Misogyny unchecked in AH 'Try to rape' thread

briantwin

Silverfish wrote: »

But you won't be heard. You'll be jeered at, joked about, have eyes rolled at you, and have lectures thrown at you.
You'll spot the difference in the genders of the people doing this too.

I was wondering when the ugly little face of the gender war goblin would materialise. This is a question of how to gauge what is acceptable "joking" in AH and what is not. Some women took offense to some of the ridiculous crap that some people had spouted in that thread fair enough. Report it.

Racism and what you are calling misogyny are two different things. Especially in this day and age. The comments that were being referred to as misogynistic were just lame attempts at humour. Dreadful and immature attempts at humour.....And if you cant see the difference between that and a genuinely maslicious and harmful comment then i doubt you'll be able to decipher the intricacies of this gender war you imply is under way.

Earthhorse

Kold wrote: »

So what?

So buttons.

Kold wrote: »

The more complaints they get, it means that they need to change?

Nah, they should just ignore user feedback.

Kold wrote: »

I think the real problem with AH at the moment is that too many people are trying to be funny when they're not.

That's a problem alright.

Kold wrote: »

The yorema ban seems like a better place to start.

I'll be the first to cheer this if it ever comes.

The_Minister

I've never been on /B/, but tbh I don't think that AH is too bad. We have some decent discussions in there, and most of the time its fairly civil.
It's just a few topics like travellers that get people going

Kold

Earthhorse wrote: »

Nah, they should just ignore user feedback.

Well let's say I were to start a feedback thread about being able to say anything I wanted in AH and that thread got more support, should they then take what I say into account? The Feedback Forum is hardly democracy at work.

Earthhorse

They should take what everyone says into account, within reason i.e. not trolls. Whether that means they'll agree with it or not is another thing.

Terry

Earthhorse wrote: »

The tipping point has been reached. You can't undo it by applying the same policies of old.

What would you suggest we do?

Wasn't the post reported in this case though? OP says it was anyway.

Yes, it was. We looked at it and decided not to act on it.
That's not to say that we don't act on all reported posts. This particular post just wasn't deemed all that offensive.

No, but you can change those limits and boundaries. It's not impossible to draw a line (otherwise no one would ever cross it and everything would be okay).

The thing is though, we don't have many limits and boundaries.
We don't allow personal abuse. We don't allow porn. We don't allow racism. We don't allow sports threads.
With those four points there is still a bit of leeway given. It's not much, but we do let some comments slip through.
Other than that, it's pretty much a free for all.

As I said, we can't go into people's homes and tell them how to behave on the internet. All we can do is monitor their behaviour and act according to how we see the situation at hand.

There is a line, but that line is in different places for everyone.

What I find offensive might not offend you.

Believe me, I'm not a fan of rape jokes, but, as a moderator, I'm not going to try to impose my own moral ethics on the users of this site. I'll post my opinions on AH, but they are just my opinions and are not to be seen as set in stone. Most users can see that and will rebut if they think I'm wrong. That's what discussion is all about.
I/we can't go around banning anyone who disagrees with me/us.

I'll clean up things to a certain point, but I can't remove everything I find offensive, nor can I remove everything you find offensive.

It's not that, but the current mods do appear to be unwilling to try anything other than what they have in the past. I accept there are reasons for that (you don't want to create more work, kill the fun in AH) etc. but it's the unwillingness to try anything different that means these threads will continue to crop up.

What makes you think we are unwilling to try anything new?
We certainly don't want to kill the fun in AH, but we do try to keep the forum clear of highly offensive stuff.

What new things would you suggest we do?

Silverfish

briantwin wrote: »

I was wondering when the ugly little face of the gender war goblin would materialise. This is a question of how to gauge what is acceptable "joking" in AH and what is not. Some women took offense to some of the ridiculous crap that some people had spouted in that thread fair enough. Report it.

Racism and what you are calling misogyny are two different things. Especially in this day and age. The comments that were being referred to as misogynistic were just lame attempts at humour. Dreadful and immature attempts at humour.....And if you cant see the difference between that and a genuinely maslicious and harmful comment then i doubt you'll be able to decipher the intricacies of this gender war you imply is under way.

Exhibit A.

Thank you.

You miss the point that it depends on which side of the 'humour' you're on.
Like rape itself, I suppose.

Bob the Builder

Yep, I think that After hours is turning into a wannabe stand up comedy show that consistently goes over the line. It's not about banter and off-topic discussion anymore at all these days... It's just about who can be the funniest, or who can receive the most thanks...

Looking back on it, there has been occasion's where I wrote a post(well one in particular, thats all), and took out bits because I didn't think people would agree with them, not because I was trying to fit, but because I didn't want to take away from the part of the post that I thought was going to get a Thanks. And I did get a thanks in the end.

Never have I ever felt so durty.

Earthhorse

Terry wrote: »

What would you suggest we do?

Ban or infract low or no content "jokes" about controversial subjects. Like the one reported on the thread.

Terry wrote: »

What makes you think we are unwilling to try anything new?

What new things have you tried in the last (say) 2 years in AH?

Terry wrote: »

What new things would you suggest we do?

Ban catchphrases that have been run into the ground.

Terry

The_Minister wrote: »

I've never been on /B/, but tbh I don't think that AH is too bad. We have some decent discussions in there, and most of the time its fairly civil.
It's just a few topics like travellers that get people going

Thankfully it is not as bad as /b/ and that is a road we will never go down (as long as I'm an AH mod anyway. besides, I don't think the admins would want that either).

you are right in that threads about travellers (to mention but one topic) do get out of hand and we do tend to end up banning people and closing those threads. Some people just can't conduct themselves in a proper manner when it comes to certain topics.

Earthhorse wrote: »

They should take what everyone says into account, within reason i.e. not trolls. Whether that means they'll agree with it or not is another thing.

We do take everything into account.
While I was posting my last reply on this thread, two reported posts were made.
I looked at them and decided not to act on them
While typing up this post there were another two reported posts. By the time the second one had been made, I had already closed a thread.

Sometimes people can be a little overenthusiastic with the report post button, but this is better than not reporting a post at all. We appreciate all input from all users (except for the two or three who continue to re-register. They're just pests).

Just because something has not been acted on does not mean we haven't looked into it.

It's a judgement call and sometimes we get praise for it and sometimes we get abusive PMs. We just have to deal with everything on a case by case basis.


As for the recent increase in lame jokes, people seem to be skirting around it, but I'll say it. It's because of the thanks system.
People want to see their posts being thanked.

Now we could do one of two things here.
We could have thanks removed from AH or we could leave it there and wait for the novelty to wear off.

I'm leaning towards the latter.

The people seem to like it and as such I feel it should be left there.

As the Cmod of Rec, the final decision on whether to remove it or not will be left to Karoma, but I can put up a poll to see what people really think of it.

dr.bollocko

People know that from previous feedback threads I have taken a dim view of mysoginist material on the site. I'm not happy to see it or read it. But as to whether that means there is a call on me to moderate based on this in AH I am still formulating an opinion.

In AH it can be a difficult call. I wasnt around last night to view this as it happened. Like Terry, the last thing I want to see is AH go down the toilet of /b/ and the like.

However I do want to say that this has been taken on board. Please continue to report the posts that you find offensive.
Thaedydal I will never overlook a reported post in AH simply because you or any other random person reported it, so, at least in my case, it does help when you report a post.

Terry

Earthhorse wrote: »

Ban or infract low or no content "jokes" about controversial subjects. Like the one reported on the thread.

Humour is subjective.
If I don't find something funny who is to say that the next person won't?

What new things have you tried in the last (say) 2 years in AH?

Ban catchphrases that have been run into the ground.

Believe me, I have tried time and again to ban "Yore Ma", but it will never work until everyone grows tired of it.

It was at my request that WWM started threads requesting input on how AH should run. (pat on the back for me)

I have suggested it be done once a year and leave it to the users to decide on what they want to read or post there.

Earthhorse

Terry wrote: »

We do take everything into account.

Never said you didn't. I was responding to Kold's question.

Terry wrote: »

Humour is subjective. If I don't find something funny who is to say that the next person won't?

I'm not asking you to rule on humour. I'm asking you to rule on whether the poster has put any effort or content into the post when it's about a controversial topic and they are trying to be humourous (whether they succeed in being humourous or not is irrelevant).

Terry wrote: »

Believe me, I have tried time and again to ban "Yore Ma", but it will never work until everyone grows tired of it.

And thank you for your efforts but you're not the only mod.

Terry

Earthhorse wrote: »

I'm not asking you to rule on humour. I'm asking you to rule on whether the poster has put any effort or content into the post when it's about a controversial topic and they are trying to be humourous (whether they succeed in being humourous or not is irrelevant).

That's nigh on impossible to do.

I can't tell how much effort someone has put into a post.
They may have spent an hour coming up with a joke that everyone else finds really lame.
It's akin to trying to judge the intelligence of a stranger on the street.

Earthhorse

Yet you're willing to tell us that the increase in lame jokes is a result of people fishing for Thanks. How do you know this? You don't. It's a judgement call. It's the same thing.

Terry

Earthhorse wrote: »

Yet you're willing to tell us that the increase in lame jokes is a result of people fishing for Thanks. How do you know this? You don't. It's a judgement call. It's the same thing.

Yes, but I'm not willing to ban someone on a whim because I think they've been too lazy to think up a funny joke and went with the easy option instead.

Some posts do stand out a mile, but I'm not going to start handing out bans because someone may or may not have been thanks whoring.

It's too difficult to call it straight down the line.

Persistent offenders are not hard to spot, but they tend to get themselves banned for something else anyway.

AckwelFoley

Terry wrote: »

What would you suggest we do?

i agree with your stance on the situation in principal, however i strongly feel AH needs about 3 more moderators due to the amount of traffic it has. Chosen by the existing AH staff from the poole of AH users that know where 'the line' is.

sdanseo

Yep keep it, it's the only thanks I get...

*reaches for coat*

MooseJam

Hatred based on race isn't tolerated, neither should hatred based on gender, easy solution

CDfm

In the Ladies Lounge the "16 days Womensaid Campaign Thread" was closed because posters/mods objected to objections to the misandrist (anti-men) content of the (campaign) thread.

While I dont personally consider rape to be a joke.

Surely, common sense should tell you that imposing arbitrary rules will result in double standards such as this.

javaboy

snyper wrote: »

i agree with your stance on the situation in principal, however i strongly feel AH needs about 3 more moderators due to the amount of traffic it has. Chosen by the existing AH staff from the poole of AH users that know where 'the line' is.

6th/Sabotage/Sadotage/Sádotage for mod!

I'm not so sure tbh. While I read Terry's post about mods not being able to read every single post and that is of course true, I don't think the standard of AH has suffered too much due to mods not being around to police the place. I can't think of too many instances where something was blatantly and inexcusably offensive that was let stand for a considerable length of time. The mods are usually on the ball.

They can correct me on this if I'm wrong but I think the turnaround time on reported posts is quite low. If nothing has been done about a post, it's usually because a) nobody has reported it and any mods who have read it don't consider it infractable or b) it was reported but the mods didn't consider it infractable.

Adding more mods may ease the burden but unless it was someone with a significantly different take on where the line should be to the current mods, then that's all it would be: easing the burden.

onewoman

Kold wrote: »

Racism is not the same as misogyny. Like.. at all really.

You say the posts were sick and hateful. I say that they were just poor attempts at humour. This is the internet, welcome. Unfortunately people will have different views to you. Some people are racists, some people are misogynists, some people want drugs to be legalised, some people believe in the death penalty. Now argue your point without the holier than thou "It's wrong!" or gtfo.

You see Kold, that's the problem: the 'beating a woman twice as hard' comment wasn't even a poor attempt at humour. There was not one ounce of wit in there. It was simply an excuse to use abusive language towards women. Substitute the word 'woman' for 'black person' and you might understand why it was offensive.

Thank you so much to those of you who've argued from my perfectly reasonable perspective http://static.boards.ie/vbulletin/images/smilies/smile.gif: I'm not a PC nut, I've a sophisticated sense of humour, and fundamentally I just want to know why misogyny is (misguidedly) regarded as a lesser offence than racism by many boardsies. I think both positions are equally disgusting, yet one is treated more seriously than the other. http://static.boards.ie/vbulletin/images/smilies/confused.gif

CDfm

onewoman wrote: »

You see Kold, that's the problem: the 'beating a woman twice as hard' comment wasn't even a poor attempt at humour. There was not one ounce of wit in there. It was simply an excuse to use abusive language towards women. Substitute the word 'woman' for 'black person' and you might understand why it was offensive.

Thank you so much to those of you who've argued from my perfectly reasonable perspective http://static.boards.ie/vbulletin/images/smilies/smile.gif: I'm not a PC nut, I've a sophisticated sense of humour, and fundamentally I just want to know why misogyny is (misguidedly) regarded as a lesser offence than racism by many boardsies. I think both positions are equally disgusting, yet one is treated more seriously than the other. http://static.boards.ie/vbulletin/images/smilies/confused.gif

I have to agree with Kold because after hours isnt PC.

But add you go for banning misogynist content in AH you would also need to remove the misandrist content from the Ladies Lounge otherwise its" pot and kettle" and you either apply it accross the boards or not at all.

You cant just cherrypick what you want.

AlmightyCushion

onewoman wrote: »

I'm not a PC nut, I've a sophisticated sense of humour, and fundamentally I just want to know why misogyny is (misguidedly) regarded as a lesser offence than racism by many boardsies.

I don't believe any called you a pc nut. Also, if that comment was aimed at a black person, man or any minority in the same context then I wouldn't have removed it or reprimanded the user in question.

Ponster

CDfm wrote: »

I have to agree with Kold because after hours isnt PC.

But add you go for banning misogynist content in AH you would also need to remove the misandrist content from the Ladies Lounge otherwise its" pot and kettle" and you either apply it accross the boards or not at all.

You cant just cherrypick what you want.

Yes you can. There are almost no overall Boads.ie rules. Every forum sets it's own charters and every mod runs their forum as they seem fit.

Nevyn

CDfm wrote: »

I have to agree with Kold because after hours isnt PC.

But add you go for banning misogynist content in AH you would also need to remove the misandrist content from the Ladies Lounge otherwise its" pot and kettle" and you either apply it accross the boards or not at all.

You cant just cherrypick what you want.

This is a thread about AH, if you have an issue about the content of another forum then I suggest you start a new thread and I presume you have been reporting offensive posts in that forum.

CDfm

Thaedydal wrote: »

This is a thread about AH, if you have an issue about the content of another forum then I suggest you start a new thread and I presume you have been reporting offensive posts in that forum.

It is about AH. Its up to the mods to set the standards for the threads they moderate and they have free rein. I mentioned it as a benchmark/comparison issue- nothing else.

Overheal

MooseJam wrote: »

Hatred based on race isn't tolerated, neither should hatred based on gender, easy solution

Or Nationality. *cough*

metrovelvet

Why is there an assumption that if it is funny, or the poster says it's funny, that somehow this removes all offensiveness from it?

CDfm

Humour is subjective. I dont think rape is funny but maybe its there for shock value and appeals to an audience who like that.What offends is subjective too.

Steve

Overheal wrote: »

Or Nationality. *cough*

*cough*

Overheal

SteveC wrote: »

*cough*

I didnt say Racism.

Sam Vimes

Dudess wrote: »

That gem's always coming up. What exactly is it based on? Is it some sort of mathematical, logical conclusion or something? "You joked about football fans, therefore it's not out of bounds for you to joke about children being gang-raped"?
If I find a joke about how many Manchester United fans it takes to change a lightbulb funny, I'm a hypocrite if I don't find a joke about children being gang-raped funny? I don't know... do I force myself to laugh or something in order to avoid being a hypocrite?

That "Either everything can be laughed at or nothing can be laughed at" line is a load of bollocks and I'm sick of people on Boards saying it's unreasonable for people to find some stuff funny and other stuff not funny. It's not "fascist" or humourless for people to not find really sick jokes funny... they simply... eh... don't find them funny.

i didn't say you had to find them funny, i said it should be ok to joke about. there's an awful lot of humour i don't find funny for a variety of reasons but i don't try to stop the other person from speaking because i don't like what they're saying

Sam Vimes

you used the example of children being gang raped which is obviously offensive. but what about if someone had a deep love of manchester united and took offense to your joke about them? what if someone was a devout christian and didn't like their god being mocked? this thread would get you executed in certain countries. who decides what's ok and what's not?
here's a link to rowan atkinson fighting to stop a law banning religious hatred, not because he's a bigot but because he can tell the difference between a joke and sincerity
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4073997.stm

Sam Vimes

Dudess wrote: »

Well ok, I don't find these jokes funny and I also find them nasty and malicious.

well then you didn't get the joke tbh

Silverfish

Sam Vimes wrote: »

you used the example of children being gang raped which is obviously offensive. but what about if someone had a deep love of manchester united and took offense to your joke about them?

Simple.

Physical harm vs non-physical.

Rape = physical harm, assault, violence, physical pain.

Football team = a game.

Its a toughie I know, but you'll puzzle it out I'm sure.

Sam Vimes

Silverfish wrote: »

Simple.

Physical harm vs non-physical.

Rape = physical harm, assault, violence, physical pain.

Football team = a game.

Its a toughie I know, but you'll puzzle it out I'm sure.

who says somebody can't have a fanatical love of a football team? ever hear of football riots?

so is that where the line is btw? we're allowed joke about something as long no physical harm is involved? how about somebody slipping on a banana peel?

edit: what about the old joke: "what do you say to a woman with two black eyes? nothing, you already told her twice".
is that not acceptable because it has violence? what about if it's the woman hitting her husband? is that ok?

Overheal

Silverfish wrote: »

Simple.

Physical harm vs non-physical.

Rape = physical harm, assault, violence, physical pain.

Football team = a game.

Its a toughie I know, but you'll puzzle it out I'm sure.

Because it never lead to a riot or a death. Sorry, im nitpicking.

Sam Vimes

omg!!!
this thread: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055441967

involves violence against the president. i am offended and appalled. it shouldn't be allowed. rabble rabble rabble

Dyr

So if rape jokes are verboten will we all be getting equally outraged at a murder joke? I (and others) joked that dick roche should have been murdered by gunmen today. Presumably that's worse than joking that the raiders should have raped mary harney (murder being worse than rape) yet to my knowledge no one raise an eyebrow, but then a dead dick roche probably didn't violate any sacred cows.

Funny is funny. Humour cannot be gauged solely by topic.

CDfm

what if dick roche gets raped. does that get banned?

Kold

I'd imagine castration is far worse than rape. Don't see anyone campaigning to stop comments about it.

CDfm

Bambi wrote: »

So if rape jokes are verboten ... then a dead dick roche probably didn't violate any sacred cows.

:rolleyes:

Dudess

Sam Vimes wrote: »

well then you didn't get the joke tbh

Why wouldn't I get the joke? That joke "what did the deaf, dumb and blind kid get for Christmas? Cancer" (much hysterical laughter at this point no doubt) - what's to get? "Heh heh, the kid got a load of sh1tty ailments... and here's another one! Plus, it's really outrageous!"
I get it. Can I find it nasty and obnoxious into the bargain? Don't see why not... And subject matter aside, it's not even witty.

Oh and if a person gets upset about their football team being mocked, that person would want to lighten up. If a person gets upset about a child rape joke - even if their child was never raped - that person shouldn't feel any obligation whatsoever to lighten up.

tbh

Dudess wrote: »

Why wouldn't I get the joke? That joke "what did the deaf, dumb and blind kid get for Christmas? Cancer" (much hysterical laughter at this point no doubt) - what's to get? "Heh heh, the kid got a load of sh1tty ailments... and here's another one! Plus, it's really outrageous!"
I get it. Can I find it nasty and obnoxious into the bargain? Don't see why not... And subject matter aside, it's not even witty.

Oh and if a person gets upset about their football team being mocked, that person would want to lighten up. If a person gets upset about a child rape joke - even if their child was never raped - that person shouldn't feel any obligation whatsoever to lighten up.

so what you are saying is that if someone says something that is offensive to you, then it is offensive, and if something says something that isn't offensive to you, then it isn't offensive?

Offensiveness is objective, and obviously different people take offense at different things. So who gets to decide what's offensive for everyone? Do we just guess at what would be offensive to most people?

Say, for example, someone does take offense at a football joke (seeing as that's the example we seem to be using). Is their offense any more or less felt than someone who takes offense at a baby-raping joke? Should we ignore their offense just because it's felt by less people? Or should we ban any comment that anyone reports as being offensive? and if not, then we are back to the original question - who gets to decide which posts are offensive? That's where the south park line comes into it. Either everything is (potentially) offensive, or nothing is.

Dudess

Exactly. Offensiveness IS subjective (well, to a point) and just like people fight for their right to laugh at dead baby jokes, those who don't find them funny have every right to say so without being belittled and told to lighten up etc.

Dyr

But do people have the right to insist that their sensitivities are the norm and must be upheld by everyone else?

Dudess

Again, no. They just have a right to find the "jokes" obnoxious without being accused of humourlessness etc.

tbh

that's a very fair point.

Ponster

Bambi wrote: »

But do people have the right to insist that their sensitivities are the norm and must be upheld by everyone else?

I would say that the answer here is yes and not no as Dudess replied (IMHO). The society we live in and the morals associated with this society determine what the 'norm' is.

You may believe that your opinion about something something is correct but it doesn't mean that it's actually right if it doesn't comply with todays moral code.