Posts by hiddeneagle3

mistyseal8 said:A rainbow cross is offensive to Christians.

I guess... why would that be?

And honestly, who would you even consider acceptable for a moderator role?

Look, starting a whole thread just to ask about an avatar featuring Pinochet isn't really a way to signal that it's an issue or to explain why it shouldn't be one. If there's a problem, I guess you should just file a formal report.

Is there a specific form I need to fill out, or can I just submit a report directly?

So, I wonder... is slafko actually right when he claims that having an avatar featuring Pinochet isn't really a big deal?

On a related note, I’m wondering why a discussion about clear rules—specifically regarding who can and cannot be featured in an avatar—wasn't actually part of that thread about what constitutes a valid image, if I remember correctly, which I think was started by Slafko?

*The thread was deleted, and honestly, I can't quite recall who originally posted it, though Slafko did chime in there.

Anyway, it just seems a bit off to punish a user for something they did after they specifically asked for clarification, especially when the administration couldn't even tell them whether they were following the rules or not in the first place.

Casey Bennett said:Maybe the reason I don't feel insulted by certain descriptions is simply because they don't apply to me? 🤷
Did that possibility ever cross your mind? 😉

When someone (regardless of whether they are male or female) points out that there are plenty of women who are just plain boring, spending their entire lives glued to soap operas and gossiping, believe me, I won't feel the slightest urge to scream, "How dare you, you misogynist!" because, frankly, it’s the damn truth.

I have no interest in defending or representing anyone just because we share the same chromosomes, and I certainly don't want anyone speaking on behalf of women without my express permission.

Real struggle should be reserved for the disenfranchised, the oppressed, the hungry, and the helpless—regardless of whether we are talking about a child, a woman, a man, or an animal.

To summarize: feminism is, in my opinion, far too narrowly specialized, overly aggressive, and completely devoid of any sense of humor. I won't go so far as to call it fanaticism, but if anyone finds themselves offended by this, I wash my hands of their feelings.

And I guess that brings us right to the heart of why these debates always go in circles: people tend to view feminism as this monolithic movement where men aren't allowed, and every single member is just some radical with a mustache who doesn't have a boyfriend. Which, in these kinds of discussions, pretty much leads to the conclusion that... well, normal women—the ones without mustaches who actually have guys in their lives—would never identify as feminists in the first place.

analogwalker5 said:If I go onto that thread and post something like, "I hate English! It’s seriously the most disgusting language I’ve ever encountered!"—is my post gonna get nuked by the mods?

I guess it depends. If you write it in English, they probably won't care; if you write it in something else, they'll likely take it down.

Bradley Barnes90 said:Honestly, it's neither. I suppose we could call this just a temporary fix, but until someone actually comes along who checks every single box—and who knows when that’ll be—there isn't much else we can really do. Maybe just keeping a closer eye on the trolls. 🙂

Could you maybe define what "every single box" actually means? Just so we have an idea of how long we're stuck waiting for this perfect candidate.

Bradley Barnes90 said:If someone like that actually showed up, we’d jump at the chance to take their help. But honestly, it feels impossible to find someone who’s an expert but doesn't stir up drama, all while having the full backing of every single admin and moderator, which... I guess is pretty crucial.

I get where the admins are coming from, but does every single one of those hundred moderators really need to sign off on a new hire for the DNC? Good luck finding anyone who fits that bill, I suppose.

Comparing this to the hard sciences is just a non-starter. On the DNC forums, you can debate the same topics forever and never reach a finish line. Most things there just don't have one right or final answer.

That doesn't mean people shouldn't use actual arguments, though. I mean, what kind of discussion are you even having if everyone treats social sciences like "this is my opinion because I say so"? It's frustrating. People with real knowledge and solid points eventually just give up and go back to reading Adobe files. Who wants to argue with a brick wall?

I feel like pseudofeminism wouldn't even work if it actually tried, mostly because what people point to as male discrimination is really just the leftover baggage from traditional gender roles in our families and society.

Brian Edwards78 said:Am I losing my mind here, or did we just completely skip celebrating the tenth anniversary of this Reddit community? 🤔

What would you even do? Ten days with Reddit completely offline? I guess I'd probably just stare at my phone waiting for something to happen, haha. Maybe I'd actually try being productive, though I doubt it would last long.

hollowtrucker77 said:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminazi

http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...erm=feminazism

http://antimisandry.com/chit-chat-ma...#axzz2EH1XI2tn

Even though my posts on here tend to vanish into thin air instantly—instead of getting an actual response or even just someone correcting the nonsense being peddled—I’m holding out hope that this one might actually stick around long enough for us to stop playing dumb and pretending that the term doesn't exist or isn't used in common conversation
And honestly, if anyone recognizes themselves in that description, well, they know it

Thanks for the links. So, I guess silentridge3 is actively using and defending a term popularized by Rush Limbaugh. And all three links pretty much confirm the term is used as a slur.

silentridge3, I guess your arguments about why something is "feminism" don't really mean much to me until people actually accept that term as a legitimate social science concept and define what it actually entails. Until then, it just feels like a cheap insult. In the context of a debate, using it is basically an application of Goodwin's Law. People throw that word around just to discredit whoever they're talking to and shut down the conversation, regardless of how valid the actual points are. Even some of the folks on this forum seem aware of that, since they write "fem(in)ism" as if there's even a difference. Honestly, it's kind of embarrassing to see people trying to justify that kind of rhetoric. Besides, you can argue against patriarchal discrimination against men in family law without needing to resort to those labels.

Nico, I'm actually glad the thread about the Politics section was closed. Hopefully, it stayed shut before the whole "fem(in)ism" thing turned into some huge trend.

silentridge3 said:You’re spreading the lie that these radicals should be called feminists.

When you look at the struggle for actual systemic and constitutional equality for men (for instance, during divorce proceedings, or under the state strategy, or when dealing with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and things like that), it wouldn't make sense to label the deviant behavior of certain women or a deviant system as feminism, since that isn't what feminism is. So, maybe it’s helpful to have a specific term that refers exclusively to that deviant behavior and that deviant system. That term is feminacism, which is a distinct concept from feminism.

This kind of reminds me of that old joke about the good and bad Native American.

Your post just reinforces my feeling that "femnacism" is really just a hate term used to provoke and justify hostility during a debate. It feels like the most basic ad hominem attack. Especially since people seem to ignore standard definitions of feminism, choosing instead to interpret everything solely through their own lens regarding men being marginalized in modern society, which seems pretty arbitrary to me. It makes real discussion almost impossible because the terms aren't even clear, and then anything someone says can just be dismissed as "femnacism" if it doesn't fit the argument.

The reason I even jumped into this conversation wasn't to debate social movements on a government agency forum, but rather to point out how certain terms slip past the moderators. It's basically a conversation killer and an insult to an entire social group (even if they are radical feminists). I honestly wonder how your quoted post would have been treated if you were talking about Jews or Black Americans.

Sean Cook2 said:Lately, I’ve noticed that women participating in discussions about feminism or violence against women—even when they aren't saying anything objectively offensive—are being labeled "feminacists" without any real consequence.

Based on what I’ve seen here, it seems like this kind of insulting language is being tolerated—which is interesting, to say the least. I’d actually appreciate an explicit stance from the administration on this matter. At what point does calling someone a "feminacist" become a violation of the rules on this forum?

The feminist state strategy—well, it’s certainly something. It’s nothing more than a slur—plain and simple. Allowing the use of such pejoratives is a mistake. The current feminist state strategy—if you can even call it that—is becoming quite a spectacle. It’s essentially the same as permitting the use of certain terms—though one could argue the distinction is thin at best. A total chauvinistic pig. And even the sheer weight of the words themselves matters—if you catch my drift. Absolute pig. Less impactful than the words themselves—if that makes any sense. racist.

Is it actually permissible to call someone a male chauvinist pig? Or—at the very least—just a male chauvinist.

It's especially frustrating because people use that slur to basically shut down anyone with a different opinion—like, nothing a "femnacist" says matters because they're just dismissed by the label. Then, the whole thread just turns into a venting session about women, emancipation in general, or just complaining about how hard life is for men these days... mostly because of these "femnacists." I guess when someone tries to join a debate like that, they just end up triggering another cycle of insults and self-pity instead of an actual discussion (rip).

It feels a little absurd that potentially interesting conversations are getting killed off by people rushing to apply Godwin's law.