Discussion in 'About the Members' started by wynn, Feb 12, 2014.
GeofP: well reasoned and presented post.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Agreed; this is by far the most left-wing non-political forum I've seen. In all the other forums I frequent I'm labeled a liberal based on my positions on gun control, abortion, energy, foreign policy etc. Here the exact same positions get me labeled as a right-winger, since I am not as far left as many of the mods here.
I hadn't thought about it that way before, but good observation. (And to your point I really think the mods are trying to "do good" - but are doing so by trying to enforce a very specific worldview, rather than trying to enforce general rules for behavior on a forum.)
And that is the problem.
Wasn't Gendanken moderated by the plebs at some final point as moderator of Philosophy and somehow lost her footing there because of that? Or was it because she got bored with moderating Philosophy? No, that was Xev, wasn't it? Anyway, speaking of Gendanken and Xev (for all those who remember them in action when Sciforums was once the Roman Colosseum), they would have hooked their claws into the blowjob cliché and used it to their triumphant advantage. No spilt milk there.
So the witless now take their vengeance by banning, or getting others to ban for them. Nice, clean, and simple, huh? But for want of wit.
I have posted on this above:
Trooper has been banned for 3 days, Trapped for 1 day, Captain Kremmen for 1 day and billvon for 1 day.
Making light of a person's complaints of sexual harassment - especially ones which have been extensively analysed and discussed in this thread and elsewhere, can amount to a continuation of the harassment for the victim. At best, it shows a blatant disregard for the perceptions of the victim.
I never expected you to agree with my assessment on this. Apart from anything else, you're way to close to it to make an objective judgment on the issue.
I remind you that I have deliberately taken the decision making out of my own hands in this instance and put it to a group vote by the moderators. That means you get one vote, Tiassa gets one vote, I get one vote, and the rest of the mods get one vote each.
You accuse me of acting improperly in this matter. I have explained my reasons and motives extensively. Some of that is out here in public; some of it, perhaps unfortunately given the extent to which this is now a public matter, is in the Moderators forum.
My opinion on all of this is one opinion among many. Whatever sway it may hold depends on entirely on how others perceive the situation, given everything they have seen.
As it happens, I did change my mind. Initially, I thought that LG probably didn't deserve a ban at all. After some discussion and further consideration, I am now of the opinion that a 1 month ban is appropriate.
What hasn't changed is my opinion that LG doesn't deserve a permanent ban, especially one given on the grounds that Tiassa has given (i.e. his use of the word "hysterical" to refer to you). In my opinion, his ban is justified on the grounds of his "blowjob" comment, but not the "hysterical" comments. But I have clearly explained all this previously.
Once I realised that Tiassa, in particular, would take any modification of his decision as a personal attack on himself by an incompetent Administrator, and that you would accuse me of various underhanded motives etc, I decided that the best thing to do was to put the matter to a general vote. That way, the responsibility for the final decision is shared equally among all of the moderators, and I can't fairly be accused of bias.
We do not (just) consider sexual harassment a problem because it is so annoying.
We consider it a problem because it is an attempt at sex, and because/when it is unwanted, it starts getting close to rape.
A forum does not relay our hormones.
It doesn't allow us to grab one another('s ass).
It doesn't force us to read a thread we may not like.
It doesn't even give access to the webcam of another user.(because the NSA won't share)
IT EVEN HAS A BLOCK FUNCTION FOR THE USERS WE DON'T LIKE.
Still people manage to complain and feel harassed ...
Sexual harassment can, in some cases, be an attempt at sex. But as in many cases of sexual assault, it is more often about power. It is often about men trying to put women in their place, with an implicit threat of sexual or other violence if they do not toe the line.
Some people on internet forums may have developed a thick skin over the years, such that harassing and inappropriate comments are water off a duck's back to them. Others will not have. This is why the perception of the recipent of sexual harassment (on the internet or elsewhere) is so important. What is inconsequential to one woman may be frightening and threatening to another.
Bells has explained in detail her reaction to being told that she was, in effect, giving blowjobs to people by daring to disagree with them.
Captain Kremmen may well argue that he doesn't get upset when somebody implies that women ought to give blowjobs to the men on an internet forum. Ophilolite may well argue that women should just put up with sexualised abuse by men and grow a thicker skin. Ripley may well point out that he knows of thick-skinned women who tell him that they shrug off sexual harassment by returning fire. And cornel may well argue that words on the internet aren't really sexual harassment at all because they don't involve physical threats.
But it looks to me like you all want to turn a blind eye and play down the victimisation of women.
You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Wow, I've definitely got to watch DD one of these days. I mean, when one person has a Sicilian-descended family in the back of their mind but others instead think of the Robertson family, then curiosity regarding the similarity of the two becomes overwhelming...
I definitely don't think anyone can complain that a mainstream scientific view is being pushed on the readers here. Browsing through the math/physics section, you can presently witness a zombie apocalypse of culprits spamming that forum with insane posts about how they think the universe works based on a dream they had, borrowing liberally from concepts in real science while demonstrating a profound ignorance for the knowledge underlying those concepts, substituting LSD for technical know-how. And when they're not rambling about their latest wild guess at the vague qualitative workings of nature, they're making posts that essentially declare "I'm too stupid and/or lazy to learn how Theory X works or precisely what it says, therefore I can say with 100% certainty and foreknowledge that black holes don't and cannot exist." Yet when you suggest that they kindly post their rubbish in the junk science section instead, they bristle at the thought, because they look smarter when they're posting their stuff alongside all the black hole folks rather than alongside the kinds of people who actually agree with whatever thoughts they barfed out that day.
Nonsense. Bells is, as usual, playing the professional victim.
She herself throws insults left and right. And when someone even just slightly replies in kind, she goes all how she has been victimized and poor poor her and mean mean men and other people.
She plays dirty, and when someone even just slightly replies in kind, she cries foul.
She is abusing the system. She is not playing fairly.
'When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.'
George R.R. Martin
The two of them just didn't fit into the moderating team anyway.
Both of them were certainly incomparably more fair that the moderatress in question. They didn't abuse their power and influence. They didn't cry foul when someone treated them in return the way they have treated them.
This whole thing has nothing to do with sexual harrassment. But it has to do with sheer power games of moderators against ordinary posters.
Well, I find this thread unsettling and depressing. It is really unfortunate that there seems to be so many members that fail to see how belittling and hurtful sexual harassment is.
I say, if you think sexual harassment is something to joke about, I hope you find another forum to frequent and get the hell out of here.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You can't rape someone over the internet. And if someone is feeling victimized, it's time to turn the computer off and find a real hobby. Gasbag Bells needs to get a life.
Life may be cruel and unusual punishment. Maybe abortion would have been humanitarian.
When will the Church proclaim Jack Kevorkian a saint?
No, you can't rape someone over the internet... but you can still attack them and abuse them through it. Then again, I would bet you also subscribe to the "oh, you got beat up in schools on? Well, learn to fight better" philosophy...
What, exactly, are you proposing with that statement?
Whatever; if someone is going to sexually "abuse" me by telling me I have a tiny penis over the internet, I'm not going to have a crisis over it. It's innocuous, it has no backing.
Bells, farting in your chair for hours and hours while you trade venom on a forum isn't healthy. Time to blow some steam elsewhere -- literally.
I am getting a little impulsive. I first replied to blanket statement here http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...nd-quot-Personhood-quot&p=3162940#post3162940 with a polarizing Nietzsche quote, and am failing to make an adequate differentiation.
Separate names with a comma.