"Only a moron would think that!!!" — Srap Tasmaner

Unfortunately such replies seem to be quite common here many times.

My point has only been that we should be mindful of not only the philosophical import of our words, but their effect on the health of the forum. It's a matter of faith, perhaps, that the latter would also lead in the long run to better philosophy. — Srap Tasmaner

I agree.

No worries

I hadn't really thought about it because it usually doesn't go in that direction and I don't expect it to be a problem. Is it a trick question or something? If so, let me know, and I'll come up with a better answer.

Well, Rebecca's first post in that submissiveness thread was pretty sexist to me, so my point is that Kevin isn't the only person that should be reprimanded, or at least may need to be in future. Being the university-attending, supremely privileged white, straight male that I am, I'm perhaps more aware of misandry, which is also why I found the witch hunt against Kevin, or Steve, really whomever it is, kinda unfair.

Dare he post the obligatory +1?

No way Beebert is Kevin. Madness!

One thing I should have done was, I should have sent a copy of the threatening post to the company that hosts that forum.

...especially given that the threat was from one of their moderators.

I guess I was too lazy to deal with it. But one should report such things.

Michael Ossipoff

I hadn't really thought about it because it usually doesn't go in that direction and I don't expect it to be a problem. — Baden

I think in today's world, especially on college campuses in the US, I can imagine it can go that way, precisely because so much of sexism is focused on women's issues in our culture, and men are viewed as the culprits and the sexists very often. So it is absolutely possible that men will be labeled sexists as a form of bullying, even when they're not.

Unfortunately such replies seem to be quite common here many times. — Agustino

Only a moron would think that!!!

Only a moron would think that!!! — Sapientia

>:) >:O

My point has only been that we should be mindful of not only the philosophical import of our words, but their effect on the health of the forum. It's a matter of faith, perhaps, that the latter would also lead in the long run to better philosophy. — Srap Tasmaner

(Y) Yes, that is well said. Thank you.

As I mentioned, "objecting to tone" may be a type of red herring fallacy (as listed here: These descriptions of fallacies are helpful for tactics to avoid. Though i have committed most of the mistakes at least once. It is so embarrassing to have your spouse call you out on a motte-and-bailey fallacy. :-# ) Tone-policing may sound like the mating call of the loser. But even though one can't win the argument by complaining about sarcasm, mockery, or arrogance, those things can weaken one's argument. This seems to be a bleeding gladiatorial age we are living in, from sports to politics to singing contests. There is however evidence of many great minds and deep hearts on this forum on a daily basis. Those qualities defeat our shadow-selves.

So it is absolutely possible that men will be labeled sexists as a form of bullying, even when they're not. — Agustino

All things are possible, and most of them happen. Men suffer rape and domestic violence too. And it is certainly not an improvement on women suffering them. Black people can be racist and poor people can be rapaciously greedy. Even retired philosophy forum admins can make an intemperate post (Sorry about that, mods). We are all sinners.

Nevertheless, there is a question of power and capacity. In a white dominated society (dominated by sheer numbers and by status) the prejudices of black folks do not prevail, the prejudices of white folks do. And in this forum, the combined prejudices of every single woman, even augmented by such powerful voices as my own, are not going to seriously harm or inhibit anyone.

Minorities need special consideration, whether they are right wing special snowflakes, or females or the religious. White male leftwing atheists predominate here, and especially in a philosophy forum, they, we, should welcome and nurture otherness of culture and background to challenge our preconceptions. Which is not to say we should put up with any old crap and abuse.

In a white dominated society (dominated by sheer numbers and by status) the prejudices of black folks do not prevail, the prejudices of white folks do. — unenlightened

Well that depends what you mean, but I suppose that would hold true on a macro-scale, though even in such a society there would be places where black prejudice dominates at the micro level. The ideal is to have no prejudice dominate, that's what we should be looking to approach.

And in this forum, the combined prejudices of every single woman, even augmented by such powerful voices as my own, are not going to seriously harm or inhibit anyone. — unenlightened

Well that depends how they are used. It's not very difficult at all to slip into a "police-state" kind of place that simply eliminates any kind of dissent based simply on labels of sexism - "because one (or multiple) woman said so and we can't question how women feel about sexism". There needs to be a degree of rational discussion - it seems to me that you presuppose that we have to take special care of minorities because we can't have rational discussion about the issues to decide what is right/wrong. But who took "special care" of me for example? I'm a minority here with regards to religion AND politics. As far as I remember, in the very beginning I fought for myself, and because of that more religious and conservative people have spoken up.

White male leftwing atheists predominate here, and especially in a philosophy forum, they, we, should welcome and nurture otherness of culture and background to challenge our preconceptions. — unenlightened

I agree.

Just as a footnote, here's a little story about how totally trivial, totally ignorable stuff that, for God's sake get a life, really counts for fuck-all except political correctness gone mad and disappearing up its own special snowflake arse, is really quite important when it's your precious vulnerable child's sense of belonging at stake. Micro-aggression.

a little story — unenlightened

Interesting story. Yes, no doubt some concepts - like that of a princess in Western society - seem to be associated with white people. Is that a problem? I don't think it's anymore of a problem than the fact that in India a princess is associated with a dark-colored woman, and in China with an Asian-looking woman and so forth. It's absolutely normal in other words. It's based on the local culture.

To follow on this, one thing that intrigues me is that the child thought that the princess had to be white. Because my best friend in school, for example, was darker colored in terms of skin color, and in art class, when we were asked to draw a human being he drew a man (darker colored one) and I drew a man too, but lighter colored one. And I distinctively remember the moment, caused it made me remark that we each drew a similar skin color to our own. Instinctively we both drew ourselves when asked to draw a human being. I think it's more the concept of princess that is associated with "white" because of all the children's stories such as Cinderella, etc. where princesses are always portrayed as white in the West.

From the outside of the magic moderating circle, (and actually from the inside too), one does not really know how many complaints have been made, how seriously, and how many folks have just moved on, and how many are struggling to maintain a discussion in the face of Kevin's naughtiness. For moderators and members alike it is easier and safer and stirs up less controversy to do nothing. — unenlightened

I just found this thread today and all you have to do is ask. There are people around the forums that are pretty good at gauging the 'vibe' so to speak of the balance of the forum. If an admin is curious just have @jamalrob send a PM asking what's new, who's leaving and why.

It just takes a bit of small group communication, which by the way is the hardest form of communication.
Back to page one ;)

I'm so sorry. For you, for the ignoramuses of the forum, including myself. I'm crying.

Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone? — unenlightened

Before she left, I asked her to please stay and she said okay. Then I got another message that she had to go, I wished her well and told her this will always be her home.
Another strong woman, a moral woman and such an empathetic soul, I still had much to learn. I asked who it was over or what happened and she just said it was time, not sharing the whys.

You could and ought to just ignore him, as someone else in this thread suggested, but that would require giving up the pleasure of unearned moral superiority. — Thorongil

Not only is this rude but I think it is completely uncalled for. (N)

One of the moderators told me he was getting complaints about me from member X. I concluded that I should, could, and would leave member X alone. Ignore, not comment on, not annoy further. — Bitter Crank

It is human nature for everyone reading this thread to think and ponder for a moment if they are the "Kevin" in the story. So a LOT of people would think they were you and not member X or member X and not you. My point being that without being vulnerable to brutal honesty, that veil that protects the innocence of member X, also shields the rest for understanding.

Females today are not fragile little creatures needing your protection. — Thorongil

You are right in that we "are not fragile little creatures" but I can tell you that losing one lady is a HUGE loss when we have less than five ladies regularly on the boards. (N)

Of all of the forums that I've ever participated in, this is the only one with genuinely effective moderation, ...and with moderation that isn't abused.

Michael Ossipoff — Michael Ossipoff

Thank you~

One of the moderators told me he was getting complaints about me from member X — Bitter Crank

I never complained about you sweetheart >:O >:O >:O

I never complained about you sweetheart — Agustino

Nor I of you. I tell you my issue to your face, in real time, so we are on fair footing.
Now get off of my foot! :P

Nor I of you. I tell you my issue to your face, in real time, so we are on fair footing.
Now get off of my foot! :P — ArguingWAristotleTiff

It's not fair that you ask me to get off your foot when the only off is off the edge of the cliff - that's not very caring of you... >:O

I miss her, should have just angry danced it out...

You are right in that we "are not fragile little creatures" but I can tell you that losing one lady is a HUGE loss when we have less than five ladies regularly on the boards. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Well, I'm not in favor of gender quotas either, so this doesn't concern me.

Not only is this rude but I think it is completely uncalled for. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

As could be argued your posts in this thread are, given its hitherto settled nature.

I used to administrate a reasonably large and active alt-left discussion forum. Besides people posting pictures of Mario-Stalin and those who were probably payed to troll the place one of the issues we had moderating was, above and beyond trying to corall intellectual anarchists, the inclusion of women in the group. In terms of active posters, there were about 100 at the group's peak, there were almost no women - somewhere between 5 and 10. This was quite surprising, considering the background of the place, pretty much everyone was some kind of hard-line feminist except the quickly dispatched alt-right trolls.

10%, at best, of the active members being women in a place that was intended to be in some regards a safe space in which everyone agreed that women get the short end of the stick? Really?

Most of the vocal disagreements and harsh treatment of women, person to person anyway, was largely to do with threads specifically on patriarchy and rape culture, which some (all?) of our Troskyist and Leninist members unsurprisingly did not give a crap about.

So, we took in the active women as part of the administration, if they wanted to come. 3 did. Luckily they represented diverse views as well, and they advised advertising this and numerous other democratizing features we adopted (voting on all actions of moderation, post deletion required at least three votes, banning required a separate thread, discussion, a devil's advocate -which was usually me if anyone cares-) as a sticky on the forum.

This lured out several women we knew were there and who read stuff, since they spoke about it privately or referenced it to other moderators, but didn't engage usually. After this we saw a brief surge of their engagement (IE, two more women became active posters than before). Eventually they returned to lurking, and all of the women administrators eventually left due to individual dramas with other mods and admin. Having to debate about the debates was tiresome, but we wanted to be ideologically consistent with our user base. (one however left because she accused another poster of stalking her)

At this point, we asked for private messages on what we were doing wrong from the women members of the group, why did they choose not to engage despite demonstrably being interested, and engaging in private debate with other members through PMs?

Several of the women who had received moderator action by accusing people of being rapists, of course said that we were doing something wrong by silencing their voices or disagreeing with them.. These were summarily ignored (obviously after debating with other mods, we were inspired by Gosplan after all). Besides that, we received only one useful bit of feedback, which was this (paraphrased):

Women are encouraged to be passive, and are often talked over by men without them realising it. Of course these men deny it later. This place is no different. Do you expect women to find it easy to express themselves and their ideas in a public forum? Especially when we know that there is always the chance that one of your more extreme members will not just dismiss our concerns, but attack us as ideological enemies?

I've had no idea on what to do about that since.

I'm pretty sure that it's the subject matter. A poetry or creative writing forum would have a better balance, as would a music forum. (I had a website dedicated to romantic fiction that was majority female populated back in the day... always been a big believer in true love)

As for it being a man's world, and women don't want to be attacked and spoken over, even on an alt-left forum, full of people that accepted hardline thirdwave feminism? Where you guilty of it, unconsciously? Was it just like a couple people?

What could be done about that, other than shut up, and don't disagree? Or don't disagree without gushing apology and kid glove kindness, as to not force them into silence...

I've probably done it more times than I can count Wos, but I try hard not to use any of the implicit biases I have. I don't think the spirit of that message we received was an injunction to treat women differently, on the contrary, it was an injunction to try harder to treat them the same. Whenever we saw harassment and trolling in rape culture or patriarchy threads, we tried to treat it like any other case of moderator action.

Regardless, we had a group of informed women who could've provided us invaluable insights into the reality of their treatment, but we couldn't get them to come forward even privately to suggest anything we could do as admins to get the number of active woman posters up.