YLYL Thread and other things...

[AC]

Originally Posted by Locke

Ok, ok, we get it. You're offended.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by ExiledFlamesFan

I find this post very offensive

What's funny is that the thread is "offensive" as an argument was thrown out of the picture real early in the original discussion. It wasn't that the thread or the comments offended people that it was shut down.

It was that the commets were inherently sexist and the pictures were purely objectifying.

No one had to be offended for the above statements to be true. If a no one is offended by racist or homophobic comments does that make them okay? I would argue that they still aren't okay because those views and attitudes should be eliminated. On whether objectification is okay you can have a real interesting discussion but the whole sky is falling everything offends somebody tone of the last few pages is a red herring, and seems whiney and childish.

It wasn't removed because it was offensive or because people too offense.

[Daradon]

Re: Woob

I have tried to include good ideas on both sides, including saying Iceman had arguments for both censorship and equal treatment, just that his focus on the avatars was incorrect and was becoming petty (and lessening the strength of his own arguments).

I've also also said exactly what you said, that the whole thing is about respect, and we should just think a little bit about what we post, not just in issues of sexism, but all posts and issues.

So hopefully you didn't mean me by your comment, cause if I'm going to be called out for thanking ResAliens post in frustration after trying to bring more light to the issue, and trying to build a bridge or two along the way, especially when the poster in question is just trying to be difficult, well I'm not sorry about that.

To that though, I do wonder if anyone has an over/under on when this thread gets temporarily closed for review?

[ExiledFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

It's almost like many posters are trying not to understand in order to avoid confronting their own behavior. The backflips we'll go to to avoid any type of self-reflection is certainly one of the most depressing facets of the human condition.

Ah yes. The mountaintop argument. Look how silly those fools look from way up here. The great enlightened tinordi

[octothorp]

So suddenly the pitchforks are out, demanding that specific posters do specific things, without going through the moderators. If you guys are really offended by Eastern Girl's avatar, the proper course of action is to explain to the moderators and say that you think that CP should have a policy about exposed skin in avatars, or something. And you know what? I bet the moderators would treat that suggestion seriously. But the current course of pretending to be offended over something that, in all likelihood, you did not care about in the least 48 hours ago, looks rather petty.

As long as people treat the conversation seriously and don't use it to carry on grudges, I think there's a lot more that can be discussed what could be changed. Daradon's example of the Sedin Sisters, for example. To me, this type of casual sexism is an important part of the conversation, because it's so damn pervasive on here (and I'm as guilty of it as anyone). These things get codified into memes both her and on the broader online community, and probably very hard to moderate them.

So how about you guys follow that example and rather than pointing at EG, have a rational discussion about what should and shouldn't be allowed in avatars, where any lines should be drawn. Does the image need to be sexualized in some way to be offensive? Does it need to show a certain amount of skin? Articulate what you think any new policy should be.

[DuffMan]

Hello,

First time in this thread and I have only read the last 2 pages.

Can someone give the Cliff Notes on this, there seems to be a lot of pent up sexual frustration in here. Would just like to know if it is worth starting from pg. 1

Thanks in advance.

[-TC-]

Originally Posted by Daradon

I've already explained why that statement is factually incorrect. She is not a hypocrite, you guys are misunderstanding. I'm not going to repeat myself. Either you've already read my posts which came after what you quoted and disagree, or haven't read them yet. Either way, there is no reason to repeat my arguments.

I understand perfectly, I've read your posts, and I disagree with your opinion.

My logic is perfectly valid, even if you can't or won't see it.

If there is a standard, then the standard should apply to all.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by AC

I see your Flight of the Concords and raise you a Stephen Fry.

Wrapped in NSFW tags for, hilariously ironically, offensive language.

NSFW!

[woob]

Daradon - It wasn't directed at any specific poster.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by octothorp

So suddenly the pitchforks are out, demanding that specific posters do specific things, without going through the moderators. If you guys are really offended by Eastern Girl's avatar, the proper course of action is to explain to the moderators and say that you think that CP should have a policy about exposed skin in avatars, or something. And you know what? I bet the moderators would treat that suggestion seriously. But the current course of pretending to be offended over something that, in all likelihood, you did not care about in the least 48 hours ago, looks rather petty.

As long as people treat the conversation seriously and don't use it to carry on grudges, I think there's a lot more that can be discussed what could be changed. Daradon's example of the Sedin Sisters, for example. To me, this type of casual sexism is an important part of the conversation, because it's so damn pervasive on here (and I'm as guilty of it as anyone). These things get codified into memes both her and on the broader online community, and probably very hard to moderate them.

So how about you guys follow that example and rather than pointing at EG, have a rational discussion about what should and shouldn't be allowed in avatars, where any lines should be drawn. Does the image need to be sexualized in some way to be offensive? Does it need to show a certain amount of skin? Articulate what you think any new policy should be.

Thanking for the bolded, not just because you liked my conversation...

[GGG]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Hello,

First time in this thread and I have only read the last 2 pages.

Can someone give the Cliff Notes on this, there seems to be a lot of pent up sexual frustration in here. Would just like to know if it is worth starting from pg. 1

Thanks in advance.

It can be summerized as,

If we can't have our thread no one is allowed to post anything about anything slippery slope followed by some whining about EG's avatar.

Also some interesting posts on whether or not we shame edmonton's men and women equally

[BlackArcher101]

And this last page is a great example of why I didn't bother posting my viewpoint in the discussion thread. If you held the other viewpoint, you were raked over the coals and vilified publicly with replies to you calling your viewpoint ignorant, out to lunch or just not getting it, while the same posters demanded respect for their viewpoint. Wonder how many other people felt the same way? I'm betting quite a few based on the difference between the poll and posts.

Both sides are trying to get 100% agreement to their own viewpoint/OPINION. That will never happen and some people should just back away or type as if they were speaking publicly.

This board is just shameful. We are pushing for inclusiveness/equality, yet attacking anyone who is of a differing opinion.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by -TC-

I understand perfectly, I've read your posts, and I disagree with your opinion.

My logic is perfectly valid, even if you can't or won't see it.

If there is a standard, then the standard should apply to all.

It already does though! (Bangs head against the way)

Avatars have not been banned. So why should hers be?!

And if you bring up the argument that 'well she argued against sexy pictures in general' then your still missing it. Cause she didn't argue that! She argued about the attitudes surround the pictures.

How can she be a hypocrite if the standard is the same? What am I missing?

[-TC-]

Originally Posted by octothorp

If you guys are really offended by Eastern Girl's avatar,...

To clarify, I could care less what some random stranger uses as an avatar on an internet message board.

My point was...is, that to post what has been posted about sexism, etc., while maintaining the same posture about men, is hypocritical.


I haven't read any responses to my actual point. Only opinions singling it out as petty...that's obfuscation on their part, so be it.

Anyway, this is going nowhere so I'm out.... enjoy the ride folks.

[rotten42]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

And this last page is a great example of why I didn't bother posting my viewpoint in the discussion thread. If you held the other viewpoint, you were raked over the coals and vilified publicly with replies to you calling your viewpoint ignorant, out to lunch or just not getting it, while the same posters demanded respect for their viewpoint. Wonder how many other people felt the same way? I'm betting quite a few based on the difference between the poll and posts.

Both sides are trying to get 100% agreement to their own viewpoint/OPINION. That will never happen and some people should just back away or type as if they were speaking publicly.

This board is just shameful. We are pushing for inclusiveness/equality, yet attacking anyone who is of a differing opinion.

Well said...

[RyZ]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

We are pushing for inclusiveness/equality, yet attacking anyone who is of a differing opinion.

That is the creed of the internet social justice warrior. A minority banging a loud drum.

Sad that the mods fell for it.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I thought we were getting rid of the hot women gifs.

[Tinordi]

All people have opinions, some people have opinions that fray decency, empathy and equality. Further, some people seem to think that because they have a right to an opinion they have a right to share an opinion even if it hurts, excludes, belittles someone else for reasons out of their control. Those people seem to think that the moral issue with their indecent opinions is their lack of being able to share them and that all of the hurt, belittling, etc. is a problem for someone else.

[-TC-]

Originally Posted by Daradon

She argued about the attitudes surround the pictures.

How can she be a hypocrite if the standard is the same? What am I missing?

you got it...you're just ignoring it.

She argues against the attitude and yet she herself perpetuates it. Only in reverse.

That's the crux...her own words and actions undermine her good intentions.

[Resolute 14]

Apropos:

http://www.theguardian.com/women-in-...r-voice-louder

Hackers are trying to silence Emma Watson by leaking nude photos - but they only made her voice louder

Intimidating women who speak out on behalf of their sex will only stop when we show the bullies they have no power