"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"

It took quite a while before you did though. Neither you nor Mongrel handled the situation well.

↪John Harris It took quite a while though. Neither you nor Mongrel handled the situation well.

Oh, no, we handled It very well, and you haven't shown otherwise. However, you handled it very poorly by supporting Agustino in his sexist posts.

Supported? You all attacked him and accused him of being a sexist. That is something far different from making a sexist comment, something which he appeared to have apologized for in that very thread.

John Harris Supported? You all attacked him and accused him of being a sexist. That is something far different than making a sexist comment, something which he appeared to have apologized for in that very thread.

Pipe down, Beebert; you're not making your wrong stance right by getting hysterical. We didn't attack him. He wrote some horridly sexist posts and we rightly called them sexist. So, relax and save us the drama. It's not my fault you supported him in his sexist posts.

And he never apologized for those posts since he never admitted they were sexist, and they were.

Sure I dont need to justify anything, nor prove a point, nor be concerned. I leave it. I have already said where I stand; I think this is all based on prejudices and misunderstandings combined with a tendency to get excited when one gets the oppurtunity to be part of a conflict that isnt dangerous. Agustino is not a sexist I believe, but she took it as if he was. Her intention might not have been to slander, but agustino took it as slander. And if Mongrel was offended it was good she addressed it, but she didnt have to make such a gigantic scene out of it, unless agustino refused to apologize and instead continued to make sexist comments. Anyway, this is all quite childish.

Guidelines won't help, Agustino, you've already been successfully branded. You should put your efforts into rebranding yourself.

↪John Harris Sure I dont need to justify anything, nor prove a point, nor being concerned. I leave it. I have already said where I stand; I think this is all based on prejudices and misunderstandings combined with a tendency to get excited when one gets the oppurtunity to be part of a conflict that isnt dangerous.

That's your personal opinion, one with which Mongrel and I clearly don't agree. The only prejudices shown was Agustino's sexist posts, post with which you are unfortunately fine with. So, stop going around trying to impose your opinion on me or we will continue to debate the issue.

And if Mongrel was offended it was good she addressed it, but she didnt have to make such a gigantic scene out of it, unless agustino refused to apologize and instead continued to make sexist comments.

She didn't make a gigantic scene out of it;' Agustino did, freaking out and saying she was slandering him and demanding she back up her accusations, which she did. And now Agustino is continuing to throw a fit and having the gall to start his "anti-slander" thread by going on a slanderous rant against Mongrel. So, he was being very childish as were you by using this thread to take an erroneous swipe at me when I had said none of my disapproving feelings about how you had handled yourself.

Guidelines won't help, Agustino, you've already been successfully branded.

No, he successfully branded himself with his sexist posts.

and he has the opportunity to learn and change, rather than trying change the forum.

Please use this thread just to discuss the introduction of slander guidelines. — Agustino

We don't have a courtroom to sort that kind of thing out. People should feel free to bring up stuff that bothers them. They should feel like the moderators will lend an unbiased ear.

Whether anything is done about a problem.. I guess that depends on how busy the moderators are with other things. Watching total eclipses and such.

I apologize if you feel that I used this thread to 'attack'(a bit strong word) you, it was not my intention. What I would want is for all of you to shut up and leave this. I dont support agustino, nor you. Now you say what my personal opinion is, while not understanding that your understanding of agustino's posts are also personal opinions. Anyway. I apologize, I dont intend to make enemies here.

↪John Harris and he has the opportunity to learn and change, rather than trying change the forum.

Sure, but he hasn't admitted he was wrong or even admitted his posts were sexist. So, he's made it clear he has no interest in learning or changing and will probably make more sexist posts.

Yes that is in fact a point. And as he claims to be a Christian, trying to repent and Change himself should be his Only concern and something he knows a lot about.

John Harris I apologize if you feel that I used this thread to 'attack'(a bit strong word) you, it was not my intention. What I would want is for all of you to shut up and leave this. I dont support agustino, nor you. Now you say what my personal opinion is, while not understanding that your understanding of agustino's posts are also personal opinions. Anyway. I apologize, I dont intend to make enemies here.

I didn't say you "attacked" me, so that own strong word was of your dishonest making. I said you took an erroneous swipe at me and you did. And don't tell me to shut up when you didn't shut up and opened your mouth to wrongly tell me I handled things poorly. So start the shutting up on your own end. And my understanding of Agustino's posts is a correct personal understanding. If you don't think saying women on TV secretly want to be groped by Trump and are a bunch of lying hypocrites isn't sexist, you are sexist yourself and have real problems.

But thanks for your apology. I don't see you as an enemy.

praxis Yes that is in fact a point. And as he claims to be a Christian, trying to repent and Change himself should be his Only concern and something he knows a lot about.

Except by failing to admit his sexist post was sexist and wrong and failing to apologize to Mongrel, and actually slandering her for rightly accusing him, he clearly has no intent on repenting and changing himself. People defending his sexist posts sure aren't helping him.

I did mean that "attacking" was my own invention. I Said I didnt mean to attack you, not that you said I did.

I got ya. Thanks for the clarification.

If you're prepared to be bothered by comments on a message board dedicated to philosophy, you may want to rethink how dedicated to philosophy you are. Philosophy forces us to confront thoughts that make us uncomfortable in order to help us grow and develop as human beings. Augustino's writings were polemic and provocative to the extreme, but surely you've encountered far worse in the philosophy books you've read. Nothing Augustino wrote in his poetical style is sexist simply because you deem it so. Censorship is only ever detrimental to the quality of discussion generated. When you decide what people can and cannot say in situations as blurred as this, you're damaging the ability of people to discuss philosophy amongst themselves here. If you wish to only participate in social situations where you won't encounter anything you disagree with, there's plenty of other corners of the Internet to seek refuge in. Just don't drag this place down to that level based on neo-cultural Marxist/postmodernist/third wave feminist ideology.

If agustino hasn't apologized, he should, Though I thought he had. And mind you, look at my posts to him in this thread and see if I defend him. Hardly. I questioned Why he created this thread and Said:

"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. And then you End with "Please use this thread just to discuss the introduction of slander guidelines."... Sure, but seriously, what did you expect?"

Yeah, I'll definitely give you credit for that. You expressed an important point really well, there.

I cannot for the life of me understand the controversy surrounding this line. It's basically just reiterating the age-old adage that people say one thing and do another, i.e. people are hypocrites. That's not controversial, that's not sexist, that's just common sense. If you think someone votes in the privacy of a voting booth in the same way they would vote in public, then I have some bad news for you.

"And don't tell me to shut up when you didn't shut up and opened your mouth to wrongly tell me I handled things poorly. So start the shutting up on your own end. And my understanding of Agustino's posts is a correct personal understanding. If you don't think saying women on TV secretly want to be groped by Trump and are a bunch of lying hypocrites isn't sexist, you are sexist yourself and have real problems."

I am not going to comment on this, but you may understand my posts as you like. I am not a sexist and I dont have to prove that to you, nor do I care what your ressentiment thoughts are about me. Sorry if I sound rude, but if you are Always going to go on like this when discussing, you shouldnt do philosophy because this is something else.

I cannot for the life of me understand the controversy surrounding this line. It's basically just reiterating the age-old adage that people say one thing and do another, i.e. people are hypocrites

No, it's not basically that at all. It was specifically saying that women on TV actually wanted to be groped by Trump and were also lying hypocrites too. That is both a degrading depiction of a large group of women, saying they're all just out there wanting old man Trump to grope them. If you don't see that as sexist and wrong, then you're sexist too with a disgusting notion of how women are. So, you and I are done here. I won't be reading any more of your repellent posts.

I am not going to comment on this, but you may understand my posts as you like. I am not a sexist and I dont have to prove that to you, nor do I care what your ressentiment thoughts are about me

If you don't consider Agustino's horridly sexist posts as sexist, then you are sexist too. But feel free to denounce them as sexist any time. And sorry if I sound rude, but if you agree with those sexist beliefs and discuss philosophy as you've been doing defending them, then you shouldn't do philosophy...and other activities involving women.

Attempts to debate someone and immediately gets blocked. Fantastic example of debating standard expected.

Sure they were sexist or rather could be understood as sexist, and I havent said anything else. But you dont understand that agustino's underlying intention when making his post was most likely something else, something about the human nature, about how human beings often irrationally function. BUT I agree that he used a very bad example, and I also agree that he should have apologized and then dropped it. Where did I defend a sexist view? You make me laugh. And cry at the same time.

So I act like you have been acting since this thread started then. I pity you.

If you're prepared to be bothered by comments on a message board dedicated to philosophy, you may want to rethink how dedicated to philosophy you are. Philosophy forces us to confront thoughts that make us uncomfortable in order to help us grow and develop as human beings. Augustino's writings were polemic and provocative to the extreme, but surely you've encountered far worse in the philosophy books you've read. Nothing Augustino wrote in his poetical style is sexist simply because you deem it so. Censorship is only ever detrimental to the quality of discussion generated. When you decide what people can and cannot say in situations as blurred as this, you're damaging the ability of people to discuss philosophy amongst themselves here. If you wish to only participate in social situations where you won't encounter anything you disagree with, there's plenty of other corners of the Internet to seek refuge in. Just don't drag this place down to that level based on neo-cultural Marxist/postmodernist/third wave feminist ideology. — Dogar

Also, I suggest everyone flag John Harris' most recent post in this thread. I already quoted it and sent it to a mod, but perhaps we need more consensus?

I would venture to say that is because Agustino is sexist. In this case, I want to move away from asking whether a particular statement he says is sexist and look at his behaviour.

Why is it, of all the testing insults and disagreements spoken in discusions with Augstino, he chooses to pick out what's been said by two prominent female posters? How come I'm not in the slanderous fire pit? Or any of the other regular posters who have pointed out his sexism?

Timeline and Mongrel are hardly the only people to ever steadfastly identify Agustino as sexist, yet he specifically targets them. He seems to lose it when challenged or attacked by women in a way he does not when opposed or criticised by men.