Historically his sexist comments have been over the top, so I doubt that will be an issue. — Mongrel
I had it all up on twitter at one point. I took it down. His sexism is principled. He would like to see changes (I suppose throughout the world) wherein women lose everything they've gained in last century or so. He associates these views with religion. — Mongrel
Now Mongrel said I am a sexist. She also said everyone thinks I am a sexist in a PM. She said my sexist comments have been over the top. She said I want to see changes where women lose everything they've gained in the last century! So presumably, I want to see changes where women lose things like the right to vote in many countries. I would like to see some evidence to back up this extraordinary claim. She also said if I had my way, people like her would be disenfranchised and peripheralized - again, where the hell is this crap even coming from?! How does she know this? And if she doesn't, how come she dares to accuse someone of it?!This is an example of how it works, actually. Agustino is sexist. If he had his way, people like me would be disenfranchised and peripheralized. The people who moderate this forum know that, but they don't care. Every time I see his posts, it just sinks in deeper and deeper with me: the moderators of this forum are just as sexist as he is. They have to be. Why else would they leave his nasty comments up? — Mongrel
First most of the statements she cited weren't deemed sexist, even by the moderators. There were only 2 that were under discussion.So, you can't accuse Mongrel of being slanderous, since she was right to call you sexist. — John Harris
He would like to see changes (I suppose throughout the world) wherein women lose everything they've gained in last century or so. — Mongrel
If he had his way, people like me would be disenfranchised and peripheralized. — Mongrel
So, you can't accuse Mongrel of being slanderous, since she was right to call you sexist.
— John Harris
First most of the statements she cited weren't deemed sexist, even by the moderators. There were only 2 that were under discussion.
Second of all, even if they were sexist, these statements are disgusting, slandarous and absolutely false:
He would like to see changes (I suppose throughout the world) wherein women lose everything they've gained in last century or so.
— Mongrel
If he had his way, people like me would be disenfranchised and peripheralized.
— Mongrel
Were they true statements? I want you to show me my sexist statements which show that:Mongrel's statements were very legitimate presumptions, not slanderous at all. — John Harris
He would like to see changes (I suppose throughout the world) wherein women lose everything they've gained in last century or so — Mongrel
I'm pretty sure that when Mongrel linked about five of my statements, Baden said he considered it sexist only "towards the end". But this is besides the point. This thread isn't for discussing this. If you can't discuss slander guidelines without discussing sexism, then out you go, you have no business in this thread.Yes they were. Baden and one other moderator considered them sexist. Go ask him. — John Harris
Yes they were. Baden and one other moderator considered them sexist. Go ask him.
— John Harris
I'm pretty sure that when Mongrel linked about five of my statements, Baden said he considered it sexist only "towards the end". But this is besides the point.
then out you go, you have no business in this thread. — Agustino
↪John Harris This thread isn't for accusing Mongrel, sorry. It's for discussing the introduction of slander guidelines.
I will warn you that if you don't respect the OP you risk getting a warning from the moderators. This is the second time that I, as the starter of the OP, have to ask you this. Please take note.
As the OP I can decide what is and isn't the topic of the thread. At the moment you're disrespecting my thread, and it's the third time I've asked you to stop.Sorry, the OP doesn't get to censor or boss around other posters on the thread, and that includes you. Show me one place in the rules where it says you can do that. You can't. — John Harris
↪John Harris Okay, I clarify once again - for the THIRD time - that this isn't about Mongrel. Please accept it.
The second time has been just recently with @Mongrel's sudden, vicious, calumnious and violent accusations towards myself, which came out of nowhere. These were very hateful remarks, and incredibly false. Let's see a bunch:
Historically his sexist comments have been over the top, so I doubt that will be an issue.
— Mongrel
I had it all up on twitter at one point. I took it down. His sexism is principled. He would like to see changes (I suppose throughout the world) wherein women lose everything they've gained in last century or so. He associates these views with religion.
— Mongrel
This is an example of how it works, actually. Agustino is sexist. If he had his way, people like me would be disenfranchised and peripheralized. The people who moderate this forum know that, but they don't care. Every time I see his posts, it just sinks in deeper and deeper with me: the moderators of this forum are just as sexist as he is. They have to be. Why else would they leave his nasty comments up?
— Mongrel
Now Mongrel said I am a sexist. She also said everyone thinks I am a sexist in a PM. She said my sexist comments have been over the top. She said I want to see changes where women lose everything they've gained in the last century! So presumably, I want to see changes where women lose things like the right to vote in many countries. I would like to see some evidence to back up this extraordinary claim. She also said if I had my way, people like her would be disenfranchised and peripheralized - again, where the hell is this crap even coming from?! How does she know this? And if she doesn't, how come she dares to accuse someone of it?!]
Yes, and I now clarify that it's not about Mongrel. This is the fourth time. If you will not accept it, I can almost guarantee you that you will be punished (because it happened to me once). So please take note of this. You MUST respect the topic of the thread. As the OP, I decide what the topic is. You misunderstood my first post, the topic isn't Mongrel, it's slander guidelines. It says it very clearly actually:Sorry, you, yourself, made if very clear it's about Mongrel and what she said in your massive passage below: — John Harris
PLEASE NOTE THAT SINCE THE SEXISM THREAD WAS LOCKED BY THE MODERATORS THIS THREAD WILL NOT BE USED AS A PLACE TO DISCUSS SEXISM. Please use this thread just to discuss the introduction of slander guidelines. — Agustino
Sorry, the OP doesn't get to censor or boss around other posters on the thread, and that includes you. Show me one place in the rules where it says you can do that. You can't.
— John Harris
As the OP I can decide what is and isn't the topic of the thread. At the moment you're disrespecting my thread, and it's the third time I've asked you to stop.
This isn't a place to discuss Mongrel. If you want to discuss that, open your own thread please. This is the fifth time.You can decide the topic of the thread, but you can't stop people from addressing what you yourself brought up, and you brought up Mongrel and accused her of slander. Sorry, you opened that door yourself. — John Harris
Sorry, you, yourself, made if very clear it's about Mongrel and what she said in your massive passage below:
— John Harris
Yes, and I now clarify that it's not about Mongrel.
It's now quite clear that you will belligerently ignore the topic of the thread. Fine.Sorry, until you take down what you said about Mongrel, it still is about her. So, take down what you said about her and I will stop talking about her. — John Harris
To explain why I was motivated to bring up a petition to introduce guidelines against slander. The topic isn't about whether you agree that Mongrel slandered me or not, since that's irrelevant to whether you think we should have slander guidelines. Is that now more clear hopefully? The only reason why I had to give examples, not only Mongrel but also TimeLine is because this is a repeated thing, and it can get very ugly. So that makes me think we need slander guidelines.Why did you bring up mongrel Though? Dont you at least have to admit that you either were looking for revenge or proving yourself good and right or something, or you made a catastrophic mistake by letting 90 percent of the OP be about her and how insane she was in "accusing" you. — Beebert
Thank you, if possible let's focus on discussing slander guidelines. Even for people who disagree that Mongrel slandered me, because deciding that is not the point of this thread.Anyway, yes; I think slander guidlines would be fitting. — Beebert
I'd be on board with slander guidelines, as I think they'd help this forum be more amiable and friendly.
I don't think it's constructive for one member to accuse another of being this or that without properly defending their assertion. There's been a lot of, "you're a sexist", and not a lot of, "here's why."
This is important because this member has 6 times in a row refused to discuss the topic of the thread, and it's important. Don't derail the thread. You can start your own if you want to discuss surrounding issues.For those interested in this thread please ignore John Harris and post your thoughts about whether or not you think slander guidelines should be introduced for the future. Thanks! — Agustino
I'd be on board with slander guidelines, as I think they'd help this forum be more amiable and friendly.
I don't think it's constructive for one member to accuse another of being this or that without properly defending their assertion. There's been a lot of, "you're a sexist", and not a lot of, "here's why."
Actually, when Mongrel was asked to show one of Agustino's racist posts, she did just that, and I provided another, and Baden thought both were sexist. So, that was not the case in her and Agustino's situation. ]
I don't want Mongrel to be punished by the moderators in any way shape or form. I am absolutely fine with forgiving Mongrel for her rudeness and quite frankly for blatantly lying about me - with the condition that she apologises for it, or otherwise presents evidence to back up those outrageous claims. But to prevent such future instances, I think we must have guidelines against it. Thank you for your time reading this.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.