Anti-women threads in AH

Tombi!

donfers wrote: »

yes for the people who have a genuine problem with the opposite sex or some ethnic group or race or nationality then i believe the most outlandish stuff is dealt with

however the problems lie in one woman's banter may be another woman's dickishness (am referencing mockery of women here as that is the issue being discussed) so how do we form a consensus on where the line should be drawn not just for mockery of women but mockery in general.

I apologise in advance but many of the complaints on here seem rather vague, circular and near-sighted in nature (however justifiable they may be)

instead of having the same old arguments about comments you disapprove of, please instead let us focus on what solutions you would like to see implemented to deal with these and how you would seek to have a consistent line of justice applied for all mockery offenses

thank you everybody

You would be wrong on that, I imagine. I'm pretty sure a lot of posts go unreposted.
The solution is simple: one of the mods (think it was micky) said that sexism was against the rules. And they're discussing what could be done about it. Maybe reporting more will help instead of just ignoring posts.

Sindri

Millicent wrote: »

Clusterfuck? Because you deem it so? A load of posters have come on and said that some of those posts that are collectively offensive appear too innocuous to report. So what then, if it's so simple?

The appearance of innocuoity because they deem it so?

/Mindboggling

I don't have time for rhetorical devices. Okay? They make for poorly constructed arguments statements.

You make a huge logically evasive and somewhat disingenuous (see above) leap from here:

Millicent wrote: »

A load of posters have come on and said that some of those posts that are collectively offensive appear too innocuous to report.

To here:

Millicent wrote: »

So what then, if it's so simple?

Which I simply won't entertain and where it appears you have already made up your mind. That simple.

Your objections though to my suggestion, which is to simply utilize the provided method to object to what is found to be objectionable appear to me to be an excuse to just reaffirm your opinion that AH is chauvinistic or 'anti-female'. There is no plausible excuse to not reporting what is 'deemed' to possibly be offensive other than, possibly, the consideration of the notion that it is not offensive which to me where the post is deemed to be possibly offensive is the only other logical possibility.

Reality_Check1

Millicent wrote: »

I'm fairly sure he's a bit of a dick in that he consciously lied to someone. No?

ha yeah sure but there are people who would think it was just jack the lad better off not drawing out a one nighter.

different viewpoints

Hijpo

maybe the lads attitude towards the female types has something to do with the youtube video "what polish women think of irish men" more so the comments from the few near the end.

wtf are they doin over there and the football on, anyway!?

Tombi!

Reality_Check1 wrote: »

"Medical card holders are bleeding the health system and should pay a nominal fee when visiting a GP"

could be a good discussion but I'd imagine under the rules above it wouldnt fly

That's not offending a gender.

That's also a semi-truth statement. People with medical cards do use them a lot more than they would if they paid. I use mine maybe... every 3-4 years since I was 16. Some people go up to get sleeping tablets, sick notes to gett off work/get illness benefit and everywhere in between.

Sindri wrote: »

. There is no plausible excuse to not reporting what is 'deemed' to possibly be offensive other than, possibly, the consideration of the notion that it is not offensive which to me where the post is deemed to be possibly offensive is the only other logical possibility.

Here's your f**king plausable excuse: most people feel nothing gets done about it. Most people have the thought of "someone else will do it".
Sigh, I know I'm pissed off with what you said. A lot of people from everywhere feel that mods don't do enough so there's no point in reporting. I've been a mod on websites and the amount of "why you didn't do anything about X" is hilarious and mind-numblingy painful to read when nobody atually reports it

Sindri

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Here's your f**king plausable excuse: most people feel nothing gets done about it. Most people have the thought of "someone else will do it".

It's not 'my f*cking' plausible excuse. Anything else is just a cop out.

donfers

Millicent wrote: »

What constitutes being an asshole is not all that subjective though. It's "Am I respecting people?" and "Am I out to cause offence/am I tarring a whole group with a big brush/am I being a bit of a dick?" It's quite easy to define, IMO.

I am sorry but what constitutes an asshole is entirely a subjective assumption albeit in the extreme cases there is generally a rather large consensus

however i am sure you agree the extreme cases are by and large dealt with promptly

it's the stuff bordering the line of acceptance where subective interpretations of what is an asshole really come into play and this is the core issue, how to moderate that line when it varies in position from person to person

do we satisfy the person who might be described as easily offended or do we let all but the extremely and explicitly offensive stuff go? At the moment AH is more on the latter side of the spectrum and in order to satisy some of the complainants here it would need to shift towards the other side of the spectrum, which would lead inevitably to accusations that it had lost its cheekiness/irreverence/glint in the eye - whatever you want to call it and while some would be satisfied with the new more "respectful" mature AH and those who had been offended/bullied/whatever in the past would return, I would be unsurprised to see a significant number leave the forum


you see it's never as simple as "don't be a dick" simply because we have different interpretations of what that is

Tombi!

Sindri wrote: »

It's not 'my f*cking' plausible excuse. Anything else is just a cop out.

No, it's not a cop out.
A cop out is "hey I made it as a joke, not my fault they got offended".

Having no faith in something being removed isn't a cop out. It's a sign that the place needs to change.

Lyaiera

strobe wrote: »

Does any thread on anything ever? The discussion was progressing, people were outlining their views, often in a clear, level headed, reasonable fashion, Mods were giving input, it was, as I said, for the most part moving along fine.

You taking your *...sigh* '12 gauge intellectual shotgun' out and waving it at individuals, is hardly improving things... accord wise.

Mods (at least mods of other forums) were talking about getting drinks with people. It was settling down into, "It's going home time lads. How about one last drink and we can all settle this out on the street when my pub will be closed."

Millicent

Sindri wrote: »

The appearance of innocuoity because they deem it so?

/Mindboggling

I don't have time for rhetorical devices. Okay? They make for poorly constructed arguments statements.

You make a huge logically evasive and somewhat disingenuous (see above) leap from here:



To here:



Which I simply won't entertain and where it appears you have already made up your mind. That simple.

Your objections though to my suggestion, which is to simply utilize the provided method to object to what is found to be objectionable appear to me to be an excuse to just reaffirm your opinion that AH is chauvinistic or 'anti-female'. There is no plausible excuse to not reporting what is 'deemed' to possibly be offensive other than, possibly, the consideration of the notion that it is not offensive which to me where the post is deemed to be possibly offensive is the only other logical possibility.

Why bother to respond if it is to tell me you won't entertain my points. In fairness, coming onto a thread that others are happily participating in and calling it a "cluster****" because you have decided it is one, and without backing up that assertion, wasn't going to win you a lot of polite interaction.

Have you read the thread, out of curiosity? I have explained what I mean by the innocuousness of those posts several times now. Several other posters have made similar statements. If you have not taken the time to read them, how I can I discuss the point that is being made? It would appear more that you have decided where the discourse of this thread should go and to hell with dissent on the matter. There are valid and tangible reasons why some of those posts go unreported. I have detailed those reasons at length previously. If you would care to respond to any of those points, I may engage with you on this.

To then come on and insult my posting style, my arguments and my rhetoric and expect a considered answer is baffling, quite frankly. So I'm afraid we'll have to fail to entertain each other.

Tombi!

Lyaiera wrote: »

Mods (at least mods of other forums) were talking about getting drinks with people. It was settling down into, "It's going home time lads. How about one last drink and we can all settle this out on the street when my pub will be closed."

Wha?

donfers

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

You would be wrong on that, I imagine. I'm pretty sure a lot of posts go unreposted.
The solution is simple: one of the mods (think it was micky) said that sexism was against the rules. And they're discussing what could be done about it. Maybe reporting more will help instead of just ignoring posts.

maybe you're right that some nasty stuff still gets through but I honestly have seen plently of yellow and red cards thrown about and also I would have to say any truly excessive stuff (to my mind) is usually dealt with very promptly

well let's see then, ok sexism is against the rules - do you think it's that simple?

where does sexism begin and end then and are those two points the same for everybody?

Reality_Check1

I have to get some kip but here is my summary of thoughts on the issue

• Blatent sexism to cause offense should be dealt with harshly
• Have a sticky instructing people how to block other users so they dont have to read their posts
• Make me a mod so I can go crazy on the power

I think it will be hard to come up with a solution to keep everyone happy so I think the block people to tailor AH to your own preference is the best way forward

Goodnight

Tombi!

donfers wrote: »

maybe you're right that some nasty stuff still gets through but I honestly have seen plently of yellow and red cards thrown about and also I would have to say any truly excessive stuff (to my mind) is usually dealt with very promptly

well let's see then, ok sexism is against the rules - do you think it's that simple?

where does sexism begin and end then and are those two points the same for everybody?

Well basically it comes down to: sexism IS already against the rules. It's just not dealt with usually. I reckon it's bcause of no reporting being done. That's what a lot of people want fixed. Regardless of it is more of a "please report more" or a "don't make sexist posts as they will be dealt with harshly", something needs to change it how it's currently being dealt with.

mackg

Millicent wrote: »

I could think of a dozen regulars offhand, and another dozen, I'd guess, if I put more thought into it. You even have people like myself and Abi saying it and we've both been around a long time on AH.

I recall Dudess being followed from thread to thread by certain assholes who were annoyed she was some uppity female.

There is no doubt Dudess got a hard time for someone who went of their way to be calm and polite with her posts.

I'd be with you in that I don't want to see people leave the forum because of stuff like this but at the same time it has to be said I don't have a problem with threads about the fellas prostitute housemate and I can say hand on heart that if it was something similar about a fella I wouldn't have a problem either. AH still needs to be AH

Millicent wrote: »

We're riddled, I tell ye, riddled. Better off with some one from Uzbekistan or wherever the AH consensus says the better looking women are these days. :pac:

I think I should just keep clear of the ones that hang out down by the docks. Uzbeks are ok but for me it's all about da burds from the Pharaoh Islands or the Phwoarroh Islands as I call them.

Lyaiera

Sindri wrote: »

Your objections though to my suggestion, which is to simply utilize the provided method to object to what is found to be objectionable appear to me to be an excuse to just reaffirm your opinion that AH is chauvinistic or 'anti-female'. There is no plausible excuse to not reporting what is 'deemed' to possibly be offensive other than, possibly, the consideration of the notion that it is not offensive which to me where the post is deemed to be possibly offensive is the only other logical possibility.

It seems like you're saying we should use the formal system to object. And believe you me there'd be a lot of objecting. What if we want to argue. What if we want to say, "Hang on, that's not acceptable." Do we have to keep retreating to the officious functions of authority to say we're not willing to put up with something?

Is it that we have to be constantly put in our box and think, "Society will look out for us." That we can't act for ourselves and the totallity of the situation be taken into account.

There is constant, everyday misogyny and intolerence in AH. I fight it like a good person on occasion, some other people fight it like good people on other days. But instead you boil it down to the idea that "The System" is going to be responsible for what happens? That doesn't make sense to me. The system where I'm from lets this happen. Every fcuking day there are intolerable opinions. And it's this radicalised idea that I have to tolerate the other person's intolerance to be a good person myself.

That's not true. I can take it on my shoulders to say someone is a fckuing asshole. I can take the ignominy to say that I don't fckuing tolerate what you're saying. And I'll challenge anyone who says otherwise.

I shouldn't have to fall back to reporting posts. I shouldn't have to run to anyone where an argument can be made.

That being said, I absolutely love that Boards.ie is man enough that they can stand up and take responsibility for their ****tier posters when the time comes to it. But for the moment, let me be empowered enough to say, "No. You are wrong! You are a misogynist! You are a cnyt!"

Sindri

I really don't want to reply to this post because of the disingenuity and hypocrisy (which I will detail, remember this not an ad hominen attack, although you seem to have considered it as such) but I will and then all I want, please, is an adequate explanation to my assertion in my previous post which was:

Sindri wrote: »

Your objections though to my suggestion, which is to simply utilize the provided method to object to what is found to be objectionable appear to me to be an excuse to just reaffirm your opinion that AH is chauvinistic or 'anti-female'. There is no plausible excuse to not reporting what is 'deemed' to possibly be offensive other than, possibly, the consideration of the notion that it is not offensive which to me where the post is deemed to be possibly offensive is the only other logical possibility.

Which you have not yet given.

Millicent wrote: »

Why bother to respond if it is to tell me you won't entertain my points.

I said I wouldn't entertain your disingenuous rhetorical devices which function was to:

Millicent wrote: »

decide[d] where the discourse of [this thread] my argument should go and to hell with dissent on the matter.

That is extremely hypocritical and disingenuous.

Millicent wrote: »

In fairness, coming onto a thread that others are happily participating in and calling it a "cluster****" because you have decided it is one,

No my dear Milli, you decided that I decided that, and now, heavens above! how frustrating, :mad: that's simply the way it is.

Millicent wrote: »

and without backing up that assertion, wasn't going to win you a lot of polite interaction.

Why? Why didn't you ask me? Why? Instead of posting a condescending and passive aggressive ad hominem?

Millicent wrote: »

Have you read the thread, out of curiosity?

See above where I called the thread a cluster****.

Millicent wrote: »

I have explained what I mean by the innocuousness of those posts several times now. Several other posters have made similar statements. If you have not taken the time to read them, how I can I discuss the point that is being made? It would appear more that you have decided where the discourse of this thread should go and to hell with dissent on the matter.

People with conflicting opinions have been shouted down by you and others.

Millicent wrote: »

There are valid and tangible reasons why some of those posts go unreported. I have detailed those reasons at length previously. If you would care to respond to any of those points, I may engage with you on this.

I engaged you previously and made an assertion which you have not yet responded to specifically.

You report posts that you deem offensive. There is no other way about it. If you don't it is your own fault. There's lots of posts in the past I should've reported but I didn't. That is my fault. No one else's. And if people's attitude towards me was influenced by my inability or lack of action then it is my fault. I hope you understand the logic behind that. That one's attitude towards someone is regulated by the discernible attitude of those they are occupied with. If there was such a discernible problem before, why were the posts not reported? If the posts had been reported over this time frame that people started to notice this misogyny something would have been done.

Millicent wrote: »

To then come on and insult my posting style, my arguments and my rhetoric and expect a considered answer is baffling, quite frankly. So I'm afraid we'll have to fail to entertain each other.

Not ad hominem. Why did you consider it to be?

I also explained in my original post directed towards you that it was disingenuous to assume my intent and reasoning and dismiss it like you also did above.

So...

Why this thread when the report function as far as I know is working? And that will be the same function used after this thread is closed no?

Sindri

Anyway, If you want to discuss it it will have to wait. I got 2 hours of sleep last night, I worked for 13 hours today and now I have to be up at 6 to do so again. So goodnight.

CodyJarrett

Millicent wrote: »

I recall Dudess being followed from thread to thread by certain assholes who were annoyed she was some uppity female.

Ah now here. She was no shrinking violet herself.

How many guys stopped posting on AH because of her constant inferences that they were just misogynistic men harbouring hateful bitterness towards women. Guess you'd say good riddance to them but that would be assuming that she was correct in her assertions and frankly, with the amount of men she did that to, it would be downright impossible for that to be the case. I can't recall any other user of the forum that got away with so much attacking of posters instead of their posts as much as she did.

Sharrow wrote: »

This topic comes regularly on the forum, do a search here or on feedback and you will see.

AH has gotten a lot better with that crap after the last time there was this sort of feedback but it's gotten out of hand again and I know it's put me off posting in here.

Tripe.

I recall a few of those threads you speak of and Admin would eventually post on those threads in Feedback(as they locked them) and say they felt there was no truth to a lot of the accusations that AH mods were ignoring reported posts or that AH was allowing women to get mistreated on the forum.

Again, this is said far more times than it happens.

Keith made some good points earlier in the thread and he was drowned out by those who outranked him, which is a shame as I think he has more of a sense of AH and what it should be, than any other moderator of the forum. That wasn't always the case, AH always had mods who stuck up for what this forum was always supposed to be about, but sure seems to have changed.

The truth is that almost a third of the regulars of the forum are women and yet we always see just the same handful of users getting the torches out every few months or so about how women don't like to post here because of the attitude towards women and how it has to change blah blah blah. Well ladies, all the other women seem to post here and don't feel the need to complain. In fact, I know one very well liked female regular (going back a bit) who felt she couldn't have a laugh in AH with the guys without getting a cold reception from certain female boardsies.

Honestly, I don't think there is anything wrong with how the moderators deal with sexism on this forum. They always seemed to quickly stamp out threads and posts that were just about having a pop at women in general, far more than they would if the topic were about men (see the thread about Parking for evidence of that) and anytime the suggestion comes up about mods having to do more, there is an overreaction in certain quarters and I actually remember one woman was infracted for (with tongue firmly in cheek) saying: "Bitches be crazy".

If ANYTHING, After Hours needs to get back to how it used to be (not in all ways perhaps, nut in many nontheless) as it is starting to take itself far too seriously. The fun factor and roll with the punches adult nature of the forum has somewhat dissipated to a degree and I would like to see it return. Let's stop letting outside influences try and sanatise the forum anymore than they already have. There are lots of forums on Boards for serious discussion where absolute respect is given to everyone's sensibilities. AH is our little corner of the forum for discussing our views on the world in a way that doesn't shouldn't be taken all that seriously. We're the Father Ted of Boards, lave us alone will ya.

tl;dr

Some apt prose from two great minds pretty much sums up the situation here:


Explanations are complications, we don't need to know the where or why.

Taking chances, bold advances, don't care if you think we're out of line.

Conversation is interrogation - get out of here, we just don't have the time.

Take or leave us, but please believe us, we ain't ever going to be respectable.

Like us, hate us but you'll never change us, we ain't EVER gonna be respectable!

Tombi!

I'm not back seat modding anything but... drop the discussion of Dudess please? The account is closed and there is no way at all to prove any new user could be her. So yeah she can't really defend herself, so let it go?

And no, I'm not having a go or anything, I just don't think it's fair to talk about a person who can't say anything bac.

efb

Are you Mel or Kim?

Lyaiera

whiplashed wrote: »

We're the Father Ted of Boards, lave us alone will ya.

You do realise Graham Linehan is an avowed feminist.

And you go back to this idea of all of this only being a laugh, and people are getting het up over nothing, and if we don't like it we should go away.

No.

ash23

Ok so after all this, if I've learned nothing, I've learned that to report the sexist posts is ok and I'll try not to feel like a tell tale for doing so.

AH has a rep as a not so friendly place for women. From other sites and from other boards users.

It's a real pity though because I am also on a few boards where the majority of posters are women. And the craic is mighty. Lots of intelligent, opinionated, hysterically funny women. And one or two who had to be kicked out cos they hated men :rolleyes:

I'd love for AH to become more "approachable" for all types of people. Not to be known as the place to be avoided.
The chat and craic would be much better. The debates wouldn't be so one-sided. But the overall tone has to change for that to happen.

Wibbs

ash23 wrote: »

AH has a rep as a not so friendly place for women. From other sites and from other boards users.

I've seen this mentioned a couple of times of late A, any links?

Tombi!

ash23 wrote: »

Ok so after all this, if I've learned nothing, I've learned that to report the sexist posts is ok and I'll try not to feel like a tell tale for doing so.

AH has a rep as a not so friendly place for women. From other sites and from other boards users.

It's a real pity though because I am also on a few boards where the majority of posters are women. And the craic is mighty. Lots of intelligent, opinionated, hysterically funny women. And one or two who had to be kicked out cos they hated men :rolleyes:

I'd love for AH to become more "approachable" for all types of people. Not to be known as the place to be avoided.
The chat and craic would be much better. The debates wouldn't be so one-sided. But the overall tone has to change for that to happen.

Well then you missed the entire point.

You're clearly meant to report posts. This isn't a "don't rat" on people place.
Not only that but it started out as a general question as to why there are/were so many sexist topics in a large amount lately.

We might not have gotten things changed right away but the mods agreed to discuss it. I say that's very well done in the case of a few days.

ash23

Wibbs wrote: »

I've seen this mentioned a couple of times of late A, any links?

I've PM'd a link to Micky.

Tombi!

ash23 wrote: »

I've PM'd a link to Micky.

Can you PM me a link (and Wibbs I assume)? It's a PM, it's not like I'm going to use anything I find out from any site on boards anyhow. Though I understand if you don't want to

ash23

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Well then you missed the entire point.

You're clearly meant to report posts. This isn't a "don't rat" on people place.
Not only that but it started out as a general question as to why there are/were so many sexist topics in a large amount lately.

We might not have gotten things changed right away but the mods agreed to discuss it. I say that's very well done in the case of a few days.

Well see, to be honest, I always perceived AH as a place where being a sexist pig was fine. Based on seeing threads run and run in relation to slagging off Irish women. So now I know that it's actually not ok, it's not part of AH to allow blatant slagging of women. Which I genuinely thought it was.

Tombi!

ash23 wrote: »

Well see, to be honest, I always perceived AH as a place where being a sexist pig was fine. Based on seeing threads run and run in relation to slagging off Irish women. So now I know that it's actually not ok, it's not part of AH to allow blatant slagging of women. Which I genuinely thought it was.

It's not, at all. It's not acceptable on any forum. The rules are relaxed here though.

I forget if it was Micky or Keith that said it but they made it clear that gender bashing as halways been against the rules. So beyond reporting it and getting it brought to their attention that something more should be done (like we did) is useful.

And oddly, sexist pig usually just refers to males so statements like that isn't really helping

ash23

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

It's not, at all. It's not acceptable on any forum. The rules are relaxed here though.

I forget if it was Micky or Keith that said it but they made it clear that gender bashing as halways been against the rules. So beyond reporting it and getting it brought to their attention that something more should be done (like we did) is useful.

And oddly, sexist pig usually just refers to males so statements like that isn't really helping

That was kind of my point. Now I know that it's ok to report whereas I didn't before.

As for sexist pig, I didn't say male. I don't agree with sexism of any kind but as AH is predominantly male (or so it seems) the sexism is mainly directed at women. I'd be as quick to call a woman who was bashing men as a gender a sexist pig. I'm quite neutral like that. I don't like things being implied about my posts that I didn't actually say.

Tombi!

ash23 wrote: »

That was kind of my point. Now I know that it's ok to report whereas I didn't before.

As for sexist pig, I didn't say male. I don't agree with sexism of any kind but as AH is predominantly male (or so it seems) the sexism is mainly directed at women. I'd be as quick to call a woman who was bashing men as a gender a sexist pig. I'm quite neutral like that. I don't like things being implied about my posts that I didn't actually say.

Oh, I thought you were meaning it sarcastically, sorry

I was talking in general, men are usually refered to as sexist pigs. I don't ever recall in my 14 odd years on the internet of a woman being called a sexist pig.

g'em

Just on this whole report posts thing. That's a very reactive course of action isn't it? I'd love it if there was a more proactive solution. I've been dipping in and out of this thread, haven't yet had the chance to sit down and engage/ read it fully so genuine apologies if I'm hashing over the same stuff already mentioned or miss any points.

There's a few women on the thread saying "oh I used to post here but now I can't". AH moves fast. Mods change. The atmosphere is constantly changing. the Mods (and by proxy the Admins) do their best to suit the needs of the general consensus and not allow bullying, harassment or the fostering of an unwelcome environment to develop. But sometimes it does, and this is where we need assistance from you to understand that it's a dynamic place that changes so subtly we don't even see it coming. Help the Mods to understand what's doing on. But sweeping statements like "AH is so unwelcoming for women" are reactive, not proactive. Show concrete, definitive examples so that the Mod team (who are male by majority) can help understand why the discomfort is there. And fyi, calling AH a very anti-women forum, or being 'full of sexist pigs' is just as much a generalisation as the sexist ones being talked about.

A couple of times when these women have said the above the response has been "that's what the report button is for". If I say "all women are bitches", that's clear women bashing. It's easy to report that. What is really being discussed here is an undercurrent, a feeling, one of those things that you can't quite put your finger on and no single post really quantifies. Reporting posts doesn't quite work. I'll go back to the example I used early in the thread: if I'm engaging in a thread and things are getting heated and a male poster says to me "calm down, are you on your rag or something??", as an isolated incident it would probably be quite funny, disarming, and I'd have little chopice but to let myself succumb to the banter.

But what if every time I got into a discussion that same line was used against me when I get a little... passionate about a topic? Do I go back and find every single time that line is used and report it? That's reactive, not proactive. I believe that the emphasis should be on creating an environment where all posters (men and women) quit relying on tired "banter" to cheapen an otherwise good debate. It undermines the topic, (the fact that we can now have very serious topics discussed at length in AH with fantastic results is one of the many reasons why we will never go back to ye olde AH as whiplashed would like in the post above. Sorry sunshine, not on my watch ).

Serious question: is it too much to ask if I say "you know what, I really don't like those tired lines that I hear based on my gender, is there any chance that instead of me having to ask the Mods to remove them, that you could just not say them at all? Or start a thread about "Irish women vs. foridn burds" In return I won't make generalisations about men either. Fair is fair like". Is that too much to ask? That's what I would like.

ash23

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Oh, I thought you were meaning it sarcastically, sorry

I was talking in general, men are usually refered to as sexist pigs. I don't ever recall in my 14 odd years on the internet of a woman being called a sexist pig.

Well truthfully, I'd be more inclined to call a woman who was being sexist a bitter b!tch but for the purposes of this thread I went with sexist pig lol.

Zulu

Millicent wrote: »

And what other groups get mocked the same way as women do here? There are none because it's not acceptable.

I disagree that no other groups are mocked the same way. "Gingers" get far worse abuse frankly.

And with respect to your point about Dudess, while she was often right, she got it wrong a few times. In fairness, she lived by the sword...

Sauve

g'em you're right and I know reporting is reactive, but where does the shift start then, if not with that?

g'em

Sauve wrote: »

g'em you're right and I know reporting is reactive, but where does the shift start then, if not with that?

These threads for one. I love this stuff. Someone break out the guitar and I'll start the first verse of Kum-Bay-Yah (knowing me I've just offended seventeen different minority groups there... sorry )

I'm not saying don't report posts at all, jaysus no, I'm saying that it can be hard for a Mod to see an undercurrent of anything (any -ism tbh) from one single post. The reported post is one function to assist, and not the only one to be relied on.

I was primarily directing that at the posters who - on this thread - were using the "well then report the post" line as a catch-all solution.

Abdul Abulbul Amir

Wait, undercurrent? So now you want to police people's attitudes, rather than just their posts? That seems terribly Orwellian.

Tombi!

g'em wrote: »

I was primarily directing that at the posters who - on this thread - were using the "well then report the post" line as a catch-all solution.

I'd be one of those I assume

I wasn't trying to use it as a solution to everything. I was trying to get people to realize, if they report and provide a decent enough reason, it'll help. Eventally the same posters are going to have a bunch of reported posts and something ideally will get done.

It's a step in the right direction.

Sauve

Every time someone sings that song, baby Jesus cries

g'em

Abdul Abulbul Amir wrote: »

Wait, undercurrent? So now you want to police people's attitudes, rather than just their posts? That seems terribly Orwellian.

boards doesn't tolerate bullying, harassment or posters being a dick. Some of the undercurrents involve all three. Nothing Orwellian about that

Millicent

Abdul Abulbul Amir wrote: »

Wait, undercurrent? So now you want to police people's attitudes, rather than just their posts? That seems terribly Orwellian.

No it doesn't. It seems like its asking people not to get their kicks at the cost of others' enjoyment of the forum. There's nothing Orwellian about that at all.

Chips Lovell

donfers wrote: »

What you seem to be suggesting (and forgive me for putting words in your mouth my friend) the forum should modify itself to do away with mockery aimed at women but mockery aimed at other groups is not a problem. Mockery is either right or wrong and should be dealt with consistently.

I feel you're engaging in "whataboutery" now. That as long as abuse of other groups isn't clamped down on, nothing should be done about this issue.

Last time I checked, immigrant bashing, gay bashing, traveller bashing and Jew bashing, weren't tolerated here. Should we allow all of them until we're satisfied that every identifiable group is being treated fairly?

Abdul Abulbul Amir

g'em wrote: »

boards doesn't tolerate bullying, harassment or being a dick. Some of the undercurrents involve all three. Nothing Orwellian about that

But you haven't defined what this undercurrent is. What makes up an undercurrent? And you also seem to imply in one of your previous posts that you just want people to stop voluntarily, but it's clear that you don't, so I'm not sure what that paragraph is doing there.

What would constitute this undercurrent or tone or what have you, and what reaction to that do you want taken by the mods?

I can guess what your answer is going to be, which is that the undercurrent is anything that female posters say it is, and that the punishment is infractions followed by bannings.

Tombi!

Abdul Abulbul Amir wrote: »

I can guess what your answer is going to be, which is that the undercurrent is anything that female posters say it is, and that the punishment is infractions followed by bannings.

WTF? What in the name of Hell are you trying to do with that?

Honestly, the only f**king reason to post something stupid like that is to get a f**king rise out of someone :mad:

Abdul Abulbul Amir

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

WTF? What in the name of Hell are you trying to do with that?

Honestly, the only f**king reason to post something stupid like that is to get a f**king rise out of someone :mad:

My God you are irritating brutal. I'm not trying to get a rise out of anyone, that's the conclusion as I see it.

Tombi!

Abdul Abulbul Amir wrote: »

My God you are irritating brutal. I'm not trying to get a rise out of anyone, that's the conclusion as I see it.

Really?

So you think anyone that wants this is just female?

Lyaiera

Abdul Abulbul Amir wrote: »

But you haven't defined what this undercurrent is. What makes up an undercurrent? And you also seem to imply in one of your previous posts that you just want people to stop voluntarily, but it's clear that you don't, so I'm not sure what that paragraph is doing there.

What would constitute this undercurrent or tone or what have you, and what reaction to that do you want taken by the mods?

I can guess what your answer is going to be, which is that the undercurrent is anything that female posters say it is, and that the punishment is infractions followed by bannings.

You're wrong.

Abdul Abulbul Amir

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Really?

So you think anyone that wants this is just female?

I don't see many men being disturbed enough by this 'undercurrent' to report posts, yes it seems like a measure that would be put in place just for women. But seeing as I have no idea what the 'undercurrent' is I can only imagine.

Abdul Abulbul Amir

Lyaiera wrote: »

You're wrong.

Oh, well thanks for clearing that up then.

Lyaiera

Abdul Abulbul Amir wrote: »

I don't see many men being disturbed enough by this 'undercurrent' to report posts, yes it seems like a measure that would be put in place just for women. But seeing as I have no idea what the 'undercurrent' is I can only imagine.

Hang on? You're saying men wouldn't report abusive posts, harrasment, or an intolerent undercurrent?

I've said it before but I'll say it again, you're wrong.