humanities

metrovelvet

I would like to suggest that the Humanities charter be reformed to be very specific around what constitutes abuse and what does not.

As far as I understood as general rule on boards, the attack the post not the poster sort of works like this:

"you are so stupid" - abuse
"your post is so stupid' -not abuse

Now I was strictly warned for 'personal abuse' on humanities when I made this comment 'A fish in water cannot see the water' in response to a previous poster saying that a mod will step in for misogyny and sexism.

Elliot Rosewater interpreted my post to say that I said both he and donegafella are misogynists. In my mind, this is quite a leap. Ideologies function in such a way that people cannot see them or how they operate, often it is insidious. That is the limit to what I was suggesting.

Through a series of pms with ER, he failed to see my point and kept insisteing on my 'insinuations'. Insinuations are a very fuzzy means of assessing abuse and inflicting bans and warnings. I found his personal accusation of my practise of personal abuse both public and abusive in itself. He kept insisting I was calling him and DF misogynists, which I was not, but even if I were is that abuse? He then permanently banned me from Humanities when I asked him if he could a misogynist? He seemed to have such a disproportionate response to the fish and water metaphor it seems really a case of the lady doth protest too much and I started to wonder.

Secondly, I was not aware that a suggestion or even straight out accusation of misogynistic language, posts or acts, consitituted abuse. Does this carry over into other forums where if I mention a rap artist as misogynistic that boards can be sued for slander or libel? Does the same apply for racism, homophobia, etc?

There is a thread on this forum where a mod says 'I find your actions to be despicable.' Is that abuse too? I think for ER it is, but it should be in the humsnities charter with very clear guidelines what is abuse and what isnt.

Scofflaw

Hi metrovelvet,

I've had a look at the comments and posts in question.

metrovelvet wrote: »

I would like to suggest that the Humanities charter be reformed to be very specific around what constitutes abuse and what does not.

As far as I understood as general rule on boards, the attack the post not the poster sort of works like this:

"you are so stupid" - abuse
"your post is so stupid' -not abuse

Now I was strictly warned for 'personal abuse' on humanities when I made this comment 'A fish in water cannot see the water' in response to a previous poster saying that a mod will step in for misogyny and sexism.

Elliot Rosewater interpreted my post to say that I said both he and donegafella are misogynists. In my mind, this is quite a leap. Ideologies function in such a way that people cannot see them or how they operate, often it is insidious. That is the limit to what I was suggesting.

I'm afraid that all you're saying there is that that's exactly what you were saying - that the mods are misogynistic - but subtly, and that it's not their fault, because they're part of a culture of misogyny.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Through a series of pms with ER, he failed to see my point and kept insisteing on my 'insinuations'. Insinuations are a very fuzzy means of assessing abuse and inflicting bans and warnings. I found his personal accusation of my practise of personal abuse both public and abusive in itself. He kept insisting I was calling him and DF misogynists, which I was not, but even if I were is that abuse?

Yes, it is - and as far as I can see, that's exactly what you were doing. Saying "a fish can't see the water he swims in" when referring to misogyny, racism, homophobia, or any other prejudice, is a very plain way of saying "you don't know you're prejudiced because you're part of a prejudiced culture". You're still calling the poster in question a misogynist, or racist, or homophobe, or whatever.

metrovelvet wrote: »

He then permanently banned me from Humanities when I asked him if he could a misogynist? He seemed to have such a disproportionate response to the fish and water metaphor it seems really a case of the lady doth protest too much and I started to wonder.

And now you're doing it again - you're saying he banned you because he's a misogynist. And you were a little more obvious than just re-using the "fish out of water" line:

metrovelvet wrote:

You chose to read [the post I yellow carded] that way. And maybe you are right. Maybe you are misogynistic.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Secondly, I was not aware that a suggestion or even straight out accusation of misogynistic language, posts or acts, consitituted abuse. Does this carry over into other forums where if I mention a rap artist as misogynistic that boards can be sued for slander or libel? Does the same apply for racism, homophobia, etc?

Yes, it does. The reasoning isn't libel, but that is that it's very easy to wield the accusation, and almost impossible to prove it false. The result is that the accusation operates as a form of ad hominem, and because most of the prejudices where accusations used in this manner render the target less socially acceptable, it's often nothing more than an effective way to shut an opponent up. If someone is being genuinely racist, the correct response is to report the post, not to start calling the other poster a racist.

Personally, I have no issues with a ban for a poster who repeatedly wields a particular accusation in threads, and who responds to moderation with the same accusation. If you want to make the case that Irish culture is sexist (and I'd have no hesitation agreeing that it is), accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being misogynist may not be the best way to do it, and from the perspective of the forums, is a form of sub-trolling.

moderately,
Scofflaw

metrovelvet

I did not come here to make an appeal or ask for a justification for my ban. I have learned from feedback and the Ladies Lounge and having read previous threads on this forum that there is very little point in addressing the problem of misogyny on boards.

I disagree with a lot of people. I do not call everyone I disagree with a misogynist as you claim.

What I did come here to do was to suggest that the charter be much much clearer as to what constitutes abuse and what does not on Humanties. After I got booted off the thread there seemed to be an awful lot of personalising, some very obnoxious statements and cliquisheness developing against the last remaining female poster and ER seemed to think that was ok as no more warning or bannings were issued.

As far as I knew the mods are there to uphold the charter. And you cannot blame people for breaking rules that are not clear, not known, or not defined and are not in the charter but in a mod's head.

If calling someones post sexist is abuse, the charter should be clear about it.

You should also be much clearer, even with yourselves, what constitutes abuse and what constitutes criticism.

Scofflaw

metrovelvet wrote: »

I did not come here to make an appeal or ask for a justification for my ban. I have learned from feedback and the Ladies Lounge and having read previous threads on this forum that there is very little point in addressing the problem of misogyny on boards.

I disagree with a lot of people. I do not call everyone I disagree with a misogynist as you claim.

What I did come here to do was to suggest that the charter be much much clearer as to what constitutes abuse and what does not on Humanties. After I got booted off the thread there seemed to be an awful lot of personalising, some very obnoxious statements and cliquisheness developing against the last remaining female poster and ER seemed to think that was ok as no more warning or bannings were issued.

As far as I knew the mods are there to uphold the charter. And you cannot blame people for breaking rules that are not clear, not known, or not defined and are not in the charter but in a mod's head.

If calling someones post sexist is abuse, the charter should be clear about it.

You should also be much clearer, even with yourselves, what constitutes abuse and what constitutes criticism.

Name-calling is abuse, and calling somebody a misogynist is name-calling, particularly once it's happened more than once. It's pretty clear, I think.

moderately,
Scofflaw

metrovelvet

Scofflaw wrote: »

Name-calling is abuse, and calling somebody a misogynist is name-calling, particularly once it's happened more than once. It's pretty clear, I think.

moderately,
Scofflaw

But its ok to tell someone 'not to be a dick' or 'you're being a dick.' http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056088185

It's ok to refer to someone as male genitalia?

How does that make any sense?

I dont think its clear because I never called someone a misogynist.

If you cant call someone on their misogyny then what do you do, just accept it? But you can accuse someone of being abusive and then allow a mod as in the thread I gave as an example to call someone a dick.

Scofflaw

metrovelvet wrote: »

But its ok to tell someone 'not to be a dick' or 'you're being a dick.' http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056088185

It's ok to refer to someone as male genitalia?

How does that make any sense?

I'd have to quote Asiaprod on that:

'Being a dick' is a general expression we use here to describe a poster's action on a thread, it is not a personal statement against that user, it is a statement of fact about their actions on thread.

That's the expression, and, yes, it refers to male genitalia - it's a very common colloquial term, and since it equates the male genitalia with being generally slightly obnoxious, more than a little self-centred, and often thrusting itself in where it's not wanted, I can see the connection. Personally, I prefer the term 'muppet'.

metrovelvet wrote: »

I dont think its clear because I never called someone a misogynist.

If you cant call someone on their misogyny then what do you do, just accept it? But you can accuse someone of being abusive and then allow a mod as in the thread I gave as an example to call someone a dick.

If you feel someone is being a misogynist, you report them - the same as for racism, homophobia, and the rest. If the mod agrees that that's the case, then action is taken, but it's not the case that the mod will necessarily use the same frame of reference as yourself - they will usually use cultural norms derived from the society about them to enforce a certain level of civility in the forum. I agree that that may blind them to prejudices that are common and accepted in their society - but they are volunteers with an interest in the topics covered by the forum, not the result of a careful screening process designed to eliminate every conceivable form of prejudice. If you want boards.ie to recruit on that basis, you'll need to argue with boards.ie.

cordially,
Scofflaw

metrovelvet

That is what is worrying -'the cultural norms' of the society. Is this the main Irish boards site? Would this give a certain impression of the nation at large?

I am certainly having a lot of trouble seeing how calling someone a dick is not abusive but suggesting they may be blind to the misogynistic overtones, undertones, frames of reference and subtexts of a particular thread is. If I told ER to 'stop being a dick' that would not have earned a ban? For the sake of consistency and making some sense please say no.

The mind boggles it really does. Just out of curiosity what about calling someone a pusssy or a ****?

bonkey

metrovelvet wrote: »

But its ok to tell someone 'not to be a dick' or 'you're being a dick.' http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056088185

It's ok to refer to someone as male genitalia?

How does that make any sense?

It comes from Wheaton's Law.

(For background purposes only - I'm not commenting on the rights nor wrongs in this thread)