:up:

Boringly, we mods are not in the business of reforming anyone. Just enforcing the rules. — Baden

It would be good though if a forum like that could be in such use for some people.Even unintentionally. Not as that to be forum's goal of course . Just by not being that "technocratic".

Rules as laws should be forced and read under their general spirit not by the book. But anyway it's only my approach.

I was using Zwingli’s own persuasion technique in an effort to counter what he was promoting. — praxis

And I was joking - with the intent of demonstrating that cancel culture is indeed a slippery slope where no formula of words can escape criticism.

Rules as laws should be forced and read under their general spirit not by the book. — dimosthenis9

The forum generally lacks the misogynist spirit, fortunately.

Guidelines: Sexists get banned
Sexist: I'm a sexist!
Mod: [Bans sexist]

Amusing that this becomes a topic for debate. But do go on, folks...

You didn't get the point. As usual.

You definitely demonstrated that slippery slopes can be funny.

You didn't get the point. — dimosthenis9

Thankfully.

The forum generally lacks the misogynist spirit, fortunately. — praxis

There aren't enough women here for this matter to really become clear one way or another.

And never mind "espousal." But when you neglect that you become the thought policeman that I am pretty sure you do not want to be.

But I think of espousing more as trying to force your views on others in a way that is unreasonable. — apokrisis

Espousal does not require unreasonableness. But if the view espoused is unreasonable, that's another matter.

He seemed otherwise to be reasonable and inquiring. Why not just delete any and all posts which don't pass muster; then those who are constantly having their posts deleted may rethink their ideas and actually grow.

So, think that one through guys, and realize mean spirited hateful statements have consequences beyond what you might think. This isn't the boys locker room. Everyone is welcome here. Excusing his conduct might seem kind hearted to him, but it wouldn't be to many others — Hanover

I have to say that most of our long time members are keenly aware that there are females among us.
Having said that: I never really cared or wanted to know what a misygonistic person was and we'll, it didn't serve me well.
Now that it has been pointed out to me by my divorce attorney, I am beginning to have a dislike of the personality.
Rant over

No, because fuck misogynists. Clear enough?

Clear enough of course, but not justified, in my view; but you set the rules.

So by that logic, it wouldn't be justified to ban for racism someone who said this either.

I am an unrepentant racist. For me, the concept that blacks should be considered the equal of whites, if they are any kind of white, is simply fucking ludicrous

I don't relate much to your idea of justice.

A brazen misogynist AND a supporter of that fat, murderous little shit: Rittenhouse. I'm a happy bunny today. :smile:

So @tim wood, this would not be a bannable comment because it doesn't meet your personal definition of "espousal" of racism, right?

I am an unrepentant racist. For me, the concept that blacks should be considered the equal of whites, if they are any kind of white, is simply fucking ludicrous

It's not quite the same, since women are not, to the same degree, a marginalized minority. I have no truck with sexism or racism, but I would have thought deletion of offensive posts would be enough to get offending posters to change their tune at least, and perhaps even, with luck, their minds. Banning them might just make them double down, which won't be the forum's problem, because they are gone from here, but it may become a greater problem for their partners, family or society.

I would have though deletion of offensive posts would be enough to get offensive posters to change their tune at least, and perhaps even, with luck, their minds. Banning them might just make them double down, which won't be the forum's problem, because they are gone from here, but it may become a greater problem for their partners, family or society. — Janus

So deleting their posts could make them change their minds but banning them will make them worse? Sounds like a hopelessly gerrymandered argument to me. Is it just a random thought you've had or based on something?

It's not quite the same — Janus

Distinction without a difference.

Banning them might just make them double down, which won't be the forum's problem, because they are gone from here, but it may become a greater problem for their partners, family or society. — Janus

So you want the mods to vigilantly moderate self-professed sexists, or whatever-ists, in good service to society? Banning is much easier, and it sends a very clear message.

Banning them might just make them double down, which won't be the forum's problem, because they are gone from here, but it may become a greater problem for their partners, family or society. — Janus

I was almost persuaded by that line of thinking, but after some reflection, no. When he said: "if he is any kind of man" I was transported back to a day when any kind of man would have done exactly what Baden did.

We're fairly limited in the good we can do society but I do think providing a moderated discussion space is some kind of good and an achievable one as opposed to the fantasy we can or should try to reform bigots by being nice to them.

Sorry to hear that, TIff.

So deleting their posts could make them change their minds but banning them will make them worse? Sounds like a hopelessly gerrymandered argument to me. Is it just a random thought you've had or based on something? — Baden

If they are not constantly posting offensive material, and when they do post it it is deleted it might lead them to rethink their position. Total rejection, in the form of banning, and for just one offense, would, it seems to me, be more likely to just make them angrier.

Distinction without a difference. — Baden

Obviously not; in your view...

or should try to reform bigots by being nice to them. — Baden

By being firm with them, but not rejecting them utterly.

So you want the mods to vigilantly moderate self-professed sexists, or whatever-ists, in good service to society? Banning is much easier, and it sends a very clear message. — praxis

Admittedly banning is easier, but I think deletion of offensive posts would send an equally clear, and more compassionate, message.

When he said: "if he is any kind of man" I was transported back to a day when any kind of man would have done exactly what Baden did. — James Riley

To me this amounts to " You think you're a man; I'll show you what a man is"; in other words playing the same game in reverse.

Anyway, I'm not the moderator here, so what I think doesn't really count.

If they are not constantly posting offensive material, and when they do post it it is deleted it might lead them to rethink their position. Total rejection, in the form of banning, and for just one offense, would, it seems to me, be more likely to just make them angrier. — Janus

Boringly, we mods are not in the business of reforming anyone. Just enforcing the rules. — Baden

If they're angrier elsewhere, it's not the mods' problem.

Jesus fucking christ! :roll:

"espousing: 1. adopt or support (a cause, belief, or way of life)." (Online dictionary.)“

It couldnt be more straightforward! He declared sexist belief, a belief he has adopted! Also is he not supportive of his own belief?!
Its simple, plain english. So for the love of Oprah and for the sake of baby jesus would you fucking morons quiet you stupid fingers and shut up about it already?!
I cant believe you idiots are STILL arguing about this.
So so dumb.

If they're angrier elsewhere, it's not the mods' problem. — Kenosha Kid

No, of course it's not if they don't care about it.

Whether they care about it or not. Moderators moderate the website, not the entirety of humanity.