Men - is this a forbidden topic?

And here is what Dorian says:

We aren't going to allow any more threads regarding men's political rights in America because, time and again, they just spiral into pure misogyny.

But if you ask me, 😲

Let's try swapping out the word "men" for "women" in that sentence and see how it lands. It sounds pretty bad, doesn't it?

Wouldn't it be more fair for the moderators to step in and stop topics from veering off track rather than just banning any conversation about men's rights altogether?

Ehhh, I guess if a woman had written this instead of a man, some high-profile civil rights lawyer would’ve already been flooded with emails about it 👍 Even here in the States, you'd see hundreds of people whining and signing petitions, but instead? Just a total shrug. Nobody seems to give a damn. 😳

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.

Good grief, you guys have everything at your disposal—warnings, bans, suspensions, the whole nine yards. If you’re going to police hate speech, at least do it with some actual consistency. It seems like it’s much easier to hand out bans and wipes whenever someone’s backside gets called out. You become lightning fast at hitting the delete button just to scrub any evidence of the fallout.

It’s your job to moderate, which really means steering the conversation so it doesn't spiral out of control. I get that it's tough; it’s definitely not a role for everyone... but maybe take a beat, talk it over, and think before acting. Let's try to avoid more of these ridiculous situations. 👍

I honestly don't get it. If someone’s being insulting or acting out, just give them a warning or hand out a penalty right away. Lay out the rules clearly, explain the process, and let's move on. Look, you've got a hundred different people here with a hundred different ways of thinking, and your whole job is to balance that out, keep things orderly, and actually make sure the conversation keeps moving.

Maybe I'm off base here, but this doesn't feel like much of an issue to me. Sure, your judgment as a moderator is huge, but if you're going to step up and take on that role, shouldn't you actually learn how to do it? You need to set aside your own personal biases and be objective. In a forum setting, that means embracing everyone's perspective instead of trying to kill off any kind of culture. It sounds simple enough, but it’s clearly a struggle when you put inexperienced kids with zero life experience or actual wisdom in charge of judging and shaping the community.

The thing is, when it comes to your own posts—all those threats about bans and red cards... you guys aren't always acting very classy yourselves.

Cheers.🙂

Joseph Bailey41 said:Good grief, you guys have everything at your disposal—warnings, bans, suspensions, the whole nine yards. If you’re going to police hate speech, at least do it with some actual consistency. It seems like it’s much easier to hand out bans and wipes whenever someone’s backside gets called out. You become lightning fast at hitting the delete button just to scrub any evidence of the fallout.

It’s your job to moderate, which really means steering the conversation so it doesn't spiral out of control. I get that it's tough; it’s definitely not a role for everyone... but maybe take a beat, talk it over, and think before acting. Let's try to avoid more of these ridiculous situations. 👍

Which specific part of this isn't clicking for you?

closing a thread is just another moderator tactic, and it's pretty much been the only thing that actually works in situations like this. Just like how on Reddit, after two tries, they had to lock down the immigration threads because users simply wouldn't stop spiraling into xenophobia, racism, fascism, and straight-up personal attacks, similar threads on Politics have always been shut down once people started using "men's rights" as a thin veil to spew hatred toward women.

Let me break it down for you...

What Dorian was making crystal clear is that none of those tools—the warnings, the bans, the whole circus—actually work if a thread is destined to turn into total chaos regardless. Whether it's misogyny, xenophobia, racism, or whatever else...

If 90% of the people interested in a topic are acting like reasonable adults, then getting rid of that toxic 10% is easy...
But there are certain topics where 90% of the posts are complete garbage, and at that point, the tools, the warnings, the bans, and the three hundred other tricks don't mean a thing. There’s really no point in trying to delete 90% of the posts or banning 90% of the users in a single thread... I shouldn't even have to explain why that's a losing battle. So, if—and I'm speaking generally here, not about any one specific instance—after all the warnings, the temporary locks, the pleas, and the appeals, a thread is still just veering in one forbidden direction, then there's really no reason to keep it open...

They weren't delivering results because you guys weren't even using them properly. It’s honestly that simple if you actually understand how things work and why they happen.

It’s good that we're on the same page. So, what's the actual plan here? Are you just going to sit back and wait for AI to come along and handle the moderation for you?

No need for moderation, besides, the rest isn't really our concern...🙂

Look, I’m just an ordinary regular here, and honestly, I'm just looking to have a good time.
And let's be real, we all know blondes always have the most fun. 😍

Moderation is a whole different ballgame; you practically need a specialized brain for that job. Otherwise, you end up with chaos like what happened in the thread about Nancy Tieley. Dorian explained it perfectly—it's just a pattern that keeps repeating itself. Someone opens a "controversial topic," a bunch of angry, misogynistic trolls show up with their little army of clones, and before you know it, the whole discussion is unrecognizable. Instead of actually thinking about who is posting and why they're doing it, moderators just react by locking or deleting the thread.

The rights of men are a serious matter, and we need to approach that topic with wisdom and civility rather than falling for cheap provocations.

Need some help? Don't know how to handle topics that aren't strictly limited to beer, shaving, or remote controls? Feel free to speak up; I'm sure someone else here will lend a hand. There's no shame in not knowing something—the shame is in being too afraid to ask.

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.

ZK - Women's Corner

If you felt the need to shut down that political discussion over in the women's section—where, let's face it, there’s a higher concentration of women than in the general politics threads—simply because the debate regarding immigration turned toxic and hateful, does it not stand to reason that we might see that exact same pattern elsewhere? I mean, if we look at those other political discussions where it isn't just women participating, but also professional feminists, isn't it entirely possible that we will encounter that same level of hate speech and provocation coming from their side as well?

You’re constantly bringing up this idea of "misogyny," but it feels like you're always quick to point the finger at just one side of the argument, especially whenever we dive into topics that actually challenge the status quo. Is it just me, or does it seem like the blame is always shifted toward one specific group whenever things get uncomfortable? modernisticki It’s funny how it always seems to work out that way, isn't it? You look at these situations and you see this recurring pattern where people just reflexively point the finger, convinced that one side is inherently wrong while the other is somehow beyond reproach. It’s like there’s this deep-seated tendency to believe that only one party is ever at fault, regardless of the actual facts on the ground. Why is it so hard for anyone to consider that maybe, just maybe, things are more complicated than a simple binary of good versus evil?😉

Joseph Bailey41 said:Look, I’m just an ordinary regular here, and honestly, I'm just looking to have a good time.
And let's be real, we all know blondes always have the most fun. 😍

Moderation is a whole different ballgame; you practically need a specialized brain for that job. Otherwise, you end up with chaos like what happened in the thread about Nancy Tieley. Dorian explained it perfectly—it's just a pattern that keeps repeating itself. Someone opens a "controversial topic," a bunch of angry, misogynistic trolls show up with their little army of clones, and before you know it, the whole discussion is unrecognizable. Instead of actually thinking about who is posting and why they're doing it, moderators just react by locking or deleting the thread.

The rights of men are a serious matter, and we need to approach that topic with wisdom and civility rather than falling for cheap provocations.

Need some help? Don't know how to handle topics that aren't strictly limited to beer, shaving, or remote controls? Feel free to speak up; I'm sure someone else here will lend a hand. There's no shame in not knowing something—the shame is in being too afraid to ask.

The bolded part is the issue. And so is what Nancy Tieley stated—which, in this specific instance, amounts to nothing less than blatant, primitive sexist hate speech.
One has to wonder where equality, freedom of speech, and all those other principles go when things don't align with what the major human rights activists want to hear...

mistyjackal14 said:ZK - Women's Corner

If you felt the need to shut down that political discussion over in the women's section—where, let's face it, there’s a higher concentration of women than in the general politics threads—simply because the debate regarding immigration turned toxic and hateful, does it not stand to reason that we might see that exact same pattern elsewhere? I mean, if we look at those other political discussions where it isn't just women participating, but also professional feminists, isn't it entirely possible that we will encounter that same level of hate speech and provocation coming from their side as well?

You’re constantly bringing up this idea of "misogyny," but it feels like you're always quick to point the finger at just one side of the argument, especially whenever we dive into topics that actually challenge the status quo. Is it just me, or does it seem like the blame is always shifted toward one specific group whenever things get uncomfortable? modernisticki It’s funny how it always seems to work out that way, isn't it? You look at these situations and you see this recurring pattern where people just reflexively point the finger, convinced that one side is inherently wrong while the other is somehow beyond reproach. It’s like there’s this deep-seated tendency to believe that only one party is ever at fault, regardless of the actual facts on the ground. Why is it so hard for anyone to consider that maybe, just maybe, things are more complicated than a simple binary of good versus evil?😉

@Joseph Bailey41, I generally agree with you—don't get me wrong—but look, this specific quote of yours is ALWAYS, and I mean ALWAYS, the starting point for any "debate" regarding gender inequality that actually includes men in the conversation.

Some guy like mistyjackal14 swoops in, and suddenly red alerts go off the second anyone mentions, say, professional feminists.

I'd bet anything that I could write out the next seven or eight (pretty long) posts from this mistyjackal14 guy, depending on which part of his off-topic rant someone decided to latch onto.

I actually wanted to have a real discussion about this once; there wasn't much interest in the Women's Corner, except for the usual group, and over in the politics section, it was the exact same thing every single time—just those five guys rambling indignantly about feminists or whatever other nonsense term they managed to come up with... 🙂🙂🙂

Mods, I really hope you can find some way, any way, to clear out this weeds... because this topic matters. Especially when we're talking about divorce, custody, and asset division—it feels like certain types of discrimination are actually supported by the system, or at least by the individuals who represent it. It’s incredibly frustrating that because of a handful of haters, we haven't been able to have a productive conversation about such an important issue for over a year and a half... 😢

stormyraven14 - look, you actually get it. You should just start a thread... why not?
The thing is, when threads are set up this way, it inevitably triggers these kinds of arguments.
Just open a discussion about this very real issue without having the opening post basically scream, "if a man said this, everyone would lose their minds," or "this place is a women-only zone where men are oppressed," and so on...
A thread without all that baggage might MAYBE be a little easier to moderate...

But some people still aren't catching on. It’s pointless to keep moderating a thread where 90 or 95 percent of the participants are just being misogynistic. If you can only find two or three posts over three pages that actually stick to the topic instead of using it as an excuse to bash women, then there’s no sense in expecting those two or three posts to somehow stop the endless cycle of deleting and banning trolls and haters. It just means the thread hasn't really taken off—other than as a troll magnet, which we usually shut down. If a topic actually gains traction in a meaningful way, rather than just through the stuff we've clearly banned, then we’d be talking about something else entirely...

stormyraven14 said:@Joseph Bailey41, I generally agree with you—don't get me wrong—but look, this specific quote of yours is ALWAYS, and I mean ALWAYS, the starting point for any "debate" regarding gender inequality that actually includes men in the conversation.

Some guy like mistyjackal14 swoops in, and suddenly red alerts go off the second anyone mentions, say, professional feminists.

I'd bet anything that I could write out the next seven or eight (pretty long) posts from this mistyjackal14 guy, depending on which part of his off-topic rant someone decided to latch onto.

I actually wanted to have a real discussion about this once; there wasn't much interest in the Women's Corner, except for the usual group, and over in the politics section, it was the exact same thing every single time—just those five guys rambling indignantly about feminists or whatever other nonsense term they managed to come up with... 🙂🙂🙂

Mods, I really hope you can find some way, any way, to clear out this weeds... because this topic matters. Especially when we're talking about divorce, custody, and asset division—it feels like certain types of discrimination are actually supported by the system, or at least by the individuals who represent it. It’s incredibly frustrating that because of a handful of haters, we haven't been able to have a productive conversation about such an important issue for over a year and a half... 😢

Exactly.

@ Laura Chavez93, you’re a feminist and I’m a masculinist, so I think we actually see eye to eye on a few things. 😬

@ stormyraven14: I get what you're saying. It just doesn't make sense to me why certain people aren't slapped with a permanent ban or blacklisted, yet some legal expert gets banned just for daring to speculate about Dorian's sexual orientation. Honestly, I don't really care who is sleeping with whom. My main issue is that there shouldn't be any sacred cows here—hate speech needs to be called out immediately and dealt with properly.

@ lonebadger6: I don't really watch TV, so I doubt we have much left to chat about. Sorry about that.

🤦 Did you pick up the seventh-grade textbooks yet? 🤦

Joseph Bailey41 said:@ Laura Chavez93, you’re a feminist and I’m a masculinist, so I think we actually see eye to eye on a few things. 😬

@ stormyraven14: I get what you're saying. It just doesn't make sense to me why certain people aren't slapped with a permanent ban or blacklisted, yet some legal expert gets banned just for daring to speculate about Dorian's sexual orientation. Honestly, I don't really care who is sleeping with whom. My main issue is that there shouldn't be any sacred cows here—hate speech needs to be called out immediately and dealt with properly.

@ lonebadger6: I don't really watch TV, so I doubt we have much left to chat about. Sorry about that.

You don't get much of anything, let alone this. You clearly haven't noticed that people actually *do* get flagged and banned, though you haven't given anyone any reason to think they wouldn't be...

There’s plenty of stuff highlighted in this thread; everything you need is right there in front of you, and you've already had your answers. The Attorney General isn't here to hold everyone's hand and explain things that are perfectly obvious, whether you find them confusing because you're bored or for some other reason...

Look, if this wasn't so incredibly nonsensical, there wouldn't even be a thread here. I'm not the type of person who only looks out for their own interests.

Some people clearly didn't get shut down hard enough the first time. Otherwise, they wouldn't still be out there trolling where they don't belong.

The fundamental issue with all these threads is the attempt to link misogyny directly to any criticism leveled against feminism as an ideology.

Ideological assumptions are nothing more than the product of indoctrination, whereas sex is simply the result of a biological lottery that no individual can influence (at least, not yet).

Because of this, we have to separate critiques of an ideology from critiques based on race, nationality, or gender diversity.

At its core, every ideology targets a specific group of people to serve as both its primary motivation and its alibi for the actions taken by ideologically indoctrinated groups. Some have chosen race (Nazism), some have chosen class (Communism), and others have chosen gender (Feminism).

Therefore, conflating misogyny with criticisms of feminism is merely a convenient excuse to enforce censorship and maintain a politically correct illusion—whether we are talking about the society in our physical surroundings or the community within our virtual spaces.

I have posed this question several times: is it even permissible to debate feminist ideology or to direct criticism toward an ideological movement that calls for legislation that directly harms men?

I have never received a clear answer.

So, I am asking again. Does Forum.hr permit a discussion regarding the ideology of feminism?

Is it acceptable to discuss the political aspects of the problems men face—problems that are the direct consequence of laws crafted by ideological groups that claim to represent women?

In principle, you're spot on, but the issue is that this specific way of arguing frames feminism as the dominant ideology in American and global society, which eventually spirals into misogyny and turns into nothing more than a festival of pure hatred toward women...

Just as people would be called out if they claimed the U.S. Government was racist, xenophobic, or Nazi, suggesting we live in a feminist utopia where men are being persecuted is really just a slightly less loud form of trolling...

There are certain areas of life where women face disadvantages, and there are certainly, quite clearly, areas where men are left behind too. Why discussions about women's struggles thrive here while topics regarding men's setbacks never seem to gain traction—well, that’s a question the Forum.hr administration isn't interested in answering...

You've put together a very high-quality, well-argued post, so I highly doubt you need me to explain that there is no conspiracy against men on Forum.hr, though I'm sure even a superficial glance at a topic from "each side" would give you the answer...

lonebadger6 said:In principle, you're spot on, but the issue is that this specific way of arguing frames feminism as the dominant ideology in American and global society, which eventually spirals into misogyny and turns into nothing more than a festival of pure hatred toward women...

Just as people would be called out if they claimed the U.S. Government was racist, xenophobic, or Nazi, suggesting we live in a feminist utopia where men are being persecuted is really just a slightly less loud form of trolling...

There are certain areas of life where women face disadvantages, and there are certainly, quite clearly, areas where men are left behind too. Why discussions about women's struggles thrive here while topics regarding men's setbacks never seem to gain traction—well, that’s a question the Forum.hr administration isn't interested in answering...

You've put together a very high-quality, well-argued post, so I highly doubt you need me to explain that there is no conspiracy against men on Forum.hr, though I'm sure even a superficial glance at a topic from "each side" would give you the answer...

off
this kind of bolded stuff passes on Politics.
it slips through

Joseph Bailey41 writes

Good grief, you guys have tools, warnings, bans, three hundred different ways to punish people. Just judge hate speech based on what it actually deserves.

The reality is that on many threads, the very first post that deviates—saying "off-topic," etc.— should immediately be "flagged" or penalized

but that implies one thing: there aren't enough moderators.
Because threads would need to be monitored 24/7/365.

Or—when the mods show up, say, in the morning or whenever they find a neglected thread, they'd have to wipe all the inappropriate content, hand out points, warnings, and so on.
Then, after a week of total dictatorship, 🙂 maybe people would finally start thinking before they type.
Then the mods relax a bit, and someone inevitably decides to restart the whole cycle of strict rule enforcement.

So, either we'll learn some civility, or we'll just find a different forum where we can argue and troll to our heart's content.