William Bennett53 said:Let us attempt this once more...
Anyone willing to dig through the archives of the PŽK will easily stumble upon several lengthy debates—mostly initiated by Goldman Sachs and Felixxaa, if one wishes to search more efficiently—regarding the controversial practice of closing threads centered on threats to men's rights and gender (in)equity (which, naturally, comes at the expense of men). Perhaps I was overly brief in my initial response to my colleague Goldman Sachs; he is, after all, quite well acquainted with the administration's stance on these matters.
Beyond the PŽK, discussions on this subject are frequently held among the moderators themselves, and I must admit there have been some dissonant "tones" even within our ranks. After all, it is hardly disputable that there are instances where men receive the short end of the stick simply because they are men. We know this happens, and we all recognize it as a reality. In fact, most of us likely personally know a man who suffered unfairly during a divorce due to the biases of the courts or other governing bodies. Similar issues occasionally arise regarding domestic violence, employment stability, and elsewhere. We even have legislative precedents that are demonstrably discriminatory. Therefore, it is clear that a similar topic could, and perhaps should, exist somewhere on this forum.
Why, then, is it absent? The recurring issue—and it is not that we haven't tried—is that every one of these topics rapidly devolves into a circus of vile trolling, falsehoods, manipulation, sweeping generalizations, and hate speech directed at women. Such behavior cannot and must not be permitted. Now, many will ask: why not simply curb such conduct through moderation to steer the discussion back to its intended purpose? Well, closing a thread is also a moderating action, and thus far, it has proven to be the only effective tool in these circumstances. Just as the immigration thread on the main board had to be shuttered after two attempts because participants simply could not refrain from xenophobia, racism, fascism, and personal insults, threads on the Politics board have consistently been closed when users exploited the topic of male discrimination as a vehicle for misogyny.
Perhaps there is another way; Pringles noted in her addition to the previous thread that the moderators are revisiting this discussion. It might be possible to prevent hate speech in a manner similar to how order was recently restored on the Politics board regarding the vaccination debate, but that would necessitate extremely rigid moderation and constant oversight. Consequently, this would inevitably trigger fresh outcries regarding censorship, perceived bias, and perhaps even more nonsense concerning the sexual orientation of participants or moderators. In any case, the discussion is ongoing; it is happening, but this is simply the reality of the situation.
As for Nancy Pelosi and her statement, no one has any objection to opening a thread about her or what she said. That particular thread was closed because of the manner in which it was opened, not because anyone felt the need to shield a secondary political figure.
I mean, look, I think we can all agree that there really ought to be a dedicated space on this forum—and honestly, in society at large—to talk about the systemic discrimination men face these days. But it’s just not there. It’s almost like this one specific topic is met with a total wall of silence around here, you know? It feels like the one subject that gets systematically shut down more than anything else, which is pretty strange if you think about it.
William Bennett53 said:Let us attempt this once more...
Anyone willing to dig through the archives of the PŽK will easily stumble upon several lengthy debates—mostly initiated by Goldman Sachs and Felixxaa, if one wishes to search more efficiently—regarding the controversial practice of closing threads centered on threats to men's rights and gender (in)equity (which, naturally, comes at the expense of men). Perhaps I was overly brief in my initial response to my colleague Goldman Sachs; he is, after all, quite well acquainted with the administration's stance on these matters.
Beyond the PŽK, discussions on this subject are frequently held among the moderators themselves, and I must admit there have been some dissonant "tones" even within our ranks. After all, it is hardly disputable that there are instances where men receive the short end of the stick simply because they are men. We know this happens, and we all recognize it as a reality. In fact, most of us likely personally know a man who suffered unfairly during a divorce due to the biases of the courts or other governing bodies. Similar issues occasionally arise regarding domestic violence, employment stability, and elsewhere. We even have legislative precedents that are demonstrably discriminatory. Therefore, it is clear that a similar topic could, and perhaps should, exist somewhere on this forum.
Why, then, is it absent? The recurring issue—and it is not that we haven't tried—is that every one of these topics rapidly devolves into a circus of vile trolling, falsehoods, manipulation, sweeping generalizations, and hate speech directed at women. Such behavior cannot and must not be permitted. Now, many will ask: why not simply curb such conduct through moderation to steer the discussion back to its intended purpose? Well, closing a thread is also a moderating action, and thus far, it has proven to be the only effective tool in these circumstances. Just as the immigration thread on the main board had to be shuttered after two attempts because participants simply could not refrain from xenophobia, racism, fascism, and personal insults, threads on the Politics board have consistently been closed when users exploited the topic of male discrimination as a vehicle for misogyny.
Perhaps there is another way; Pringles noted in her addition to the previous thread that the moderators are revisiting this discussion. It might be possible to prevent hate speech in a manner similar to how order was recently restored on the Politics board regarding the vaccination debate, but that would necessitate extremely rigid moderation and constant oversight. Consequently, this would inevitably trigger fresh outcries regarding censorship, perceived bias, and perhaps even more nonsense concerning the sexual orientation of participants or moderators. In any case, the discussion is ongoing; it is happening, but this is simply the reality of the situation.
As for Nancy Pelosi and her statement, no one has any objection to opening a thread about her or what she said. That particular thread was closed because of the manner in which it was opened, not because anyone felt the need to shield a secondary political figure.
That’s just not true, honestly. If you’d just take a second to actually go back and look through those threads—especially everything that's been blowing up lately—you'd see that...
There’s absolutely no trolling going on here, and I won't stand for any insults toward women or that whole misogynistic vibe....well, certainly not in any significant amount, I suppose.
I mean, look, I don't actually write anything about women, and I certainly don't go around saying nasty things about them. I don't hold any ill will toward women or anything like that; my whole stance is really just that we need to have clear, straightforward equality across the board.
What people are really getting worked up about—and honestly, I find myself joining in on the criticism too, maybe using even harsher language than most—is basically...
It’s always the same pattern, isn't it? You see these specific ideologies taking hold, then certain bureaucratic bodies start swelling up to enforce them, followed by a handful of public figures stepping into the spotlight to champion the cause, and eventually, it all culminates in these very specific laws being passed. It feels like a predictable cycle, I guess, where one thing just inevitably leads to the next, though maybe I’m just being overly cynical about how the whole system operates.So, this is where we finally hit the actual heart of the matter—that core issue that I guess the moderators just can't seem to wrap their heads around, no matter how much you explain it.
The chairwoman of the congressional committee is a politician. And then you have the gender equality ombudsman...
It feels like someone was just hand-picked for this role based on pure political maneuvering rather than actually having any idea what they're doing. It’s that classic move where the appointment is all about optics and playing the game, I guess. You can almost see the strings being pulled behind the scenes to make sure everything fits the party line, which usually means actual competence takes a backseat to whoever's most useful to the establishment at the moment. It's just one of those things that makes you roll your eyes, honestly.Both of them are essentially working political gigs on our behalf, supposedly acting for the common good—and yeah, I suppose that includes looking out for men too. But if they aren't actually delivering on those promises, then I feel like it’s not just okay to call them out, it’s absolutely necessary.
It’s really just about calling out incompetence when you see it, I suppose, which seems to be a recurring theme whenever you deal with any public figure or political appointee in this country. It’s the same old story, isn't it? You look at these people in office and you realize that pointing out when they aren't actually doing their jobs—or worse, when they're actively failing at them—is just part of the deal we have to deal with, much like any other high-profile official in America.Honestly, I couldn't care less about all those endless "sociological analyses of men and women" people love to drone on about; what actually matters to me is...
I wonder if these key figures fighting for men's rights and women's rights actually care about both sides with the same level of intensity—because if they don't, then I guess we’re really looking at a top-tier political issue, isn't that just the way it goes?It’s the same story with those legal provisions, too; they seem pretty obviously at odds with the Constitution, I guess.
If you honestly believe that certain topics—things like modern ideology, those politically appointed gender equality ombudsmen, or laws that seem specifically designed to discriminate against men—are strictly off-limits, wrapped up in some kind of unspoken code of silence to prevent anyone from actually talking about them, then just say so plainly. I mean, if you want to shut down every single debate by hiding behind this preemptive excuse of "stopping alleged hate speech against women," then just be upfront about it, because there’s hardly any actual misogyny to begin with; I guess you could easily just toss out the occasional outlier and move on. But if the goal is to kill the conversation before it starts, just tell me straight, and I'll stop posting altogether.
William Bennett53 said:Let us attempt this once more...
Anyone willing to dig through the archives of the PŽK will easily stumble upon several lengthy debates—mostly initiated by Goldman Sachs and Felixxaa, if one wishes to search more efficiently—regarding the controversial practice of closing threads centered on threats to men's rights and gender (in)equity (which, naturally, comes at the expense of men). Perhaps I was overly brief in my initial response to my colleague Goldman Sachs; he is, after all, quite well acquainted with the administration's stance on these matters.
Beyond the PŽK, discussions on this subject are frequently held among the moderators themselves, and I must admit there have been some dissonant "tones" even within our ranks. After all, it is hardly disputable that there are instances where men receive the short end of the stick simply because they are men. We know this happens, and we all recognize it as a reality. In fact, most of us likely personally know a man who suffered unfairly during a divorce due to the biases of the courts or other governing bodies. Similar issues occasionally arise regarding domestic violence, employment stability, and elsewhere. We even have legislative precedents that are demonstrably discriminatory. Therefore, it is clear that a similar topic could, and perhaps should, exist somewhere on this forum.
Why, then, is it absent? The recurring issue—and it is not that we haven't tried—is that every one of these topics rapidly devolves into a circus of vile trolling, falsehoods, manipulation, sweeping generalizations, and hate speech directed at women. Such behavior cannot and must not be permitted. Now, many will ask: why not simply curb such conduct through moderation to steer the discussion back to its intended purpose? Well, closing a thread is also a moderating action, and thus far, it has proven to be the only effective tool in these circumstances. Just as the immigration thread on the main board had to be shuttered after two attempts because participants simply could not refrain from xenophobia, racism, fascism, and personal insults, threads on the Politics board have consistently been closed when users exploited the topic of male discrimination as a vehicle for misogyny.
Perhaps there is another way; Pringles noted in her addition to the previous thread that the moderators are revisiting this discussion. It might be possible to prevent hate speech in a manner similar to how order was recently restored on the Politics board regarding the vaccination debate, but that would necessitate extremely rigid moderation and constant oversight. Consequently, this would inevitably trigger fresh outcries regarding censorship, perceived bias, and perhaps even more nonsense concerning the sexual orientation of participants or moderators. In any case, the discussion is ongoing; it is happening, but this is simply the reality of the situation.
As for Nancy Pelosi and her statement, no one has any objection to opening a thread about her or what she said. That particular thread was closed because of the manner in which it was opened, not because anyone felt the need to shield a secondary political figure.
I mean, I’m really not sure what the "correct" way to bring up Nancy Tierley’s sexist outburst is supposed to be. But I definitely think anyone—even a moderator, for that matter—should feel free to reopen this exact same topic (you know, regarding the sexist slip-up by the gender equality ombudsman) if they just do it the "right" way.
PS:
- If we’re following the logic that any thread capable of attracting trolls (like those party activists on the politics forum) should be deleted immediately, then you might as well just wipe out 90% of the existing threads right now.
- And if it’s somehow considered unacceptable to use a critical prefix like "so-called" when talking about a gender equality ombudsman who seems only interested in one specific gender—which, mind you, is exactly why a moderator flagged me, gave me a warning, and locked things down—then maybe consider that such a prefix isn't "misogyny," but rather just a critique of a specific POLITICAL individual. I guess you could look at how people normally label figures like Mason, Josipović, Milanović, or Varga on other threads in the politics forum, among all the various politicians and public figures mentioned there. Out of the thousands of insults like "idiot" or "moron" that fly around, using "so-called" really shouldn't be treated like some massive transgression.
