Moderators and their special interest moderation

Post Reply New Topic

I wanted to bring up an issue which has become apparent lately, so much so that it caused a long time forum contributor to leave the forum.

Recently, I was also targeted with this kind of abuse of authority, and this topic is started for the purpose of making visible to the site administrator and other authority persons the "special interest moderation" that appears to take place in certain contexts when someone posts inflammatory content, then receives a response of the same nature, where the moderators have a ball, ignoring the original inflammatory bait that warrented a response of the same nature, because that post happened to correspond with their own special interest political stance, which, often is, this new flavor of social justice marxist/feminist ideology.

A couple of fellows were discussing their experiences with visiting prostitutes as a substitute for going through the grueling minefield that is the "dating scene" which, as is self-explanatory, can be particulary challenging for autistic men, let alone neurotypicals.

There have been several of these threads, and each and every time, certain female members have dropped in, leaving snarky, vitriolic remarks to shame these men. If they addressed any of the points in the thread, such replies could contribute positively to the discussion, but they are phrased in a way so as to deliberately poison the discussion with feelings of shame and negativity such as this post:

"Why is this topic coming up again? If you want to go and do prostitutes and hookers just do it already. Why even tell anyone? Just do it. And quit using the word "escort". Call it what it is - hooker, call girl, prostitute because that's what it is. And then leave the real women who want real relationships alone because they aren't going to want a thing to do with you. You'll leave a bad taste in their mouth (literally). And you know what else? A normal, decent relationship that takes some work is never going to be enough for you because you're now too used to getting sex and not having to put in any effort into a real relationship that can be much more rewarding. And that's fine because you're not worth the time for a decent, relationship-looking woman anyway. So just carry on with what you want to do and leave the rest of us out of it.

Can we please just put this topic to bed?!"

This member is calling for an end to these discussions. She is openly calling for shutting down debates around these topics. She is also shaming the men, claiming "no real women will ever want to have anything to do with you ever again!" then goes on with her nasty tirade, claiming her way or the highway as in "you should man up and put in the effort like everyone else" effectively ignoring the challenges autistic men have that makes dating all the more risky and dangerous to them.

She follows up with this:

"And another thing, for any guy here who thinks that a woman would really want to do this line of work - you don't know a thing about women (or care for that matter). Coming up with all these reasons that favor prostitution and make it look "ok" are just ways to make men feel better about using hookers and prostitutes. There are very few women that don't want a relationship with a wonderful man, marriage and maybe kids. No woman sees herself in some back room being f'd day in and day out by several men just so she can make a living. So just keep bringing up all those statistics favoring prostitution if it makes you feel any better - but it's not the truth."

She claims to be the final authority on all women and their intentions. She claims to be able to see inside the head of every sex worker and decide that she must be doing it as a last resort, and hating it.

Now, seeing these inflammatory remarks once again derailing these discussions, I made it my business to reply to the post with the same tone as it established. I figured that since this person could voice her opinions in such an inflammatory way, surely she could handle having her points addressed in the same tone? I was wrong. Here was my reply:

Whoa, check those grapes, guys, they're sour grapes!

You just showed womens frustration when sexual bartering is made void with prostitution. Oh yeah, he gets off scot free, that's what upsets you, isn't it? He doesn't have to deal with someone using sex as currency, withholding it for bartering purposes. Yes, add a dose of psychopathy too, some women do it just for the kicks too, enjoying the power over the man.

Visiting a prostitute, he needs to deal with how much of that nonsense? Exactly zero of it. Zero.

If sex work was legalized, men would, without batting an eye, easily pay the money for a prostitute over dealing with relationships in the post marxist/feminist world.

Some people have even done the math for the average cost per lay, prostitutes are many times cheaper than what you have to spend on wine & dine, movies or other costly stuff that women demand.

This of course, stirred up the echo chamber and caused discontent. Another member felt he had to stand up to the poster I addressed, and started baiting the moderators:

NurseAngela--don't bother responding to the user who responded to your comment above this response. Just ignore him, it's not worth it. He's been reported (again) for blatant sexism and will likely soon be banned as he seems incapable of keeping his sexist PUA BS about women to himself. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Here he fired off his strawman arguments, implying I talked about "PUA" theories and seemed to prophecy the moderators response to this, rather calling for it, as some of these moderators have demonstrated in the past that they have their own little clique of incongruent enforcement. That is, someone can incite inflammatory, vitriloic debate and get off scot free as long as they're the right gender and subscribe to this feminist ideology, but when someone replies in the same tone, that person becomes the bad guy.

Not surprisingly, one of these moderators showed up and posted this:


"Please cease posting unfounded sexist and inflammatory assumptions which are intended as an insulting slur to any woman member who disagrees with your pro-prostitution advocacy. Continue this kind of provocative flaming and you will be boarding the fast train to the formal warning then banning destination.
B19
Moderator"

I'm going to dissect and address this post piece by piece to show the bias.

"sexist".

The crime here was replying in the same tone that the poster established. "Sexist" is a biased word in this regard as it is perfectly fine for her to instigate strife and discord with her post, shaming the men in the discussion. It did not become a crime until a person of the wrong gender, a man, merely addressed her post in the same tone, calling her out on her thread derailment.

In fact, I don't need to dissect this further as anyone can go through it piece by piece and see for themselves the blatant gender bias in this post.

Why was not the female members inflammatory post addressed? WHy did she not receive a similar warning? Go read it for yourselves!

My response to her post, in the same tone as it established, was deemed "provocative flaming".

I think some posters need to consider the tone of their post, and that unless they can handle a reply in the same tone, then perhaps they should be more respectful of those who already engage in discussion. But this gender bias exists and allows women to continuously derail discussions of this nature and then be protected when called out on it.

I think it is in place for the administrator to seriously consider a change in staff, as the moderators seem to moderate after special interest.

Let's look at the rules for the "Adult Autism Issues" forum:

Here is rule number 2, and I have outlined in bold what rules were broken in the post I addressed, made by the female member:

2. Personal attacks.
This includes insinuation, ridicule and personal insults, regardless of whether direct or indirect. Attacking an opinion, belief or philosophy is acceptable, but attacking the person making the comments is not.

Yes, she went on with the usual shaming tirade as we see in every thread discussing that topic. Yet, not a word from the moderators. Is this really etiquette on this forum? Is a member exempt from these rules just by being female?

You run the risk of alienating the overwhelming demographic of autistics, who are male. This is statistics, and common knowledge among all who know anything about autism.

It does seem like the first person did start things. Although that doesn't make either of the messages ok.

Correct me if I am wrong and I am kinda debating on posting this so moderators please consider that if you find this inappropriate but aren't you personally attacking a member with this post? It just comes across that way, I am not saying you don't have valid points but I am thinking this topic would have been better discreetly PMed to Alex or another moderator? I don't want argue or cause problems but thats kinda my take from this post.

No, this needs to be out in the open because the dirty incongruences must be revealed for what they are.

The post serves to illustrate double standards.

Someone on the politically correct side of the fence instigates inflammatory debate, breaking the rules I mentioned in my post.

Moderators don't care, because it's PC. But my reply, which calls her out on the tasteless personal attacks gets reported and I get a warning while the original instigator gets off scot free. No consequences. She was the first to break the rules, I only answered in the same manner. Yet I am the one who gets threatened with a ban, and her post has no consequences.

OOM recently left after being threatened with a ban, probably by the same special interest moderator who moderates after her own political opinions, discriminating against one group of people, favoring another when they both broke the same rules. That makes no sense and this incongruency must be brought to light.

It's happened over and over again in those threads. Vicious attack, no consequence. Someone calls out the vicous attack. Threatened with a ban.

This must be discussed openly, because the person in question, not the poster but the moderator, will keep abusing their privileges.

I did not try to paint my position in a better light. In fact, I admit that I overreacted and broke the rules. The problem is that I was the one who got the warning, not her, despite she was the first to break the rules. I'm fine with the warning, but you can't punish just one poster and let the other go, when they both broke the same rules.

And it is the same moderator again guilty of this discrimination and gender biased favoritism. And that needs be discussed openly.

How do you know the other poster wasn't warned considering the fact that warnings are sent privately?

I assumed the moderator would be congruent considering my warning was posted in thread itself, and that I did not receive a PM.

Since I can't know if the other poster received a PM, I just assumed that she didn't get a warning, and it was custom to post it in the thread, since that's how I was warned.

It would be nice if things worked that way, but even the best mod teams we've had over the years have been extremely reluctant to self police even egregious rule breaking and power-tripping by other mods, and Alex is often unavailable for extended periods of time. I've seen a few mods get "fired" over the years, for offenses ranging from criticizing the site management in public to screwing with the forum code to dumping the private mod logs to a troll site to being too overtly religious; much like the mod selection process itself, discipline is frustratingly opaque and seemingly random. Sadly, as a member, if you have an issue with a mod, making a stink in public is really the only way to get any sort of response and possibly resolve the issue, trying to do it privately only gets swept under the rug and denies you the paper trail to establish retaliation down the road.

While I had nothing to do with that thread (my internet was down at the time), I would advise that, next time you feel attacked by another poster, report it to the mods as opposed to responding to the attacker with a counter-attack.

As for the in-thread warning, yes, I agree that it should've been a general warning; however, the moderator in question was just recently appointed moderator duties, and is still getting used to the position.

Speaking for myself, I'll take your complaint under advisement, and be sure to be more vigilant concerning negativity directed towards male members.

And people with right wing and religious viewpoints.

Since prostitution is A) illegal in most places, and B) most prostitutes are victims of human trafficking, should WP really be allowing threads that encourage men to participate in it? Discussing women as chunks of meat to be bought and used is beyond offensive and misogynistic.

Excellent observation! I've posted a link to your post in the "MODERATOR ATTENTION: How to get help when you need it" subforum.

Just cause something is illegal doesn't mean it shouldn't be legal. There are threads discussing drugs like marijuana that remain open. Like it or not prostitution is a victim less crime, true there are victims of human trafficking engaged in prostitution but punish the jerks that engage in human trafficking, not the exchange of money for sex. The last one hurts no one in a consenting environment.

Furthermore, if prostitution is treating women like a piece of meat, wouldn't that mean the women engaged in prostitution are also treating the men like a piece of meat? What about male prostitution? Its a woman's choice to be a prostitution in most situations excluded human trafficking so I don't see how women can clam misogynistic behavior or try and play the victim role here.

Fnord, you already posted this in the moderator attention thread and the mods handled it accordingly, please stop back seat moderating the forum. Just cause you don't like it, doesn't make it against the rules. I personally don't like this thread either for different reasons but I am not posting in the moderator attention thread every five minutes in hopes to get the thread locked. The mods can see a new post has been made in this thread, you don't have to notify them of the same thing over and over again.

Marijuana is a tricky case because it can be used medicinally, and also because laws concerning it are quickly changing. I am not, however, in favor of allowing threads that advocate the use of heroin, cocaine, etc.
It is not the case that most prostitutes are engaged in that activity of their own free will. Most are being held in slavery.



Yes, women who visit male prostitutes are treating them as pieces of meat to be bought and used. Most male prostitutes are frequented by other men, however.

Understood,

I guess I just have very liberal views, I don't believe victim less crimes should be illegal. Even hard drugs that don't effect other people are fine by me. Cocaine would fine by me cause it doesn't cause other people medical problems, meth would not as the people making it and the people around it who don't use it can get sick. I don't personally like cocaine but its seems like a stupid reason to send someone to jail.

I see your points but I still say make slavery illegal, not prostitution. Our prison system would be better off if we punish people for hurting others, not for violating our private moral code. I personally would never hire a prostitute just as I don't normally use harder drugs but I don't fault someone who does.

I have been stating my opinion way to much lately, I am probably going to get myself in trouble, so I am going back into my hole and avoid the threads the moderators are in

I have a son on the spectrum, and I wouldn't want him to someday visit WP and be told that visiting prostitutes is an acceptable way to meet his sexual needs. Autistic people, myself included, sometimes don't fathom all the social, emotional, and even legal ramifications of our actions. And we can be impulsive. For all these reasons, I feel that threads encouraging illegal activities do not constitute "support".

Alas we are in agreement, I see you point. I still stand by my points but such discussion may not have a place here. I suppose perspectives change when you have children, thinking from a stand point of how I'd feel if I had children has landed me to similar opinion.

I am in support of your original post now.