YLYL Thread and other things...

[doctajones428]

Originally Posted by Eastern Girl

I hope you find the time to also politely make requests for the boob/ass/"No Fat Chicks" avatars to come down.

He did in the post he asked you to change yours.

as well as anybody else with a sexualized avatar.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Eastern Girl

I hope you find the time to also politely make requests for the boob/ass/"No Fat Chicks" avatars to come down.

A buddy of mine mentioned that my avatar got mentioned in this thread.

In retrospect, it was a bad choice for an avatar.

In the spirit of making CP a better place I've changed it.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

A buddy of mine mentioned that my avatar got mentioned in this thread.

In retrospect, it was a bad choice for an avatar.

In the spirit of making CP a better place I've changed it.

Thats not Jeff Shantz playing hockey in Europe is it?

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by photon

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".



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.



Again, it's in the OP.

Originally Posted by GGG

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.

I feel that there is a big difference between discussing religion and discussing apples. No one self-identifies as a golden-delicious eater, or whatever, but they DO identify themselves to a particular creed. I am a Christian. Notice it isn't "I think Christian things", but a declaration of who I am? It is somewhat disingenuous to claim that those kinds of comments are alike to apple comments, because it isn't the same thing.

That changes the entire tone of that discussion, and makes comments that may not sound like personal attacks into something received very differently. Many posters know that their comments are about who people are when they say what they say, but hide behind "It's just a comment about ideas". Makes it hard to pin down "specific posts" that must be flagged down, but does not at all help make an inclusive site. You can make a claim like "Christians are idiots". or "Religious people are idiots". Or "Jews are idiots". It is clearly not the same as "Granny smith eaters are idiots".

And the anti-religious comments aren't just restricted to the "Godless Apostate" thread (an intentionally provocative thread name that cannot be avoided, even if we do not want to enter that thread ever), but extends through out the board. In fact, when the female posters (and male ones, too) posted about how the attitude spread throughout the site, my immediate reaction was one of understanding, because of that attitude.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Locke

Thats not Jeff Shantz playing hockey in Europe is it?

Damn skippy it is!

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Damn skippy it is!

Thats fantastic!

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Knalus

I feel that there is a big difference between discussing religion and discussing apples. No one self-identifies as a golden-delicious eater, or whatever, but they DO identify themselves to a particular creed. I am a Christian. Notice it isn't "I think Christian things", but a declaration of who I am? It is somewhat disingenuous to claim that those kinds of comments are alike to apple comments, because it isn't the same thing.

That changes the entire tone of that discussion, and makes comments that may not sound like personal attacks into something received very differently. Many posters know that their comments are about who people are when they say what they say, but hide behind "It's just a comment about ideas". Makes it hard to pin down "specific posts" that must be flagged down, but does not at all help make an inclusive site. You can make a claim like "Christians are idiots". or "Religious people are idiots". Or "Jews are idiots". It is clearly not the same as "Granny smith eaters are idiots".

And the anti-religious comments aren't just restricted to the "Godless Apostate" thread (an intentionally provocative thread name that cannot be avoided, even if we do not want to enter that thread ever), but extends through out the board. In fact, when the female posters (and male ones, too) posted about how the attitude spread throughout the site, my immediate reaction was one of understanding, because of that attitude.

I think that most of us would agree that posts like those bolded above are not appropriate or welcome (not saying that they aren't sometimes posted).

However, I think that one can draw a clear distinction between those posts and posts like "religion has x and y negative effects on our community" or "I don't believe in God because..." or "I don't agree with religion's role in our society because...". I welcome that sort of discourse and would hate to see it unnecessarily restricted. (And I hope it would be obvious, but I also welcome posts like "religion has x and y positive effects on our community" or "Islam plays a meaningful part in my life because..." or "I think Christianity's role in our society should expand...").

[Sainters7]

I can tell I've been almost exclusively using my mobile app to look at CP the last while, as I totally forgot there even was a YLYL thread. Don't think I've been in that thread for 2-3 years. How sad my reminder about its existence was from seeing this thread, talking about how it's subsequently been erased from existence. I really blew it, guys.

That said, with how big this site has gotten (can't believe how many people I've met since moving back to Calgary who read CP, plus all the media visitors), I'm not surprised it got deleted.

[V]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I think that most of us would agree that posts like those bolded above are not appropriate or welcome (not saying that they aren't sometimes posted).

However, I think that one can draw a clear distinction between those posts and posts like "religion has x and y negative effects on our community" or "I don't believe in God because..." or "I don't agree with religion's role in our society because...". I welcome that sort of discourse and would hate to see it unnecessarily restricted. (And I hope it would be obvious, but I also welcome posts like "religion has x and y positive effects on our community" or "Islam plays a meaningful part in my life because..." or "I think Christianity's role in our society should expand...").

Just my perception, but for every rational discussion post regarding religion there are 3 posts that are laced with derision calling religious people idiots. It happened in this very thread.

[La Flames Fan]

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by V

Just my perception, but for every rational discussion post regarding religion there are 3 posts that are laced with derision calling religious people idiots. It happened in this very thread.

My sense is that the ratio is actually reversed (3 quality posts for every derisive inappropriate post.) Textcritic alone seems to ensure that much.

In any event, I would fully support that being the next focus of the moderation team. In my view, the goal would be to discourage and remove the derisive posts in order to (a) make the rational discussion more inclusive; and (b) thereby encourage more and better rational discussion about religion (in our lives, in our communities, in our politics, etc.)

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Makarov

My sense is that the ratio is actually reversed (3 quality posts for every derisive inappropriate post.) Textcritic alone seems to ensure that much.

In any event, I would fully support that being the next focus of the moderation team. In my view, the goal would be to discourage and remove the derisive posts in order to (a) make the rational discussion more inclusive; and (b) thereby encourage more and better rational discussion about religion (in our lives, in our communities, in our politics, etc.)

Just eliminate poster T&T from the religious discussions.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

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" pro-feminism side is merely your framing of the argument.

Originally Posted by SebC

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.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by SebC

"The" pro-feminism side is merely your framing of the argument.

There's a huge difference between 'sex-positive-feminism' and anonymous images of nearly naked 20 year old women being subjected to the male gaze; and if you don't understand the difference, you don't understand what sex positive feminism is.

[Mightyfire89]

Ahem...I have read every post of every thread regarding this whole debacle. I couldn't possibly care less that thread was deleted. I think I posted in it once and viewed it a couple dozen times. My problem is with the fact that nobody, not one single person, ever, was required to view anything in that thread in order to keep posting/viewing CP. Nobody was forced to click on that thread and be subjected to some of the (admittedly) ridiculously sexist comments. So, if you're offended, you chose to to view it. You had to actively click on the thing that took you there.

I discussed this issue with my wife and she had a more extreme opinion than I did. She thought it was absolutely egregious that the thread was shut down in the first place.

I'm extremely disappointed in people on both sides of this discussion. I have never felt so negative about CP as a collective. If it wasn't for the fact that this is the best site to get hockey news and is a great place to discuss hockey, I would ask that my account be deleted...simply based on this ridiculous crap that's been on display in the last few days regarding this issue.

And you sycophants are simply disgusting, you make my stomach turn. You know who you are...

I could expand my ignore list by about two dozen people based on this whole issue but I hate reading stuff out of context.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

^^^ I don't think anyone likes the back and forth going on here, but sometimes positive changes can be painful. Try to look at it that way.

Since the truth often resides somewhere in the middle between two sides of an argument, I tend to be somewhat moderate in my viewpoints and rarely go to either extreme, so in that way I understand why you're frustrated.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by SebC

The thread fit the general society consensus on what is appriopriately sexy, and was shut down anyways.

You don't see how this statement is part of the problem?

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Krack Korn

My problem is with the fact that nobody, not one single person, ever, was required to view anything in that thread in order to keep posting/viewing CP. Nobody was forced to click on that thread and be subjected to some of the (admittedly) ridiculously sexist comments. So, if you're offended, you chose to to view it. You had to actively click on the thing that took you there.

Actually that isn't true. First of all- the conversation would often spill into other threads. The other thing was that when viewing on the mobile app- those pictures would be right on top as the app would show a preview of recently updated threads.

So it wasn't just as simple as telling people not to click on certain threads. That, and as your wife mentioned it made the place less welcoming.

Reminds me of when Studio 82 had a bikini bar upstairs. We would go to the main bar for wing night, and some of our female friends decided they no longer wanted to join us. It didn't matter that we weren't going upstairs for wings. The point was what was going on in the place.

[photon]

Originally Posted by SebC

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.

Just because the thread was removed it doesn't follow it was removed for sex-negative reasons. Also there's a difference between sex-positive and objectification.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Krack Korn

My problem is with the fact that nobody, not one single person, ever, was required to view anything in that thread in order to keep posting/viewing CP. Nobody was forced to click on that thread and be subjected to some of the (admittedly) ridiculously sexist comments. So, if you're offended, you chose to to view it. You had to actively click on the thing that took you there.

If there was a thread with racist comics or jokes in it, does the same standard apply? If you don't like racism just don't go in there? (I'm not saying the YLYL thread was equivalent to such a thread.) If yes, I disagree (and can expand on why). If no, what do you see is the difference between the two that makes removing one reasonable and the other not (not just that they're different, but what makes them different in terms of removing one and not the other)?

Originally Posted by Jimmy Krack Korn

I discussed this issue with my wife and she had a more extreme opinion than I did. She thought it was absolutely egregious that the thread was shut down in the first place.

Why?