting to gratuitously offensive comments about women's bodies — but then evolved to the point where certain posters are using the opportunity to propose lists as long as their arms of all the categories of people who need to be protected from any offensive remarks. And that's where we get into the realm of wokeness, hyper political correctness, or whatever you want to call it.

It began as that, because that is such an obvious example - staring at people straight in the face. There could be no denying that thread was abusive and downright nasty - but then other people came forward with their own examples of what they have experienced and in some cases why they left and it has demonstrated that their is a wider issue at play in respect of what is tolerated on the site.

If you applied the Charter "dont be a dick" to many of the posters in the leggings thread, there would not be many left standing. Now you could see that as a good or a bad thing in the overall context of adding value.

And of course, when someone objects, they must be a "delicate flower" or something like that.

Bannasidhe · 16-02-2021 5:21pm

Faith wrote: »

Women, feminists, trans people, travellers, refugees, asylum seekers, black and ethnic minority people, and people of colour.

And the men who don't feel threatened by them.

anewme · 16-02-2021 5:22pm

Faith wrote: »

Women, feminists, trans people, travellers, refugees, asylum seekers, black and ethnic minority people, and people of colour.

And men, lets not forget there are some great people on this site.

Grolschevik · 16-02-2021 5:23pm

Invidious wrote: »

I gave a couple of examples earlier. Threads on whether male-bodied trans individuals should be allowed to compete against natal women in sports would be banned for being "transphobic." Threads on the abominable treatment of girls and women in the Travelling community would be banned for being "racist."

Saying that people should post only content that doesn't make anyone feel bad sets an impossible standard. If I post about getting a great new job, I risk making unemployed people feel worthless. If I post about going for a walk, I risk making disabled people feel miserable. If I post about losing 10 lbs and getting in shape, I risk making overweight people feel insecure. And so on.

I don't think anyone is saying these things can't be discussed, or going as far as the hyperbole in your latter paragraph.

But there's a difference between arguing a point respectfully, and making an argument in a hostile and disrespectful manner.

For myself, I don't wish to see the respectful discussion of any topic 'banned', merely that more thought can be put into how that discussion is conducted. Like if you were having that conversation in person.

And sometimes we all fail to do that, and that's ok, as long as it's not part of a deliberate pattern of deliberate attempts to insult and denigrate.

16-02-2021 6:09pm

Invidious wrote: »

Boards has many forums, with different charters and standards of moderation, meaning that what is acceptable in one forum may not be acceptable in another.

The OP linked to a thread in After Hours, which has a completely different set of posting standards from, say, The Ladies' Lounge or Fashion & Appearance.

In the latter two forums, it would be perfectly possible to have a respectful, informative discussion of women's fashion without people discussing the kinds of things that upset you.

On the other hand, AH is frequently irreverent, flippant and off-color. Most Boards members know what to expect when they go there ... and it's not a serious discussion of women's fashion trends. There are other forums on the site that can facilitate that.

After you've deleted all the content and banned all the posters who might offend women, feminists, trans people, travellers, refugees, asylum seekers, black and ethnic minority people, and people of colour, what and who will remain?

Given the financially precarious position of Boards, the adage "go woke and go broke" comes to mind. The degree of censorship required to produce the kind of sanitized, politically correct Boards.ie that some here envision would drive all non-woke progressives off the site and likely result in its immediate collapse.

The thing is more often than not, the posters are going out of their way to offend rather than doing something minor that somebody took offense to.

Invidious · 16-02-2021 6:33pm

anewme wrote: »

It began as that, because that is such an obvious example - staring at people straight in the face. There could be no denying that thread was abusive and downright nasty - but then other people came forward with their own examples of what they have experienced and in some cases why they left and it has demonstrated that their is a wider issue at play in respect of what is tolerated on the site.

You have outlined the dynamic well there yourself. Start with some gratuitously offensive examples, but keep going until the proposal is essentially to outlaw everything that could hurt anyone's feelings.

If you applied the Charter "dont be a dick" to many of the posters in the leggings thread, there would not be many left standing.

Exactly, thus illustrating the scale of the banning spree that the mods/admins would have to embark upon to enforce this new set of standards. How many posters will be "left standing" at the end of this purge? I'm betting not enough to make the continued existence of Boards financially viable ... which means the loss of these communities for everyone who uses them.

Invidious · 16-02-2021 6:45pm

Grolschevik wrote: »

But there's a difference between arguing a point respectfully, and making an argument in a hostile and disrespectful manner.

Is there, ultimately? J. K. Rowling has always articulated her views on gender identity in a highly respectful manner — and yet she has been subjected to torrents of online abuse, escalating to rape and death threats, just because she holds the "wrong" opinions on the issue.

And that's ultimately where it always winds up — there's a contingent of posters who don't want respectful, civil discussion about contentious issues. They just want to force everyone to think like them and police that groupthink by attaching derogatory labels (racist, sexist, homophobe, transphobe, etc.) to anyone who disagrees, no matter how civilly or rationally.

The most recent posts by Gruffalux are interesting in that regard. Someone who has made every effort to have debates on a valid topic in a civilized manner, but who has been branded a bigot regardless.

anewme · 16-02-2021 6:46pm

Invidious wrote: »

You have outlined the dynamic well there yourself. Start with some gratuitously offensive examples, but keep going until the proposal is essentially to outlaw everything that could hurt anyone's feelings.

Exactly, thus illustrating the scale of the banning spree that the mods/admins would have to embark upon to enforce this new set of standards. How many posters will be "left standing" at the end of this purge? I'm betting not enough to make the continued existence of Boards financially viable ... which means the loss of these communities for everyone who uses them.

But what you don't know is how many people have left/closed their accounts because of they can't deal with the nastyness. I said earlier I was shocked by the number of people who have come forward here, there are many more who have just left and said nothing and put Boards.ie behind them like a bad memory. I have certainly witnessed new posters, coming in all enthusiastic and being rounded on and driven away. Some only lasting a couple of days.

It's currently like a race to the bottom and it does not have to be that way.

Do you believe that posters with views such as fat women are pigs hurting their eyesight would encourage anyone to a site? Unless it is the same type who wallow in that kind of language and engagement. Would an advertiser want to be associated with a site with reputation for that kind of discourse?

So, it is one for wider Boards I suppose, as to what strategic direction they want to go in.

sullivlo · 16-02-2021 6:49pm

Mod note

The thread is moving wildly off topic.

Time to move on. Last warning as cards will be dealt.

Gruffalux · 16-02-2021 7:18pm

The repeated attempts to make some kind of an equivalence between those who would say ''fat women in leggings are pigs'' and all other politically-unacceptable opinion on boards is seriously disingenuous. One must now think of the former (ie fat pigs) whenever thinking of the latter by virtue of this repeated association in this thread. It is a deliberate tactic called creating a false analogy which is destructive to reasoned debate.

It would only be the absolute bottom feeders who think it is in anyway okay to say ''fat women in leggings are pigs''. Anyone sane knows that. Deal swiftly with such problems. But do not create false analogies to set up a defense of emotively contrived censorship where people can try to prevent all opinions that may be contrary to their own beliefs.

anewme · 16-02-2021 7:48pm

Gruffalux wrote: »

It would only be the absolute bottom feeders who think it is in anyway okay to say ''fat women in leggings are pigs''. Anyone sane knows that. Deal swiftly with such problems.

The problem is way wider than you are making out to be honest.

I've complained before about the number of women bashing threads....why do women...why are women....why do fat women...usually followed by some gross generalisation and an excuse to women bash.

It is only when a thread goes down the road of being so BLATENTLY mysognist that there can be NO defence that it is acknowledged that the quality of posting is an issue. And even then, you have people defending that thread and saying it is just their opinion. There were many nasty comments on that thread, only one or two of them were actually on about about fashion. But the thread was not started to be about fashion. And what happened, the comments got worse and worse and worse, egged on by each other.

Some other content from the "fashion" thread. Different poster than the fat pig comment one. Note this comment mentions teenage girls. Seriously, what type of discussion or debate could this comment encourage?

I would consider borderline obese and morbidly obese Irish teenage girls and women's infatuation with wearing leggings and yoga pants that are WAY too tight for them more egregious and peculiar, but hey, that's just me. Nobody asks for them to literally have their genitalia and bare asshole with/without unhygienic thong stuffed up their (I'm presuming unbleached) butthole proudly on display even though they've never even looked at a gym in their entire lives and exist on a diet of copious amounts of takeaways and sweets.

At least don't wear the leggings up to your nips/cover arse with a jacket or jumper.

People have come on this thread and been brutally honest about their experiences on Boards and why they have left. I would not like to belittle their honesty and wrap it up as being this one thread.

We all know it is far from it.

The thread may be the catalyst, but its just the surface.

Gruffalux · 16-02-2021 8:35pm

anewme wrote: »

. There were many nasty comments on that thread, only one or two of them were actually on about about fashion. But the thread was not started to be about fashion. And what happened, the comments got worse and worse and worse, egged on by each other.

Some other content from the "fashion" thread. Different poster than the fat pig comment one. Note this comment mentions teenage girls. Seriously, what type of discussion or debate could this comment encourage?

I would consider borderline obese and morbidly obese Irish teenage girls and women's infatuation with wearing leggings and yoga pants that are WAY too tight for them more egregious and peculiar, but hey, that's just me. Nobody asks for them to literally have their genitalia and bare asshole with/without unhygienic thong stuffed up their (I'm presuming unbleached) butthole proudly on display even though they've never even looked at a gym in their entire lives and exist on a diet of copious amounts of takeaways and sweets.

At least don't wear the leggings up to your nips/cover arse with a jacket or jumper.
.

In fairness I thought you beheaded them rather poetically by calling them ''salivating knickers searchers''...one sharpens one's rapier on the pointy heads of arseholes.

This shyte is deeply unpleasant. But nothing new. At least here it could be deleted. I had my teenage years made a misery by a gang of school girls who mocked me publicly from one end of the day to another for the crime of being clever and skinny. That's girl on girl viciousness. At least I can look back on those years with a clean conscience, but they can never change having been bitches. Such is life. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Makes you stronger. Campaign to have the posts/thread deleted.

Boards unfettered sexism (See Mod Note in first post)

Comments