Questions about wrongplanet's mandate ! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !

Post Reply New Topic

I don't know, but the member's very
name is a racist comment.

Misogynistic comments are those that are derogatory of women or that objectify them.

Well it's kinda funny. Anti-Christian topics are allowed to run wild on the religion/politics/philosophy board, but I was banned for making an allegedly anti-Islam topic.

And a (former) moderator, Flagg, plainly stated that mods can ban anyone they want for any reason. The exact quote was

Ok, I just looked at his post,
in context. And you're painting
it in far worse light than it is.

He's trying to explain to you
the facts of a privately owned
site.

I don't necessarily agree that
this kind of attitude should be
policy, but underneath it all,
EVERY website, including I2
has limits to what they can
allow. And every site is proprietary
in nature.

But I think they are querying the inconsistent application of rules within the forum. It's no use having one set of official rules and one set of unofficial rules. We get that kind of ridiculous nonsense in our everyday lives and should expect more understanding on a specifically aspie forum such as this one.

Actually, there can be a lot of use to having the official rules a little different from the de facto ones. De facto rules are generally more lax than written ones (there can be legal problems if it's the other way around), allowing for some reasonable range of enforcement without having to hammer out all of the variables in precise text.

In this case, though, I personally think the rules really should be precise.

Also, there's a serious difference between "we are all objects in the world" and "I want a piece of that ass." Not quoting from here; just pointing out the difference between objectification, and well, objectification.

The question, Mr. Mark, is; according to WP, what constitutes a sexist comment?

The following are from Intercourse and Intelligence, the thread I've been (about) the most active on.

Speaking from a male standpoint, it seems like women are getting pregnant at younger ages; therefore, they must have the urge to lose to virginity by age 13. Of course, the guys with the lower IQs (and higher emotions and tempers) are only too happy to oblige. Then the slippery slope starts towards early marriage, battered spouses, high divorce rates, and it's all because stupidity has been easier to breed since the beginning of time! The thought of sex and relationships makes me disgusted.

This quote sums it up:

Duckman: Boo-freaking-hoo. Like I am supposed to take women and how they feel seriously? You want to be accepted for your minds but you throw a hissy fit royalé if someone isn't saying you look great 30 hours a day. You say you want a nice guy but you only give it up to the creeps. You get to stay home, not go to war, live longer, and have sex whenever you want! So remind me again what exactly is there to complain about!



And


"However, if you think it's hard to get a date as a "smart" guy, please consider that there is equal trouble finding a decent one as a "brainiac" girl. It is far less socially acceptable to be literate, numerate, or rational as a woman than as a man."

If you're a hot woman no one will care. Actually you could a a serial killer and if you're a hot woman no one would care... probably.

And

Secondly, the 1960's happened and you're equal now: it's time to suck it up and take it like a man.

And

Oh look, feminist shaming language! Everyone saw this coming right? As soon as I saw "rational female" I could smell the Andrea Dworkin perfume. But I'll let hocky-guy fight this one...

And

Over-application of not using your brain, my dear. (to me)

And

Bull to the femnist sh**. The feminists cry about thier made up rape numbers. I'll trust the FBI instead, thanks.

And

Oh please. If one couldn't make these kind
of statements, this site would whither on
the vine.

Seriously, the point is that some members think
in these ways. If all you want to do is silence these
voices, then you can't even combat them. Much less
ever get an understanding of where they come from.

Okay, I'm going to use racism as an example to try to help clarify. "I'm racist. I don't like black people," is acceptable because to person is talking about themselves and their feelings toward a group without referring to the group in a derogatory or disparaging manner. "n****rs," "Lynch 'em," and "White people got to stick together," are not acceptable. The first is name calling, the second is incitement, and the third is inflammatory (and incidentally appeared recently on this site and was removed.)
Now a lot of the stuff that has been cited here is not so clear-cut. If I received a specific complaint about one of these posts, I would review the post and, if it did not appear clear-cut to me, I would consult the other mods.
The main point that I was trying to make is that apparently no one has felt strongly enough about any of these posts to PM me, so naturally I have taken no action. Due to the nature of my impairment and the new, unwritten, ambiguous rules, and also due to the backlash from a vocal segment of the membership because of recent enforcement of the written rules, I generally do not act if no one complains.