YLYL Thread and other things...

[St. Pats]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Political and religious leanings are a choice and a fluid one at that. Conversation and discussion can change opinion on political and religious leanings. How many people were 'born Catholic' and are no longer Catholic? How many were born into conservative households and became liberal?

How many were born female and through conversation, just became male?

Yes, it's possible to change your gender, I understand that. It's also rare and complicated. It is not rare or complicated to put thought into your own personal beliefs surrounding religion or politics.

Do the conversations become personal and offensive? Absolutely they can. Should that be stopped? Absolutely. Political and religious discussion however is not inherently offensive unless those partaking in the conversation make it so. It has the ability to open a person's mind to other possibilities if done in a respectful manner.

A thread dedicated to the discussion of women as if they were cars or food is inherently disrespectful and if you can't understand that, you need to look more carefully.

"I'll have one of those, two of those, that shouldn't even be in the showroom and that one needs an engine upgrade and a paint job."

The point is that offensive is offensive. Belittling someone else because hey they aren't as offended as I am is ridiculous and hypocritical. Those threads are indeed offensive. You could make the same argument about the human form. IF they posted the pictures without the jerky comments then hey they are just respecting the human form.

Sounds like a lot of bunk don't it. If you are going to argue against offensive behavior then you don't pick which ones you are against and which ones you don't mind as it suits your taste.

I'm good with tossing them all and having a very family friendly off-topic forum. Where anything could be discussed in a decent manner without the sexual overtones or the bashing tones.

But singling one out while allowing others. Rubbish.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by St. Pats

Obviously you haven't read some of those threads. Discussion? How about a pile on and total disrespect for someone who lives in a different country, has any religious views whatsover etc. They aren't discussions in any sense whatsoever. They are threads for bashing plain and simple. They are quite obviously going to offend. Their participants have already stated in this thread if you don't like their offensive comments you can piss off and stay out of their thread.

It's a message board. Every thread isn't about meaningful discussion. Some are total fluff. Some are entertainment. Some could be about important topics IF they were actually allowed to be so.

Completely hypocritical to say this is off limits but yeah I'm good with dissing those freaking long nose, pond sucking Kikes.

No one is arguing the above bolded ridiculous straw-man position. Everyone agrees (I hope) that posts or threads that affirm or perpetuate historic stereotypes and prejudices based on unchangeable inherent personal characteristics (race, religion, age, gender, sexuality, etc.) are totally abhorrent and unacceptable. However, posts or threads criticizing Israel's policies or actions in Gaza, for example, or American gun policies, are perfectly legitimate (unless they become the former.)

[woob]

Sliver, just wanted to say this reply to EG was great. Excellent communication of your thoughts and well spoken (well typed?).

Originally Posted by kipperiggy

I'm not going to debate whether or not the avatar was appropriate. But I'm going to point out that the avatars of scantily clad women, the comments such as "0/10 would not bang", and the general objectification of women on this site (by some) FAR outweighs ONE (or two if you count Peanut's protest avatar) avatar of a dude without a shirt.

I don't understand why people don't see how the two relate, debating about sexism and having questionable avatars. As has been more or less said previously, your avatar is part of your public facing profile on here. Would you not second guess someone's debate for more equality between races if you've always seen them with a KKK avatar? Sure it may be to "protest" or for comedic value, but I'd think if you're trying to illicit change that you'd want to be the shining example on which people can base their own changes on.

[Tinordi]

I see we're at the "ridiculous strawman" stage of depressingly stupid arguments to support an offensive thread and behaviour.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by St. Pats

The point is that offensive is offensive. Belittling someone else because hey they aren't as offended as I am is ridiculous and hypocritical. Those threads are indeed offensive. You could make the same argument about the human form. IF they posted the pictures without the jerky comments then hey they are just respecting the human form.

Sounds like a lot of bunk don't it. If you are going to argue against offensive behavior then you don't pick which ones you are against and which ones you don't mind as it suits your taste.

I'm good with tossing them all and having a very family friendly off-topic forum. Where anything could be discussed in a decent manner without the sexual overtones or the bashing tones.

But singling one out while allowing others. Rubbish.

No one said this was about offending people. I don't care if you're offended or find threads offensive because they're bashing something you believe strongly in. If you cannot back up your beliefs and you are offended when people pick them apart, the blame there is on you; not the person picking your arguments apart.

[St. Pats]

Originally Posted by Makarov

No one is arguing the above bolded ridiculous straw-man position. Everyone agrees (I hope) that posts or threads that affirm or perpetuate historic stereotypes and prejudices based on unchangeable inherent personal characteristics (race, religion, age, gender, sexuality, etc.) are totally abhorrent and unacceptable. However, posts or threads criticizing Israel's policies or actions in Gaza, for example, or American gun policies, are perfectly legitimate (unless they become the former.)

Good then go take a look at those threads. Absolutely full of offensive stuff. Like I said offensive behavior is offensive behavior. The example put out there just to show that is exactly what is being condoned.

The site is well known for it's over the top anti-religious vitriol but that's alright cause those who are moderating are alright with it. But some scantily clad women are cause for outrage.

Sorry don't get it. You are either against offensive behavior or you are alright with the stance that says / there are offensive threads, if you don't like it don't come in the threads. That was seemingly the official position of the moderators previously / I'm just not seeing why it changed for one particular thread.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by St. Pats

Good then go take a look at those threads. Absolutely full of offensive stuff. Like I said offensive behavior is offensive behavior. The example put out there just to show that is exactly what is being condoned.

The site is well known for it's over the top anti-religious vitriol but that's alright cause those who are moderating are alright with it. But some scantily clad women are cause for outrage.

Sorry don't get it. You are either against offensive behavior or you are alright with the stance that says / there are offensive threads, if you don't like it don't come in the threads. That was seemingly the official position of the moderators previously / I'm just not seeing why it changed for one particular thread.

I think you're going a little too far with saying that we're condoning or 'we're alright' with offensive threads or posts.

It's been said many, many times over the years, but I'll say it again..........we don't read every single post or thread on this site. We just don't. We don't have time to read every single thing that's posted on here. That's why there's a 'report' button, so members can help us if they see something that they feel should be looked at. It seems there's definitely some posts on here you feel are very offensive, so please report them. If we feel they do cross the line, we'll take care of them. If they don't we won't.

But I'm not sure continually calling out the site or the moderators in this thread is doing any good if we have no idea what posts you're referring to.

[V]

Originally Posted by Thor

Well since I'm often involved in the religious discussions, are we suggesting that because it can offend religious people to consider removing those as well? Misogyny is one thing, but debating religion is akin to debating politics. They can be heated and not nice at times, but its something that a lot of people are passionate about discussing.

I agree with the move to remove that thread, but I can't agree with stopping religious discussions because some people might be offended or feel unwelcome, again you can choose to read those threads, if its something that you are sensitive to that is.

If everyone discussed religion like you then you'd probably see a lot more religious people take part in the discussion. Sadly, this isn't the case, and I steer very clear of any religious talk on this site for that reason. Fortunately I don't find it permeates through the forum to the extent that sexism does, so I don't find it a big enough problem to report or bring up.

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by St. Pats

And a hockey site does not need threads bashing this or that or in fact anything on the off-topic forum so thanks for that weak weak argument.

It doesn't need sexist threads for no reason other than woo T&A... At least a lot of other threads on here contribute in some manner.

Those who brought up the issue have no problem with the pictures. Only those who stir the pot. There are rubbish threads galore. Offensive ones as well(funnily enough some of those defending this decision when asked about their own favorite threads say "hey you ain't closing that down / I can call those "whoever" whatever I want / don't come into the thread if you don't like it). Yet in this particular thread they are on the high horse. It's laughable.

Yes, they might not have had any problem with the pictures. However, that thread is nothing other than a place to objectify women because of the nature of the pictures. You don't see any pictures in that thread of a random woman walking a dog or at a cafe. Mostly they are being posted as examples of them being sex objects. I don't see why that is necessary here. You mention other threads as being off limits even though those can be just as offensive. They are debates over concepts, ideas and perspectives, it's not the same thing as oooh she's bangable. You are falsely equivalating the two as being of the same standard and merit. They are not.

There is stuff said in a lot of threads that is actually very very offensive. Way more so than a few pics of some babes. Yet this is where the high and mighty crowd stand up? Guaranteed when their pet threads are challenged they will change their tune completely.

If there is stuff like calling people derogatory names or wishing ill on a particular set of people, than that stuff should be reported and dealt with appropriately. You can challenge a set of ideas and ideals without being a jerk, and have an interesting debate in a litany of threads, even in the hockey related ones. Arguing over concepts is basic to most discussions on literally any topic. What is the argument and discussion pertaining to pictures of women? What is the debate? There isn't any, other than stuff like the comments that were posted (0/10 wouldn't bang and the like). What does that contribute to anything on here?


There is nobody saying that you shouldn't search out such pictures if that is what you wish. Google is your friend. What does that contribute on here though to the community, especially when it takes away from the likelihood of a lot of women who might otherwise wish to contribute their ideas to this site because of the message that a thread like that sends to them as being okay here? We have all seen how each of EG Witty Firefly and Peanut have reacted on here to things and they are as far as I know the only women who've posted in these threads.

[photon]

Originally Posted by St. Pats

I'm just not seeing why it changed for one particular thread.

It wasn't, the OP explains this. The change is that we want to do the same for sexism that we're doing for racism, sexual preference-ism, etc. Across the forum, not just in one thread.

It's not about being offended, there's no rule that posters have a right to not be offended.

If a poster is being insulted or discriminated against because they're American or Christian then generally we don't want that (and have taken actions against posters in the past in those circumstances), but that doesn't mean people can't be criticized for what they say or do.

It's not a case of singling out one and allowing others, this thread and the stated goals only about one set of circumstances. You don't have to be perfect in one area before making changes in another. Moderating religious or political discussions is very difficult and we've never claimed that there aren't improvements that could be made there (or anywhere). The OP mentions adding moderators.

If you actually want to discuss how religious or political discussions happen or discuss specific examples, PM a mod or start a thread about it. Using that as a lever to criticize trying to address sexism in this thread doesn't make much sense IMO.

[St. Pats]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

It doesn't need sexist threads for no reason other than woo T&A... At least a lot of other threads on here contribute in some manner.



Yes, they might not have had any problem with the pictures. However, that thread is nothing other than a place to objectify women because of the nature of the pictures. You don't see any pictures in that thread of a random woman walking a dog or at a cafe. Mostly they are being posted as examples of them being sex objects. I don't see why that is necessary here. You mention other threads as being off limits even though those can be just as offensive. They are debates over concepts, ideas and perspectives, it's not the same thing as oooh she's bangable. You are falsely equivalating the two as being of the same standard and merit. They are not.




If there is stuff like calling people derogatory names or wishing ill on a particular set of people, than that stuff should be reported and dealt with appropriately. You can challenge a set of ideas and ideals without being a jerk, and have an interesting debate in a litany of threads, even in the hockey related ones. Arguing over concepts is basic to most discussions on literally any topic. What is the argument and discussion pertaining to pictures of women? What is the debate? There isn't any, other than stuff like the comments that were posted (0/10 wouldn't bang and the like). What does that contribute to anything on here?


There is nobody saying that you shouldn't search out such pictures if that is what you wish. Google is your friend. What does that contribute on here though to the community, especially when it takes away from the likelihood of a lot of women who might otherwise wish to contribute their ideas to this site because of the message that a thread like that sends to them as being okay here? We have all seen how each of EG Witty Firefly and Peanut have reacted on here to things and they are as far as I know the only women who've posted in these threads.

Why do you think every thread has to be of some high and mighty value? As I've said repeatedly I don't see the need for a boob thread. But I don't see the need for a whole lot of threads(and I'm not giving any intrinsic value to any of them).

Should women or anybody else come onto a hockey forum and be offended by what they read because it's offensive? No they shouldn't. So why the outrage only for one type of offensive behavior? Or it's just the flavor of the month and you ain't really outraged by offensive behavior other than if it's popular to be be so?

[Makarov]

^ I get the sense that you aren't actually reading any of the posts replying to you.

[photon]

To me when talking about a thread's "intrinsic value", it's always in a context of something else. I agree "that stuff is available elsewhere" itself isn't a very compelling reason for removing the YLYL thread (or any other thread).

In context of moderation effort, site goals, etc then the thread's intrinsic value can be measured. We've closed threads in the past simply because people couldn't behave themselves for long enough and the moderation effort was too high for whatever value the discussion had. EDIT: We've also closed threads that their very nature went against the site's goals or rules, threads about player's personal lives for example.

[rubecube]

I'd actually like to see some of the more egregious anti-religion posts cleaned up as well or at least dealt with as well. There are some that are clearly just baiting religious folks and are usually poorly constructed, nonsensical, and add nothing to the discussions. We had what basically amounts to full-on hatespeech occur in one thread recently and I'm not really sure what was done about it (and yes I did report it). Perhaps St. Pats can provide us with an example of what they find offensive so we know what to look for, but I don't think the existence of the discussions themselves can be labelled offensive in the same way that the existence of the YLYL thread could be.

[KelVarnsen]

Rip cp.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by St. Pats

Why do you think every thread has to be of some high and mighty value? As I've said repeatedly I don't see the need for a boob thread. But I don't see the need for a whole lot of threads(and I'm not giving any intrinsic value to any of them).

Should women or anybody else come onto a hockey forum and be offended by what they read because it's offensive? No they shouldn't. So why the outrage only for one type of offensive behavior? Or it's just the flavor of the month and you ain't really outraged by offensive behavior other than if it's popular to be be so?

As has been stated many times in this thread and the original discussion thread

People brought up the harm caused by YLYL, very few people provided the benefit of the YLYL thread. Therefore it was decided that the harm caused outweighed the benefit to the forum. So every thread on here has the same, nut hidden, cost vs benefit analysis. Most threads the cost is zero and the benefit is marginal so they stay. When the cost is higher than the benefit the thread gets locked or deleted.

[Eastern Girl]

Originally Posted by Sliver

We've opened up a conversation here and I think we can keep it productive and moving forward if we all take a step back and tone down the dramatics. "Keep your thanks" is a bit combative, but I'll overlook it because I can now see you're upset.

Yes it was. I am starting to get defensive. My apologies.

I think a question you need to ask is if you want equality, or if you want special treatment for women. This conversation is going in the right direction, and if we're all respectful to the broader change that is evolving by the day here, you'll see that removing a sexualized avatar is part of the solution we ultimately want to keep this an all-inclusive site. Because I am male does that mean I shouldn't care about sexualized images on a site to which I come to talk about current events?

I am not asking for special treatment. I am asking for people to think before they post.

You can care, as a male, about sexualized avatars. The reason I never rallied against the pictures themselves or avatars in general is mainly because we run the risk of just demonizing the human body, and that's not something I think we need to do.

I guess I just didn't see my avatar as sexual. Regehr on the cover of a sports magazine to me is not sexual. There are avatars of pretty women in bikinis that I don't see as sexual. I think you would have a point with the bulging penis shot and I think I have a point with the breast/ass shots. That, to me, is more sexual.

I think it's just too hard to define what is and is not sexual and where the line is. I preferred to take on the negative language as I felt that was more harmful overall. That was reflective of attitudes in general.

I never went in the YLYL thread, but I can't help stumbling upon soft-core avatars on a regular basis in other threads and since it's topical I asked you and others to remove them. Your reaction to that request has definitely surprised me, though, and that reaction has coloured my impression of how well thought out your arguments are much more than the picture to the left of your text.

While I don't like hearing someone thinks negatively of me, my intent is not to make sure you all think favorably of me. I don't mean that in a dismissive way, it's just not my intent. I am not trying to collect 'thanks' here. I feel I've done fairly well taking on the issue. Either way, hopefully we can move forward and speak more respectfully.

Speaking generally, what bothers me about having to take down my avatar is that people are calling me a hypocrite. I never tried to take the girly pictures down, as I mentioned above and numerous other times. I never tried to take the girly avatars down. I was asked what I thought we should do with it and I chose the option of getting rid of it, because I thought its existence was fostering a very negative attitude on the board. I chose to speak about pervasive attitudes on the board. If the thread had stayed, so be it. If the avatars stay, so be it.

I put my avatar up as a result of the constant stream of complaints that I received every time I posted a picture of a guy anywhere on the site. These same posters, putting up shots of women's ass cracks and boobs bouncing around, are telling me my avatar of Regehr posing is gross. That seems like an unfair double standard.

And please go back and read my post to you about taking your avatar down as I'm now going to be saying this for a third time. I did ask everybody to take down their sexualized avatars - they add nothing and I'm surprised in light of the current conversation and progress we're all making here you guys even need to be asked:

Yes, you did. I received a number of posts telling me to take down my avatar. I suppose when I saw you mention my handle, I just tuned out. Again, my apologies.

I don't have a crystal ball, but, yes, I am optimistic. Don't you think things are trending more toward equality? Look at how we treat homosexuality as a great example. I graduated high school in 1994. If we didn't like something we called it "gay" or "gaybar". If you hated somebody you'd call them a "fag". Those words are going the way of the dinosaur and I'd say most of the positive momentum on that front has been in the past five years. And myself and my friends would never dream of judging somebody negatively just because they're gay.

I think in some ways, things are trending toward equality, but I think in other ways, we are trending backward. I proposed a more respectful board atmosphere and was inundated with a lot of slippy slopes. It's that kind of attitude that scares me. And that's not disingenuous, that attitude really does scare me.

I'm not sure those words are going away though, personally. People still use the word '######' and there are a lot of people that have tried to have its usage removed from everyday language. And there's still a lot of people using the words you noted (fag, etc.). Anytime someone posts something that might interfere with a commonly accepted masculine trait, someone posts the "You know how I know you're gay?" meme. I don't see the difference from that and just flat out posting, "fag."

There are always going to be people (probably all of us) that pre-judge others based on their race, ethnicity, religion, sexual preference, socio-economic background, accent, and, yes, gender. Our goal is to work toward equality for everyone. So sure, some girls will likely face sexism even a hundred years from now, same as somebody may have a preconceived notion about a person with a Newfie accent; however, I think our society right now is on a progressive path of working toward breaking those barriers down. Gender is one where progress will continue to happen and I am 100% sure my eight-year-old daughter will be less impeded in her journey through life by her gender than every previous generation before her. That's why I'm optimistic and not weeping.

Well, I can't argue your optimism. I don't see it that way at all. I think your eighteen year old daughter has likely already faced quite a bit of, at the very least, casual sexism.

Well your avatar is representation of you. You chose an avatar of a half-naked guy to represent you in a serious discussion about sexism and gender equality. That was a strange choice on your part; please don't put it on me for bringing it up and asking you politely to take it down. If you didn't agree it was distracting from your argument (I don't see how you could since it was), you could have always left it up.

I can't personally say that I judge based on avatar. I don't judge Shawnski because he has a boob avatar. I just read what he writes.

I feel it detracted from my argument, because those with opposing viewpoints chose to target it out of spite, in my view. From their perspective, they saw it as a double standard. From my perspective, I saw it as a double standard.

I'm sorry if this is a disjointed post. I am trying to actually do some work while still responding.

[kipperiggy]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I agree with the decision by the mods to delete the YLYL thread.

Why is it wrong to prefer PG avatars as well? I don't think objecting to bulging crotch shots on avatars (Peanut's) means you can't also support deleting the YLYL thread.

I don't get why some posters can't reconcile the issues as two branches on the same tree.

I think my comments have been a bit misinterpreted by you and woob so I will clarify.

It is not wrong to prefer PG avatars as well. I often browse the site at work and I agree it is more appropriate.

I was just trying to point out that in response to well-thought out posts about why posters support the thread being deleted and the goal to make the board more inclusive, the focus was solely on 1 avatar objectifying men when there are several avatars and comments throughout the board objectifying women.

There were never actually any valid counterarguments (that I saw when I read this thread) to taking the thread down. Just complete focus on EG's avatar, when that 1 avatar of a man is peanuts compared to the comments about women that are pervasive throughout the Board.

I agree that the avatar should have been changed as they all should, but I'm a little saddened how that is all the countering-side focused on in the debate.

[St. Pats]

Originally Posted by photon

It wasn't, the OP explains this. The change is that we want to do the same for sexism that we're doing for racism, sexual preference-ism, etc. Across the forum, not just in one thread.

It's not about being offended, there's no rule that posters have a right to not be offended.

If a poster is being insulted or discriminated against because they're American or Christian then generally we don't want that (and have taken actions against posters in the past in those circumstances), but that doesn't mean people can't be criticized for what they say or do.

It's not a case of singling out one and allowing others, this thread and the stated goals only about one set of circumstances. You don't have to be perfect in one area before making changes in another. Moderating religious or political discussions is very difficult and we've never claimed that there aren't improvements that could be made there (or anywhere). The OP mentions adding moderators.

If you actually want to discuss how religious or political discussions happen or discuss specific examples, PM a mod or start a thread about it. Using that as a lever to criticize trying to address sexism in this thread doesn't make much sense IMO.

It makes complete sense. You are taking a stance against sexism yet you are fine with religious intolerance for example. Plenty of examples in threads on the page right this minute and brought up a number of times but the answer is (piss off and don't enter the thread or it's just so difficult to moderate). I know you will come back with we aren't tolerating it or we could improve there as well. Then do so.

I find the we have to start somewhere excuse just that. An excuse to pick on one set of individuals over others. Personally I don't like those that pick on people because they are different. I really don't care how they are different. I'm good with live and let live. I'm just as good with this is what we are about and we don't tolerate this and that.

But stick to it consistently then. If we are against demeaning people because of their sex, race, religious views, sexual orientation etc. etc. then follow through all the way. If we are just going allow some and not others based on the biases of the moderation team then yes I would agree it's time to expand the moderation team.

Perhaps you should include more women, minorities, people of faith etc. on your team so there could be an actual attempt at creating a space where anybody of any persuasion would feel free to enter any thread and participate without being attacked for what they are or what they believe.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by kipperiggy

I think my comments have been a bit misinterpreted by you and woob so I will clarify.

It is not wrong to prefer PG avatars as well. I often browse the site at work and I agree it is more appropriate.

I was just trying to point out that in response to well-thought out posts about why posters support the thread being deleted and the goal to make the board more inclusive, the focus was solely on 1 avatar objectifying men when there are several avatars and comments throughout the board objectifying women.

There were never actually any valid counterarguments (that I saw when I read this thread) to taking the thread down. Just complete focus on EG's avatar, when that 1 avatar of a man is peanuts compared to the comments about women that are pervasive throughout the Board.

I agree that the avatar should have been changed as they all should, but I'm a little saddened how that is all the countering-side focused on in the debate.

You know what, I think the ladies did a good job by changing their avatars and we can all move back to what is the more important issue(s).

EG - thanks for your eloquent reply. I don't really have any more to add to our conversation, but I like the way it was resolved. I have to run out now, but I think we're more or less on the same page on a lot of the important points, anyway.