To those of you who see closing the thread as a victory for feminism over misogyny: I see it as a victory of sex-negative feminism over sex-positive feminism.
Perhaps it is the moderators' prerogative to eliminate anything sexy, but one of the major themes of the YLYL thread is that you don't need to be explicit to be sexy, so where do we draw the line? The thread fit the general society consensus on what is appriopriately sexy, and was shut down anyways.
Where did I say piss off? There's a big difference between "don't go there" and "piss off", and the "don't go there" has a conditional attached to it if you read it all.
Which is what I said, you only bolded part of what I wrote, ignoring the rest.
I said stay out of the thread if you don't want your viewpoint to be challenged.
In my example, you like apples. There's a thread that says apples are terrible. What I said was you can participate in the thread, but expect your viewpoint to be challenged. IF you don't want your viewpoint to be challenged, the only other alternative is to stay out of the thread.
Which you don't seem to think is reasonable. In this example what is it that you propose? That viewpoints not be challenged? I thought that's what you were against?
You're going to have to be more clear about what it is that you are expecting. Anti-apple thread exists, you like apples. What should be the moderation stance at this point? If you post you like apples and someone replies why apples are bad, what should be the moderation response?
I asked for something more specific, I can't respond to general dissatisfaction.
I gave you examples from a thread currently on the page. An anti-religious thread that you would surely recognize. You don't address it and do the apple rubbish.
As I said earlier the outrage will depend on the biases of the moderation team. Unless that is there is an actual set of rules which does not couch behavior based on personal preferences. I would hope you add the moderators to balance the group before you address the rules.
The forum can't function if one special interest group after another airs their subjective grievances. If a topic bothers you, perhaps its best to avoid it rather than go dumpster diving for posts that might offend you.
The forum can't function if one special interest group after another airs their subjective grievances. If a topic bothers you, perhaps its best to avoid it rather than go dumpster diving for posts that might offend you.
Boom, there it is.
And when sexism is pervasive outside of the YLYL thread, then obviously there needs to be systematic change.
If you can't avoid it because it's everywhere then obviously it needs tighter moderation.
I believe this is the exact point some of the vocal female posters have been making for weeks.
I gave you examples from a thread currently on the page. An anti-religious thread that you would surely recognize. You don't address it and do the apple rubbish.
The "apple rubbish" is me trying to find a) more specifics/details on what you mean and b) trying to find a point where we agree and then work forward from.
If you aren't interested in trying to gain understanding then there's nothing any of us can help you with.
You referenced one thread with your characterization of it which may or may not be reasonable, that's not what I would call "specifics".
Quote:
Originally Posted by St. Pats
As I said earlier the outrage will depend on the biases of the moderation team. Unless that is there is an actual set of rules which does not couch behavior based on personal preferences.
There is an actual set of rules and the moderation team discusses things all the time to try and avoid bias (which of course is impossible so all we can do is try).
You've never reported a single post that I can see. You don't engage me when I try to better understand what you are saying or when I ask you what your expectations are. You want change but unless you articulate what you want more clearly I can't do anything. Again I can't constructively respond to general dissatisfaction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by St. Pats
I would hope you add the moderators to balance the group before you address the rules.
Again, it's in the OP.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
The forum can't function if one special interest group after another airs their subjective grievances. If a topic bothers you, perhaps its best to avoid it rather than go dumpster diving for posts that might offend you.
Be careful, I've been burned before using the term special interest group. I did not know it was all of a sudden an inappropriate term until I used it in a debate/conversation here on CP.
If the effort put into arguing about a thread and some avatars from both sides was actually put into fighting discrimination against woman where it really matters that would be nice.
Maybe everyone who posted here should throw $20 to a women's shelter.
Why not just be sensitive to the CPers who don't like objectification of women? Shut the thread down. Case closed.
The posters whining about this realize that the internet is like 90% pictures of half-naked women right? Get your jollies somewhere else. Why make a big stink about it, christ almighty.
And in principle I agree but it's easy to say, harder to do. Do we want a forum with absolutely zero tolerance for any kind of negative comment against any person or group of people? Sure would make it easier to moderate, but I don't think it would go well.
"Lining up for 5 days to get a phone is stupid.", allowed? The implication is the people are stupid, but the grammar is that the lining up is stupid.
But there still is a basic difference. As you say saying "Religion X is harmful to society" is allowed, but saying "women are harmful to society" or "queers are harmful to society" would not be.
I think if you went on your gut in regards to religious posting you would very close to getting exactly right walking the correct line between allowing discussion and avoiding personal insults and stifling discusiion. Its just hard to write down.
I think the difference between negative commentary on what a person likes (phones) and what a person's core value is Religion makes it different when calling something someone does stupid. I think it is that religion is much less of a choice than people make it out to be.
I think the difference in saying X is harmful to society is the case you make to back it up. If you could make a logical argument to real harms that women are causing to society that are specific to women as you can with organized religion then that would be a valid discussion topic. However since no logical arguement exists to support that statement it is just hate speech.
Now I'm going to have that Ace of Base song stuck in my head all afternoon.
Thanks for nothing.
__________________
"The problem with any ideology is that it gives the answer before you look at the evidence."
—Bill Clinton
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance--it is the illusion of knowledge."
—Daniel J. Boorstin, historian, former Librarian of Congress
"But the Senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity"
—WKRP in Cincinatti
The Following User Says Thank You to Bobblehead For This Useful Post:
I just want to throw out a huge pile of thanks at the entire mod team.
This is not a fun debate to be having for either side, and it's ugly at the moment, but this is progress. The mod team has done a fantastic job of explaining their position (far more times than is necessary, had people just read the actual OP and attempted some form of reading comprehension), and they do a fantastic job of moderating this forum on a daily basis.
This is really ugly right now, there are a lot of tempers flaring and a lot of people who are upset. When it all calms down and settles--this forum doesn't change dramatically, at least that's my goal in this argument. We're short one thread full of girly pictures, yes, but once all this YLYL stuff falls off the first page, eventually this whole forum goes back to normal--only maybe now people think twice before saying something offensive.
If you really look at what's being said on the pro-feminism side, that is all we've been asking for all along.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to wittynickname For This Useful Post:
I can understand why a lot of the guys are upset, but I don't understand why they are shocked the thread was taken down. A lot of posters from BOTH genders clearly had a problem with the thread, and those problems where justifiable. In the end I think that closing the thread was pretty much the only way for all of this to boil over. Whether we agree or not, what is done is done.
