I'm a bit slow, can someone explain?

Come on, people, let’s take a breath here.
Just because this brand of political correctness is sweeping through the decaying West doesn't mean we have to mimic their nonsense with such mindless devotion.

Regarding the post in question, there is objectively and realistically absolutely nothing in there that warrants even five points, let alone a 500-point penalty.

I don't follow the author's usual work closely enough to comment on their history, but this ruling is an absolute embarrassment for the site administration. It feels almost as if someone decided to make us look like fools in front of the neighbors, much like how Kolinda used to handle things... 🕺

I’m honestly glad someone finally decided to step in regarding what was being said over there. It was certainly about time, too. I mean, slapping a 500-point penalty and labeling it hate speech feels a bit draconian and, frankly, pretty bizarre to me. There were plenty of posts involving trolling or sexism—maybe around 35 of them, if you have those logs handy—mostly coming from various users and even this one right here, yet they were just ignored. But now that the punishments have started, it feels like things are being handled without much critical thought at all. I guess it would be better if we could find some sort of middle ground, rather than trying to compensate for everything that was previously allowed by overcorrecting on a single post.

I’m with the mod on this one. That Trumpian argument is just plain wrong—and honestly, pretty sexist. To claim that since the 1960s, women shouldn't be offended by statements like "I can only offend patriarchal women" because "after the sexual revolution of the 60s, it just became part of the slang—and reality, for God's sake"—is basically just trying to normalize sexism. It’s the same logic used when they say, "The most viewed content online is porn... so why are we making a fuss about 'grab a pussy'?" So, according to him (and clearly everyone else who isn't seeing the issue here), the fact that porn dominates the internet proves that women actually *agree* with being objectified? I have no idea where people get the notion that reducing women to sexual objects is somehow widely accepted or supported by women—especially those who fought for emancipation after the 60s. But hey, I guess I can understand the men who either don't care or are just playing dumb to avoid seeing the problem.

placidorca16 said:I think the moderator is right here. That Trumpian argument is just plain wrong and sexist. To claim that after Trump said "I can only offend patriarchal women", women shouldn't really be offended by stuff like that anymore because "following the sexual revolution of the 60s, it just became part of the slang, and frankly, reality too"... well, that’s just straight-up making excuses for sexism and suggesting we should accept it as "normal." It’s even reinforced by the follow-up: "The most viewed content online is porn... so now we're out here talking about 'grab a pussy'." So, according to him (and clearly everyone else who doesn't see an issue here), the fact that porn dominates the internet somehow proves that women are totally fine with their bodies and personalities being objectified?! I guess I don't know where some people get the idea that reducing women to sexual objects is a widely accepted fact supported by women—the very same women who fought for emancipation during the 60s. But then again, maybe I can understand the men who aren't affected by this and either don't see a problem or are just playing dumb?

My thoughts are pretty much heading in that same direction, and I actually find it quite refreshing that a man was the one to point it out.👍
Maybe Jones was just clumsy with his wording, but he had to have known his post could be read this way. If someone is well-versed in language, they know what they're doing. So, in my opinion, the ban is justified.

placidorca16 said:I’m with the moderator on this one. That Trumpian claim is just plain wrong and sexist. To suggest that after Trump's comment, "I can only offend patriarchal women", women haven't had much reason to be upset since the 1960s because "after the sexual revolution of the 60s, that kind of talk became part of the slang, and honestly, it's reality" is just making excuses for sexism and trying to pass it off as "normal." It goes even further with the statement: "The most viewed content on the internet is pornography... so why are we blowing things out of proportion over 'grab a pussy'?" So, according to him—and clearly everyone else who doesn't see an issue here—the fact that pornography dominates the web somehow proves that women agree with the objectification of their bodies and personalities?! I really don't get where some people get the idea that reducing women to sexual objects is an accepted or widely supported fact by women (especially those who fought for empowerment during the 1960s sexual revolution). But then again, I suppose I can understand the men who aren't affected by it and either don't see the problem or are simply playing dumb.

Excuse me, but women *are* sexual objects. That doesn't mean they aren't also other things, and nobody in the post actually implied otherwise.

This whole thread is nonsense. I've been on this forum for ten years now, and I haven't seen such a massive blunder ☕

William Bennett53 said:Following an extensive deliberation between two senior moderators and the site administrator, as well as a consultation with our moderator, it has been decided that this thread should be unbanned and replaced with a milder penalty for trolling.
While we respect the moderator's perspective—an opinion shared by many within our Politics section and indeed across the entire platform—regarding the context of the flagged post, the consensus remains that hate speech on this forum requires a clear, demonstrable intent to spread animosity toward a specific group. There is no question that the post was provocative and intended to troll; however, based on our review of the user's actual words, we cannot definitively conclude that the threshold for hate speech was met. In keeping with our established practice of giving the benefit of the doubt to users in ambiguous situations, we will proceed accordingly.

With this self-quote to clarify the situation, I shall bring this discussion to a close.