YLYL Thread and other things...

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by -TC-

A question for the Moderators:

It seems that this situation has brought forward some opinions and attitudes that weren't so readily apparent.

Would it make sense to have an open dialogue about what the members would like the forum to be/become?

There seems to be a lot of strong positions...

It doesn't matter what the members want the forum to become; what matters is what Bingo wants the forum to become.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by octothorp

So suddenly the pitchforks are out, demanding that specific threads be deleted, without going through the moderators. If you guys are really offended by the YLYL Thread, the proper course of action is to explain to the moderators and say that you think that CP should have a policy about sexual images of females, 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.

I actually agree with your post here, but couldn't help but find the parallels to discussion as a whole.
The pitchforks against the YLYL thread also grew out of no where in under 48 hours, from derailment of a thread that wasn't even on that topic.
The whole things could have been handled by contacting mods about offensive comments/images as well, but it seems no one actually cared enough until the mods put the question in front of them first.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

We had a whole thread about that.

The moderators decided they want a more open and inclusive forum, the explanation of which is in this very thread.

Feel free to start an open dialogue on what you want the forum to be/become.

Edit: I am not a mod, I just play one on tv.

Yup. People need to remember that this is still a private forum that is subject to rules defined by the people who maintain the forum. There is no slippery slope as they can decide exactly what applies for which situation.

[-TC-]

Originally Posted by Daradon

The fact is she literally isn't a hypocrite because avatars weren't banned.

She isn't a hypocrite in spirit because she wasn't arguing about sexy pictures to begin with, only the spirit of sexism in which a lot of them were being posted or were surrounded by.

Ok, one more time...

The avatar in question isn't the point. Nor is the fact that said avatar isn't banned.

The point is, if she objects to the sexism being demonstrated in the YLYL thread, words, pictures, whatever, then she should remove her own personal demonstration of sexism. By continuing to have said demonstration, in fact defending it, while arguing against sexism IS in fact hypocritical.

I don't know how much more clear I can be.

It's fine if you disagree with me, and my argument. But to claim it reductive, petty or pointless is unfair.

Originally Posted by Daradon

But you are using the word hypocrite unfairly and incorrectly. That's my (and several others) problem here.

"hy·poc·ri·sy
hiˈpäkrisē/
noun
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense"

[jammies]

Originally Posted by -TC-

You have yet to build any sort of argument against her hypocrisy other than 'you are wrong and you are petty'. Then you layered on the 'vengeful' bit just to give it some extra sauce.

She would only be a hypocrite if she actually had campaigned against sexy pictures. Since, instead, she was and is against casual objectification of women and a continuing undertone of misogyny in many posters' posts, she therefore cannot be a hypocrite.

Your opinion that she is against the pictures of women is wrong. Therefore, your assumption that she is a hypocrite is wrong. You seem to have a continuing misapprehension of what actually went on in the discussion thread. Perhaps you should go back and read it, thoroughly, and without the preconception that you already know what you're talking about.

PS: And further to your point above, since the posting of pictures is IN AND OF ITSELF, not sexism, she isn't being sexist. You think that she thinks that it is, but there is no evidence that she does, except in your misapprehension of what she, and others, were protesting.

[-TC-]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

We had a whole thread about that.

The moderators decided they want a more open and inclusive forum, the explanation of which is in this very thread.

Feel free to start an open dialogue on what you want the forum to be/become.

Edit: I am not a mod, I just play one on tv.

Cool, ok. Somehow I missed it.

I'll have a search - honestly though, is it worth reading?

[PsYcNeT]

It took 3 weeks and 37 pages. Dive in.

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=139452

[-TC-]

Originally Posted by jammies

Since, instead, she was and is against casual objectification of women and a continuing undertone of misogyny in many posters' posts, she therefore cannot be a hypocrite...

But it's ok to objectify men?

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by -TC-

Ok, one more time...

The avatar in question isn't the point. Nor is the fact that said avatar isn't banned.

The point is, if she objects to the sexism being demonstrated in the YLYL thread, words, pictures, whatever, then she should remove her own personal demonstration of sexism. By continuing to have said demonstration, in fact defending it, while arguing against sexism IS in fact hypocritical.

I don't know how much more clear I can be.

It's fine if you disagree with me, and my argument. But to claim it reductive, petty or pointless is unfair.




"hy·poc·ri·sy
hiˈpäkrisē/
noun
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense"

Ok, I think I see where our disconnect is happening. Thank you for being open to at least try and figure this out. I think we're still going to disagree, but I think we're at least closer now, and we can probably at least agree to disagree. Feel free to continue after this if you like, I'm not saying this to end the discussion or get the last word.

Is the picture sexist? By her own definition or others? If she claimed the pictures themselves weren't sexist, then how can hers be sexist?

By her own definition, the pictures weren't the problem, so then how can hers be the problem? It was the constant rating of women, the lewd comments, the pervasive sexism of the board itself. NOT THE PICTURES.

So then, by at least her own definition, it's not hypocritical. Now you may disagree with her definition, (and that's fine) and if so, then you would have to make arguments on why you believe that picture is sexist (outside of the argument of having to remove all pictures to be fair, because as I mentioned, that hasn't been done yet anyway). To the board and to the mods if you so choose. But she was constant in her beliefs both logically and morally, and therefore, not hypocritical, even if you disagree with her beliefs.

And yeah, I know what hypocrite means, so no need to post it at the bottom of your post. I'm going to let that one go and not take it personally.

[-TC-]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Ok, I think I see where our disconnect is happening. Thank you for being open to at least try and figure this out. I think we're still going to disagree, but I think we're at least closer now, and we can probably at least agree to disagree. Feel free to continue after this if you like, I'm not saying this to end the discussion or get the last word.

Is the picture sexist? By her own definition or others? If she claimed the pictures themselves weren't sexist, then how can hers be sexist?

By her own definition, the pictures weren't the problem, so then how can hers be the problem? It was the constant rating of women, the lewd comments, the pervasive sexism of the board itself. NOT THE PICTURES.

So then, by at least her own definition, it's not hypocritical. Now you may disagree with her definition, (and that's fine) and if so, then you would have to make arguments on why you believe that picture is sexist (outside of the argument of having to remove all pictures to be fair, because as I mentioned, that hasn't been done yet anyway). To the board and to the mods if you so choose. But she was constant in her beliefs both logically and morally, and therefore, not hypocritical, even if you disagree with her beliefs.

And yeah, I know what hypocrite means, so no need to post it at the bottom of your post. I'm going to let that one go and not take it personally.

This is a great post, and I'm really enjoying this debate.

I need to absorb your argument before I respond, that was a hell of a return volley... And I should do some actual work today

I meant no offense by posting the definition, if I did so, then I apologize.

[Daradon]

I've let some tasks go by the wayside too. Thanks for the post.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by -TC-

But it's ok to objectify men?

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse to try and make some point, or not.

Let me make an analogy - do you see the difference between the following:

1. I jokingly tell my balding friend, once, that I envy his savings on barbers.
2. I continually rub my friends shiny skull "for luck", introduce him as "Ol' Chrome-Dome", ask his wife "is he losing his hair around his junk too?", and generally behave like a complete jackhole about it.

Ok, now another:

1. I put a sexy picture in my avatar.
2. I continually post pictures of half-naked teenagers (and sometimes just close-ups of their body parts), rate said pictures on a wankability scale, always comment on the physical assets of any woman ever mentioned in any thread, and generally behave like a complete jackhole.

Do you see how complaining about suffering thru someone taking option 2 is not the same as indulging in option 1, and doesn't make one a hypocrite?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

That's simply a woman expressing her disgust through facial expressions.

Understanding subtlety and nuance is clearly not a strong suit of some people.

Although in this particular case I think SebC was just making a joke and his post wasn't intended to be taken as a serious "gotcha!" moment. You were just joking, right Sebc?

[Daradon]

Actually I think Bigtime's reply was also a joke. Though it does get to a point when sarcasm piled on sarcasm get's a little hazy to figure out.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by photon

That and we haven't actually updated the guidelines with any specifics yet, so reporting is fine but might not be considered or dealt with until then.

For things like the 4-5 year old threads mentioned a bit back, we're not going to go through the history of millions of posts to make sure they all comply with every change in rules or policy (not that that was an expectation, just saying).

Pfft. Slackers.

[Hanna Sniper]

[Caged Great]

This site, CalgaryPuck, is a private space, even though it's commentaries are shared publicly. However, as a private space, the people in charge can in essence do whatever it is they feel like and set the parameters as such.

Before, sexism on this site and in a large swath of society wasn't made out to be a big deal, it was almost taken casually and that wasn't right or a good thing then. The difference is that the mods/Bingo have decided to address the sexism issue in positive manner to become more inclusive to everyone and try to make both this site and society in general just a little bit better (I know it sounds like I'm overstating it a bit, but change happens gradually, not all at once). IMO that's a very good thing and I applaud them for doing so.

Nobody is saying to change your attitudes or opinions on things. You are just as free to be of the same mind as you were yesterday or a month ago. You just can't share that set of opinions on this particular private space any longer. There's a whole rest of the internet available to you to do so if you so wish. CP is mainly a hockey and general news site with some other things thrown in. It is not somewhere that should have a thread dedicated to mostly borderline NSFW pictures for no real reason other than oooh they're pretty.

[Iceman57]

I believe a continued debate is a good thing and feel allowing the possibility of expanding your opinion is to try and become a better person. While I don't appreciate being called petty, i still believe i brought up a valid point and unfortunately in this case, i don't think I'll agree with some others as they likely won't agree with me. To be noted, when i brought up EG's avatar i wasn't meaning to single her out and for that i do apologize.

What i was trying to point out was now that the moderators have acted and actually deleted the entire YLYL thread, which some would refer to as a thread devoted only to objectifying women, I feel it is unfair of them to just stop there. I don't see the difference between the pics labeled as objectifying in the YLYL thread to the inappropriate avatars other then the avatar is exposed much more publicly. One post pointed out that i could modify my profile to omit all avatars from my view but why should i have to make that choice?

The mods made this decision which i fully except it but both males and females can be objectified. I don't see the difference here or the reason not to make the same decision concerning inappropriate avatars as they did for the YLYL thread especially if the main goal is to achieve a complete forum referendum regarding gender objectification, sexism or misogynistic/misandrist attitudes.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by -TC-

But it's ok to objectify men?

Sadly is doesn't happen enough to me.......

[SebC]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Understanding subtlety and nuance is clearly not a strong suit of some people.

Although in this particular case I think SebC was just making a joke and his post wasn't intended to be taken as a serious "gotcha!" moment. You were just joking, right Sebc?

It was a joke, but with some serious intent behind it. I am not suggesting that I think such a post should ever be considered offensive.

I would hate to see a "reaction gif" policy that discriminates against attractive women, and what has been suggested in some places comes dangerously close to that. Heck, even if they're scantily clad women, are we going to be a site that says that women's bodies must be covered up (with the implication being that they are offensive)?

That sounds awfully mysogynist to me, which is what I thought we were trying to avoid in the first place. I guess that's why I've been against closing YLYL, although I couldn't express it as well at the time - censoring women's bodies implies negative connotations where there shouldn't be any. (And the same goes for men's bodies, though I'd prefer that feminine and masculine beauty appreciation threads be kept seperate. I also realise that society imposes a level of censorship and that we need to comply with it for practical purposes.)