I didn't have anything to do with the decision to lock the thread, but I do see Street's reasoning here. The OP asks why able bodied men are mistreated in academia, yet he provides no evidence that they actually are. It would seem the way to unlock the thread has been laid out for you, which is to provide the evidence the OP takes for granted but does not provide. What is the argument for not providing proof for what is assumed in the OP? That everyone should have the right to say whatever they want and not be required to offer some amount of factual support for it? Why would a forum that allows unsupportable factual assertions be better than one that doesn't?

I don't ask these questions rhetorically, but if I'm being asked to build a better forum, I can't see how allowing a free for all of unsupportable factual claims will benefit anyone, especially after the person making the claims has been given a chance to provide the factual support needed and then ignored it.

The only counter I see to what I'm saying here is that there might be some value in allowing people who make unsupportable (or false) claims to be kicked around a bit so that their error can be clarified to all who may come here for information. The flip side of that though is that some never allow themselves to be corrected and they keep on saying the same false information, and, as in this case, don't even make an effort to prove their facts are correct.

It was a poor quality thread whose single bit of substance was a loaded question asked without substantiation. I gave time enough for some to be forthcoming. I wasn't even the only one to ask. None was proffered. There's nothing else to say. If someone unlocks that thread, it won't be me.

Interesting, I wanted to comment on the "Why does academia dislike men" with an article I read in graduate school about shifts in ways boys are treated in the classroom. I haven't gotten around to digging up the the article, but I see why that thread would be locked. The phrasing of the question and the subsequent contribution to discussion by the OP seemed in bad faith. There actually is an interesting question in there somewhere, but that OP didn't start off the discussion in such a way to explore it.

I wish I could find the articles I read in graduate school, but alas it was long enough ago and now is locked behind a paywall. From my recollection, there is data to support that in elementary schools at least something is going on in terms of how boys and girls are disciplined differently. The context however, was a goal to suss out how to meet the different needs of children and address unconscious biases in the predominantly woman dominated field, where the bias (some studies indicate) leans toward fulfilling the needs of girls while not reaching boys. There has been a lot of change over the last 50 or so years for girls in education in positive ways, the case is not entirely the same for boys (or atleast the research did not show it was, when I was in grad school). This is obviously very different than institutions of higher education, which the OP was talking about, but as an elementary educator it is the pool of knowledge I draw from.

Anyway, it's an interesting topic but that thread was not doing it any justice. I don't mind if it stays closed and someone else more well-meaning can re-ignite that topic in a more substantive way.

Anyway, it's an interesting topic but that thread was not doing it any justice. I don't mind if it stays closed and someone else more well-meaning can re-ignite that topic in a more substantive way. — Uglydelicious

That would be very welcome.

That kind of censorship doesn't exist here, even though there's no question where most moderators sit on the political spectrum, they debate and argue with positions they don't like just like everyone else. They don't just delete people's posts because they don't like what you said and I think the thread you're referring to is low quality as it was closed for.

I'm ashamed to admit my only feeling regarding the thread was one of satisfaction, that I was able to mock its premise just before it was closed. To those who think to renew it, I give warning:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSGkBWYDmrM

Explaining personal stance on this:

You say a thing which is contentious, provocative and implausible in an OP and don't evince it. You make a bad OP. That might get closed regardless of what it's about.

That said, I'd be more inclined to close a thread that had a poorly researched offensive opinion as its OP quickly, or a thread which restates a terrible media talking point; like academia bias against blokes; without evidence. Because at that point it's kinda hard to tell from trolling.

If you wanna make a thread with a spicy take on something that attracts a lot of shitposting, try and bring a sufficient heap nuance and evidence to get your spicy take treated as something other than a shitpost.

That’s interesting, and had the topic remained open someone may have come along to explore it. We’ll never know now, but at least we’re secure in our little safe space.

the simple matter of fact when dealing with “to moderate or to not moderate” is that something that is not offensive for one person is offensive for another (or group). This is subjectivity. While speaking of abortion for example as a white male living in a very western first world country this may not be in any way offensive to them but posit the same topic to an oppressed third world woman that lives in a strongly religious community and the picture changes.

Another issue is majority vs minority. It’s the old argument of “pick on someone your own size!”
In an ideal world minorities are equally vocal and equally represented and therefore in a strict sense of debate censorship should not be required as the both parties are equally equipped to defend their views. However this is the nature of minorities: they are few and far between so the pace of an argument as well as the capacity for equal opportunity to retort is severely distorted or skewed in favour of majority.

Usually it takes “living in ones shoes” to really appreciate the full spectrum of conditions faced by said minority. It’s difficult to relate to a state of being that you have never yourself experienced. This means that the majority is always somewhat priveleged as their is a general tendency for their views to be valued more. This is where moderation attempts to stabilise these inequalities. Some will say it’s fair and warranted moderation while others will believe it’s unnecessary censorship but really it’s a matter of “is there a potential for a large group to ‘gang up’ on a smaller one?” Where a dozen voices drown out the singular /few.

The irony being that in truly egalitarian world the very need for moderation is abolished yet moderation is used to establish a more egalitarian world. See the paradox?

I was the OP in the "homosexuality" thread that was closed. I did not see the follow up thread until much later, so did not get a chance to reply there. I wanted to note I supported the moderator that made the decision. We had a whispered conversation, and I understood his stance and how my post could come off the wrong way.

The mods here do a good job. Its on us to write our posts in such a way that fits the environment of these forums. I made a mistake in my presentation of the post. It was made hastily during a lunch break after a previous discussion I had with someone. As such, it was presumptive and with loaded language. If I had taken the time to edit it, and given space from my related immediate discussion, I could have written it in a more appropriate manner.

But regardless, even if the mods decide certain subjects are not to be brought to these boards, that is their decision and right. It is a privilege to use these boards and speak with others here. I do appreciate those who defended me, as that post was not intended to be offensive, but it is ok if the moderators make that call that it is.

Me, too - although without the shame.

@tim wood, closing the thread was a good call. @StreetlightX:up:

"It seems like men are not welcome anymore in educational institutions such as universities and so on. This is especially true if you are a fit, healthy male."

Just based on personal experience, this rings false. The majority of my faculty, including me, in every university I worked at, fell into this category. I, nor any other fit, healthy male that I know of ever felt discriminated against. But in any case, yes, if you're going to present what sounds like a political polemic, back it up with evidence or don't bother.

I'm certain fit, healthy males are the subject of dislike, if not loathing, not merely at (or did the poster mean by?) educational institutions, but at other locations as well. Perhaps someone, having done appropriate research, will start a thread inquiring why fit and healthy males are disliked at corrugated container plants or breweries--places I worked at when I was fitter and healthier, and much younger than I am now and was disliked, though I always believed it was due to my ineptness. Or for that matter at law firms. There are fit, healthy lawyers I heartily dislike, God knows.

I'm certain fit, healthy males are the subject of dislike, if not loathing, not merely at (or did the poster mean by?) educational institutions, but at other locations as well. Perhaps someone, having done appropriate research, will start a thread inquiring why fit and healthy males are disliked at corrugated container plants or breweries-- — Ciceronianus the White

It would be interesting to explore when, if ever, healthy, fit males are “liked”... It might only be amongst themselves, in selected company, but that can probably be said about the unfit ones, as well disabled males, and non-male people.

Educational institutions like who they can extract value from, it has been a tricky business for the value of fit, healthy males since rape and assault have been brought to the forefront of late, but I suppose we wouldn’t really categorize them as healthy? The social phenomena of accountability has shed light on much abuse of power, and it is always worth discussing the concepts of power and powerlessness, and how cultural and societal shifts interact with those concepts.

My hunch is that corrugated container plants probably like most the fit, healthy males who benefit the company most, the most irreplaceable, and who works in the interest of the plant. The rest are probably looked on with indifference. One argument for collective ownership I suppose, but then I guess I’m ascribing human characteristics to a non-human entity “the factory”.

There are plenty of topics with low quality OPs that are not locked or deleted.

There are other topics like Is Murder Really That Bad? that are not locked or deleted.

Many feel that murder is more morally repugnant than homophobia or sexism in academia (or far-right rhetoric?), but not our high principled mods?

I was the OP in the "homosexuality" thread that was closed. I did not see the follow up thread until much later, so did not get a chance to reply there. I wanted to note I supported the moderator that made the decision. We had a whispered conversation, and I understood his stance and how my post could come off the wrong way.

The mods here do a good job. Its on us to write our posts in such a way that fits the environment of these forums. I made a mistake in my presentation of the post. It was made hastily during a lunch break after a previous discussion I had with someone. As such, it was presumptive and with loaded language. If I had taken the time to edit it, and given space from my related immediate discussion, I could have written it in a more appropriate manner.

But regardless, even if the mods decide certain subjects are not to be brought to these boards, that is their decision and right. It is a privilege to use these boards and speak with others here. I do appreciate those who defended me, as that post was not intended to be offensive, but it is ok if the moderators make that call that it is. — Philosophim

You seem quite reasonable and articulate to me, if a bit scycophantic. I imagined, because I only had the option to imagine, someone very different.

All well and civil and seeming orderly so far. But also some other things seem clear: failure to distinguish OP from thread; insistence on facts, evidence (statistics!), proof; arbitrary, even capricious application. If the locking was out-of-bounds, then it ought to be unlocked. If a proper lock-out, then even allowing for slack in the process it's a fair question as to why, by what criteria, and what the lessons to be drawn.

OP poor quality? "It seems... I wonder why...?" And some questionable claims. Whoa! That's about 80% of OPs on TPF (and takes zero cognizance of the possibility of anything rhetorical). Pretty close? But that's the OP. When locked there were about twelve more-or-less substantive replies, in less than a day. Throwing them out a bit of baby-with-the-bathwater. it seems to me. Facts, evidence, proof? Whoa again! Now you're running about 90% of all posts - and this a philosophy site, not a facts, evidence, proof site, although I think we all appreciate these latter when we see them!

Whatever the sins of the OP and the thread itself - without affirming there were any - many, many OPs and posts seem much, much worse. Maybe the language itself? Perhaps we ought to consider that. An example, as Heidegger might say, "ready to hand." From the thread of original offense:

"This language is so fucking vile, for fucks sake. 'Effected by homosexuality'? Like what, a fucking virus? Does anyone speak of being 'effected by heterosexuality'? Fuck right off. This is why we don't allow threads 'considering homosexuality as a defect', because it leads to utter fucking trash like this.

And I said it once and I will say it for the last time, you want to continue this discussion I will remove you from this fucking forum without blinking I do not give a shit who you are."

No need to embarrass the author, here; that's not the point. Hmm. Four "fuckings," one "fuck," one "fucks," and a "do not give a shit." Some bullying and a threat - and a missing apostrophe. (And I just cannot get straight in my mind correct usage of affect/effect.) Well, Moderators, is this your standard?

"This language is so fucking vile, for fucks sake. 'Effected by homosexuality'? Like what, a fucking virus? Does anyone speak of being 'effected by heterosexuality'? Fuck right off. This is why we don't allow threads 'considering homosexuality as a defect', because it leads to utter fucking trash like this.

And I said it once and I will say it for the last time, you want to continue this discussion I will remove you from this fucking forum without blinking I do not give a shit who you are." — tim wood

For what it’s worth, the language “effected by homosexuality” is vile and I won’t fault anyone who has a visceral reaction to it, even on a philosophy forum with high discussion standards. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. :shrug:

The thing I'm most annoyed about is being called out for the lack of possessive apostrophe. The fuck for whose sake it was deserved better.

Seems that everyone is so eager to jump on the politically correct bandwagon that they don’t even think of explaining themselves. What fantasy world do you live on where being gay is a complete non-issue that no one is effected by?

What fantasy world do you live on where being gay is a complete non-issue that no one is effected by? — praxis

Are you talking to me?

Oh I see, I live in the world where “being gay” is exactly that: being. It isn’t something external that happens to you. It is part of some people’s being, just as some people are heterosexual rather than having heterosexuality happen to them. Or are you suggesting sexuality is an external force that acts upon our being rather than manifesting from our being? I suppose a case for all sexuality being socially constructed is fair to make, but it hardly seems that was the point that set off the person who said “fuck” a few times on an Internet forum.

I’ll go on to add, it is not my opinion that negative social stigmas faced by gay people for their gayness are effects of being gay. It isn’t the “being gay” that causes negative stigma, it’s rather more something wrong with the people who employ their agency to stigmatize, marginalize, and devalue others based on sexuality. The more appropriate question is then in regards to those “effected by homophobia” as I don’t believe phobias are inherent parts of being.

I hope I’m being clear. For a second I thought you had misread me.

@tim wood. Mr. Wood, when the moderator uses such vile language and threatens exile or banishment, he is motivated by moral indignation, THE enemy of philosophy, never by pedantic considerations like “quality of OP”, or “lack of evidence”, etc, as you justly point out...

...and that indignation is directed against those who dare suggest that any class of human being is less equal than any other. No doubt about the equality of all human beings may be countenanced by anyone, and the correct response to such doubt is outrage by (almost) everyone, and threat by those who hold the power to effect that threat.

In previous posts in various threads I have attempted to explain the source of this phenomenon, reveal its roots in the origin of philosophy, and argue that nothing has changed since Socrates was put to death for the corrupting of the youth of Athens.

Let me just point out that, as I speak, a debate is being raised in the States about whether transgender students should be allowed to compete in sports according to their “gender”, or their “sex”, things that were synonymous until yesterday. There is an ongoing war between the traditional concept of nature, and the new one based on advanced egalitarianism...

...but he who espouses the former will be subject to censure...in society at large, but also particularly in this forum.

I was listening to my car radio for a change, I usually stream music, but I was flipping through channels and came across some guy screaming that BLM is a domestic terrorist group, and it got me really upset and incredibly pessimistic about humanity and then and I was like I have a dream today that all the people will join hands and sing in the words of the old negro spiritual free at last

free at last.

Mr. Wood, when the moderator uses such vile language and threatens exile or banishment, he is motivated by moral indignation, THE enemy of philosophy, never by pedantic considerations like “quality of OP”, or “lack of evidence”, etc, as you justly point out...

...and that indignation is directed against those who dare suggest that any class of human being is less equal than any other. No doubt about the equality of all human beings may be countenanced by anyone, and the correct response to such doubt is outrage by (almost) everyone, and threat by those who hold the power to effect that threat.

In previous posts in various threads I have attempted to explain the source of this phenomenon, reveal its roots in the origin of philosophy, and argue that nothing has changed since Socrates was put to death for the corrupting of the youth of Athens.

Let me just point out that, as I speak, a debate is being raised in the States about whether transgender students should be allowed to compete in sports according to their “gender”, or their “sex”, things that were synonymous until yesterday. There is an ongoing war between the traditional concept of nature, and the new one based on advanced egalitarianism...

...but he who espouses the former will be subject to censure...in society at large, but also particularly in this forum. — Todd Martin

The reflection of totalitarianism that arises from decadence and indecency is also visible in the attitudes of the "moderators" of this forum. It permeates everything.

"- But it is obvious that you can think differently! Exclaims a moderator. - Different from the others! Exclaims another, while everyone burst out laughing..."

If everyone could stop saying "effected" when they mean "affected". You're killing me. Thanks.

There are plenty of topics with low quality OPs that are not locked or deleted.

There are other topics like Is Murder Really That Bad? that are not locked or deleted.

Many feel that murder is more morally repugnant than homophobia or sexism in academia (or far-right rhetoric?), but not our high principled mods? — praxis

Ive wondered this myself. Could the Mods weigh in on this comment?

I think it’s that murder in general is not politicized, whereas things like capital punishment and abortion are. No politicization no need for political correction, basically.

... something wrong with the people who employ their agency to stigmatize, marginalize, and devalue others based on sexuality. — Uglydelicious

Would you mind explaining how I did that?

Indeed

Would you mind explaining how I did that? — praxis

I’m not accusing you of doing anything. I don’t know who you are? I really must be being very unclear tonight, probably time for bed.