Forum

The term is in no way, whatsoever, a positive term. The negativity isn't on the woman, however, it's on the person implying that the woman is a slut. In some cases, it's "women who dress like sluts" that they are shaming. In others, it's all women. Most people who do this deny that they are treating women like sluts, and the term is calling them out for the attacks that they are doing.

Mesonoxian Eve wrote:

I guess I'm just too damned old because when I was growing up, I was taught it was bad to label people.

And when I was growing up, I was taught I should know the meaning of the words I am using.

(I tried to work "niggardly" into this post, but it was way, way too forced. Ah well.)

I want to apologize if my post made it imply I was stating FD was calling women sluts. This wasn't my intent.

I just want to sum this up as this: I'm not sure why "slut-shaming rape apologist" is being used to bring an issue to light when "victim shaming rape apologist" would be so much better.

I find it rather ridiculous when, and pay attention FD, a person has to go out of their way to define "slut shaming" before making their point.

Do a Google search on "slut shaming" and note the very first set of returns. A pretty good indication that I'm not the only one who didn't understand the internet's latest 15-minute-fame-word-of-the-day.

To reiterate: I'm not making this an issue. Some people will not see this phrase as an insult, and I can accept that.

It's just that I will never be one of them.

To put this in perspective: I also despise the term "gay bashing" as well.

I know it's human nature to sub-categorize a minority group, but you'll excuse me if I deem this detrimental to the message of treating them as equals.

Hope this clarifies things. If you want to continue this, either give $5 to ANN and let's talk in Community or send me PM.

I think it's established now I'm behind the cause, I just don't like the phrases it uses.
Smile

Have a great weekend! Well, I'm off to Cracked now. I need some laughter.
Razz

Mesonoxian, that is the most incredibly passive-aggressive, irritating, sanctimonious "apology" I've seen in quite some time.

Quote:

I find it rather ridiculous when, and pay attention FD, a person has to go out of their way to define "slut shaming" before making their point.

No, goddammit. "Slut-shaming" is not some brand new term, and its definition should be incredibly obvious from how its constructed. Its not my goddamn fault you didn't know the definition and decided it would be better to fly off the handle over it instead of learning what it meant.

Quote:

To reiterate: I'm not making this an issue. Some people will not see this phrase as an insult, and I can accept that.

Yes, you are making this an issue, and the hell does "some people will not see the phrase as an insult" mean?

Quote:

To put this in perspective: I also despise the term "gay bashing" as well.

Huh? What? Why? Unless you yourself are gay bashing, I don't see why you would hate that term.

Quote:

Hope this clarifies things. If you want to continue this, either give $5 to ANN and let's talk in Community or send me PM.

No, you are not going to drop this load and then run off and act like everything is [expletive] fine.

Feeling compelled to add my contribution to this thread this morning:

As you may know, there has been a back and forth going on for a couple of days in the AKB48 death threat thread. There are about three people in that thread who are just ideologically committed to seeing anybody who threatens a celebrity get the book thrown at them and go away for a long time.

I stepped up and challenged a couple of the most strident on their views, my most recent post of which I find has been edited by a moderator under the pretense of "not labeling/judging/insulting other posters".

My original text was this:

Quote:

You crazed law and order types are really something else.

Edited to this:

Quote:

You [labeling, judging and insulting other posters is not acceptable. Comment removed].

I am increasingly baffled at precisely how ANN defines being insulting. As I've pointed out to moderators before, this is not codified in the forum rules. The rules say:

Quote:

7) Abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-charged, dangerous or illegal material will be removed from the forum by moderators. Depending on the severity of the incident, your IP address may be retained or reported to law enforcement, as necessary.

I'm not guilty of any of these things. My edited comment isn't personal in nature, does not malign the commenter's person, age, race, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, marital or immigration status. I didn't swear, I didn't threaten, do anything dangerous or illegal.

What I did was criticize the poster's views. In particular, I criticized a political position, born out and referenced to that poster's comments in the thread. I realize ANN isn't a political forum, and politics and religion are volatile subjects, but this political speech was relevant to the news as a crime story and in line with the conversation at hand.

I find it alarming and troubling that this kind of statement is now subject to moderator review. I cannot imagine that this was the intent of the Request for Politeness and Respect at the top of the forum index. I understand and agree unconditionally with the need to protect users from profanity and discrimination on these boards. By all means come down hard on me if I screw that up. But conforming to a team of moderator's unwritten standards for political speech seems way too subjective and susceptible to abuse to apply in any consistent or fair way to a community with diversity of opinion.

So referring to someone as "crazed" is neither abusive nor slanderous to you (actually since you wrote it as opposed to saying it, your comment is libelous as opposed to slanderous, but whatevs)?

Where I come from, referring to someone as crazed is rarely perceived as either respectful or polite.

Blood- wrote:

So referring to someone as "crazed" is neither abusive nor slanderous to you (actually since you wrote it as opposed to saying it, your comment is libelous as opposed to slanderous, but whatevs)?

Where I come from, referring to someone as crazed is rarely perceived as either respectful or polite.

If "You are crazed" had been the statement I made, you would have a point, but that's already stretching my words.

"Where I come from, those words mean something else" goes to the heart of the subjectivity problem I'm talking about. I'm sorry I didn't say what you would have said in the same situation. That can't be helped. The point is that profanity's not even what I'm accused of doing wrong, and what I am accused of goes considerably beyond the mutual politeness and respect rules as they're actually written.

Now you are simply employing weasel logic. The fact that you didn't call a specific poster "crazed" but rather used the more indirect "you crazed law and order types" doesn't absolve you of using abusive and libelous language. It is clear you were referring to any poster who had a differing opinion in this matter as crazed, albeit in an indirect way. I suppose you consider this an oh-so-clever distinction on your part, but I assure you that you are as transparent as a pane of freshly washed glass.

Blood- wrote:

Now you are simply employing weasel logic.

If your argument is correct, then does this "you" statement I've quoted above constitute labeling/judging/insulting another poster? Because this is exactly the kind of thing I'm being censored for.

Your accusation is patently false. "Law and order" is a political term. My saying "You law and order types are crazy" is a political statement. It invokes a specific, Wikipedia sourcable political concept. You, or a moderator, can imagine whatever alternative interpretation of my words that you want. Using that as a basis to moderate someone is much more a matter of politics and political dialogue than simple politeness and respect, and it is profoundly troubling that this kind of statement would ever be subject to moderator judgement.

Which is exactly what he spent days trying to do last time he go in hot water. Implying someone is crazed for having a specific stance is disrespectful, plain and simple. Just disagree with the freaking statement, knock it off with your constant need to label people who disagree with you in an insulting and condescending manner. It's the same crap you were doing last time.

Not to mention you are ignoring the rule which specifically states to disagree respectfully or not at all.

Teh Rules wrote:

4) Swearing is frowned upon. If you disagree with a poster, disagree respectfully, or do not disagree at all.

Now I know last time you tried to claim that because you weren't swearing the rule didn't apply. You don't need to swear to be disrespectful however, they are not mutually exclusive.

Quote:

Your accusation is patently false. "Law and order" is a political term. My saying "You law and order types are crazy" is a political statement. It invokes a specific, Wikipedia sourcable political concept. You, or a moderator, can imagine whatever alternative interpretation of my words that you want. Using that as a basis to moderate someone is much more a matter of politics and political dialogue than simple politeness and respect, and it is profoundly troubling that this kind of statement would ever be subject to moderator judgement.

Now who's imagining alternative interpretations? I don't care what theory you've come up with to explain the action, the reality is that calling people "crazed" for simply taking a different side isn't acceptable. Stop trying to use every disagreement you ever have as an excuse to judge and label other people. Just argue the points and disagree with those points, but stop making these leaps of judgement regarding other peoples frame of mind simply for having an alternate viewpoint. Heck, it's not even a big deal aside from being told "don't do that", but once again you've got to try and play the "you're persecuting me" card the moment you're called on the behavior.

@ Benden

I sincerely hope your "arguments" are impressing yourself because I can pretty much guarantee they won't impress anyone else. Your "crazed" designation was designed to be antagonistic to any poster who differed from your view and it could hardly fail to do so. You can try and pretzel any lame argument you want, but you simply come across like a fish flopping around on dry land gasping for breath: a cruelly amusing spectacle but one that is not particularly edifying.

Banden wrote:

My original text was this:

Quote:

You crazed law and order types are really something else.

Edited to this:

Quote:

You [labeling, judging and insulting other posters is not acceptable. Comment removed].

If I was a moderator I probably would not have edited that unless somebody complained about it, but I also would not argue with the moderator who did edit it.
If that remark had been addressed at me I would have been insulted and offended by it, but not enough that I would want any action to be taken.

I think that it is worth noting that the editing did not change the meaning of your post. I thought that you had a good reasonable argument, up until your last sentence, which is the one in question here.
I do not think that your comment did anything to support your argument. It seemed to me that it was tacked on to the end strictly as as insult to those who disagree with you.

I think that you do have a valid reason for questioning the moderation, but I do not think that your argument was hurt by it.

The other point here, Benden, is context. You are a poster who, because of past behaviour, is on the moderator/admin radar (as am I, actually. Just today I received PM warnings from two different ANN reps referring to the same issue). Chances are another poster who has a good track record who made that same comment may have eluded notice.

Keonyn wrote:

Heck, it's not even a big deal aside from being told "don't do that", but once again you've got to try and play the "you're persecuting me" card the moment you're called on the behavior.

The only person who has ever said "you're persecuting me", Keonyn, is you as a matter of fact, which goes right to the heart of the issues I've had with your moderation of things I post: I say one thing ("You crazed law and order types or something else" "I find it alarming and troubling that this kind of statement is now subject to moderator review") and you delete what I've written or threaten me with a ban on the basis of another statement I didn't even make ("You are crazy Mr. sickVisionz" "You're persecuting me").

When I ask for clarification, it's never quite a conversation, and it constantly feels like you, specifically, are talking past me about something different than I actually said and can't correct for in the absence of ESP, having the same opinion as you do 1:1 on the subject at hand, or having no opinion on the subject. If I think that any concept, belief or attitude is a bad thing, you tell me I'm judging and insulting somebody, and I genuinely don't know how I can have a strong opinion about anything if nothing anyone believes is acceptable to criticize.

Blood- wrote:

The other point here, Benden, is context. You are a poster who, because of past behavior, is on the moderator/admin radar (as am I, actually. Just today I received PM warnings from two different ANN reps referring to the same issue). Chances are another poster who has a good track record who made that same comment may have eluded notice.

This is the second time moderation action has been brought down on me for "judging", and based on this conversation it's becoming pretty clear that it's the same underlying problem with the same moderator.

If I was Keonyn's doppelganger, you're right! I wouldn't have to worry about moderator scrutiny, for several reasons. But that's obviously impossible, and I didn't think the forum was ever meant to be a hive of Keonyn clones.

I would just like someone to spell out in black and white exactly what ANN considers "profanity", and not profanity, so things I say can't be spontaneously designated as such based on a moderator's snap decision.

Why are you talking about profanity? Keonyn's edit of your "crazed" comment told you that labeling, judging and insulting other posters was not permitted. There was no mention of profanity at all.

Forum - View topic
Inconsistent Moderating

Taste Naruto's Ichiraku Ramen in Real Life in Silverlake Ramen Campaign

Live-Action One Piece Series Wins at 2024 Writers Guild Awards

Gundam SEED FREEDOM's Rie Tanaka, Sōichiro Hoshi Share Memories at Los Angeles Premiere

Kurayukaba and Kuramerukagari Anime Movies Review

The Spring 2024 Anime Preview Guide

This Week in Games - Ask Yourself, "What Would Shadow Do?"

Forum - View topicInconsistent Moderating

Forum

Forum - View topic
Inconsistent Moderating