ATTENTION! Petition to Introduce Guidelines Against Slander
Unfortunately, we have seen the deleterious effects that public slander can have in creating divisions in this community twice already. The first time was when TimeLine accused me publicly of being the same person as "DP Brah" based on some private PMs she had received from him/her . When I pressed her to release those PMs, she refused and still maintained her accusation until intervention from other members in the community, leading to many posts having to be deleted. Then she finally apologised.
The second time has been just recently with @Mongrel's sudden, vicious, calumnious and violent accusations towards myself, which came out of nowhere. These were very hateful remarks, and incredibly false. Let's see a bunch:
Quoting Mongrel
Now Mongrel said I am a sexist. She also said everyone thinks I am a sexist in a PM. She said my sexist comments have been over the top. She said I want to see changes where women lose everything they've gained in the last century! So presumably, I want to see changes where women lose things like the right to vote in many countries. I would like to see some evidence to back up this extraordinary claim. She also said if I had my way, people like her would be disenfranchised and peripheralized - again, where the hell is this crap even coming from?! How does she know this? And if she doesn't, how come she dares to accuse someone of it?!
These are very vicious, disgusting and contemptible accusations that I wouldn't wish anyone to face. To tell you the truth, it seems to me like we're dealing with a person that has a serious problem with truth. A very vicious, resentful and hateful person, who likes to spread lies about other people and create a ruckus. And I find this unacceptable. This slanderous attempt to start a failed witch hunt should be condemned as harmful and unwelcome in a community like ours.
If someone has a concern they can state it without slander - without making disgustingly false statements in a repeated manner. This can be done respectfully and with dignity. She could have very easily said Agustino has made some comments that I find sexist (or even very sexist, depending on how she finds them). Let's look into them. But she didn't. She self-righteously proclaims that she is right, all the while slandering another member and making outrageous statements that have no bearing on reality whatsoever.
So let us define slander as "the action of making a series of false written statements damaging to a person's reputation".
The first time I was slandered, I reported it to the moderators and nothing was done. It seems like this is now becoming a pattern, which as I said before is very destructive. That is why this time I am posting this publicly instead of PMing a moderator. I think we should place slander amongst the guidelines to prevent any such future occurrence and to encourage people to behave decently and respectfully with each other.
I don't want Mongrel to be punished by the moderators in any way shape or form. I am absolutely fine with forgiving Mongrel for her rudeness and quite frankly for blatantly lying about me - with the condition that she apologises for it, or otherwise presents evidence to back up those outrageous claims. But to prevent such future instances, I think we must have guidelines against it. Thank you for your time reading this.
PLEASE NOTE THAT SINCE THE SEXISM THREAD WAS LOCKED BY THE MODERATORS THIS THREAD WILL NOT BE USED AS A PLACE TO DISCUSS SEXISM. Please use this thread just to discuss the introduction of slander guidelines.
The second time has been just recently with @Mongrel's sudden, vicious, calumnious and violent accusations towards myself, which came out of nowhere. These were very hateful remarks, and incredibly false. Let's see a bunch:
Mongrel:Historically his sexist comments have been over the top, so I doubt that will be an issue.
Mongrel:I had it all up on twitter at one point. I took it down. His sexism is principled. He would like to see changes (I suppose throughout the world) wherein women lose everything they've gained in last century or so. He associates these views with religion.
Quoting Mongrel
This is an example of how it works, actually. Agustino is sexist. If he had his way, people like me would be disenfranchised and peripheralized. The people who moderate this forum know that, but they don't care. Every time I see his posts, it just sinks in deeper and deeper with me: the moderators of this forum are just as sexist as he is. They have to be. Why else would they leave his nasty comments up?
Now Mongrel said I am a sexist. She also said everyone thinks I am a sexist in a PM. She said my sexist comments have been over the top. She said I want to see changes where women lose everything they've gained in the last century! So presumably, I want to see changes where women lose things like the right to vote in many countries. I would like to see some evidence to back up this extraordinary claim. She also said if I had my way, people like her would be disenfranchised and peripheralized - again, where the hell is this crap even coming from?! How does she know this? And if she doesn't, how come she dares to accuse someone of it?!
These are very vicious, disgusting and contemptible accusations that I wouldn't wish anyone to face. To tell you the truth, it seems to me like we're dealing with a person that has a serious problem with truth. A very vicious, resentful and hateful person, who likes to spread lies about other people and create a ruckus. And I find this unacceptable. This slanderous attempt to start a failed witch hunt should be condemned as harmful and unwelcome in a community like ours.
If someone has a concern they can state it without slander - without making disgustingly false statements in a repeated manner. This can be done respectfully and with dignity. She could have very easily said Agustino has made some comments that I find sexist (or even very sexist, depending on how she finds them). Let's look into them. But she didn't. She self-righteously proclaims that she is right, all the while slandering another member and making outrageous statements that have no bearing on reality whatsoever.
So let us define slander as "the action of making a series of false written statements damaging to a person's reputation".
The first time I was slandered, I reported it to the moderators and nothing was done. It seems like this is now becoming a pattern, which as I said before is very destructive. That is why this time I am posting this publicly instead of PMing a moderator. I think we should place slander amongst the guidelines to prevent any such future occurrence and to encourage people to behave decently and respectfully with each other.
I don't want Mongrel to be punished by the moderators in any way shape or form. I am absolutely fine with forgiving Mongrel for her rudeness and quite frankly for blatantly lying about me - with the condition that she apologises for it, or otherwise presents evidence to back up those outrageous claims. But to prevent such future instances, I think we must have guidelines against it. Thank you for your time reading this.
PLEASE NOTE THAT SINCE THE SEXISM THREAD WAS LOCKED BY THE MODERATORS THIS THREAD WILL NOT BE USED AS A PLACE TO DISCUSS SEXISM. Please use this thread just to discuss the introduction of slander guidelines.
Comments (106)
Quoting Agustino
First most of the statements she cited weren't deemed sexist, even by the moderators. There were only 2 that were under discussion.
Second of all, even if they were sexist, these statements are disgusting, slandarous and absolutely false:
Yes they were. Baden and one other moderator considered them sexist. Go ask him.
No, based on your sexist statements, Mongrel's statements were very legitimate presumptions, not slanderous at all.
Were they true statements? I want you to show me my sexist statements which show that:
Please. Where have I suggested women should lose the right to vote in many countries of the world? Where do my sexist comments suggest that this is what I intend?
Quoting John Harris
I'm pretty sure that when Mongrel linked about five of my statements, Baden said he considered it sexist only "towards the end". But this is besides the point. This thread isn't for discussing this. If you can't discuss slander guidelines without discussing sexism, then out you go, you have no business in this thread.
No, it's not beside the point; it backs up my point Baden did find your statements to be sexist. And I'm going anywhere. If you accuse Mongrel of slander, I'm going to rightly defend her by referring to your sexist statements because that's what her statements--you erroneously call slander--were about.
Maybe you should just not read any more of his posts in this thread. >:O
Sorry, you made it about Mongrel and sexism by bringing her up and wrongly using her as your main example.
Sorry, the OP doesn't get to censor or boss around other posters on the thread, and that includes you. Show me one place in the rules where it says you can do that. You can't.
Quoting John Harris
As the OP I can decide what is and isn't the topic of the thread. At the moment you're disrespecting my thread, and it's the third time I've asked you to stop.
Sorry, you, yourself, made if very clear it's about Mongrel and what she said in your massive passage below:
You can't write all that and then say it's not about Mongrel. That's dishonest.
Yes, and I now clarify that it's not about Mongrel. This is the fourth time. If you will not accept it, I can almost guarantee you that you will be punished (because it happened to me once). So please take note of this. You MUST respect the topic of the thread. As the OP, I decide what the topic is. You misunderstood my first post, the topic isn't Mongrel, it's slander guidelines. It says it very clearly actually:
Quoting Agustino
You can decide the topic of the thread, but you can't stop people from addressing what you yourself brought up, and you brought up Mongrel and accused her of slander. Sorry, you opened that door yourself.
This isn't a place to discuss Mongrel. If you want to discuss that, open your own thread please. This is the fifth time.
Sorry, until you take down what you said about Mongrel, it still is about her. So, take down what you said about her and I will stop talking about her.
It's now quite clear that you will belligerently ignore the topic of the thread. Fine.
Anyway, yes; I think slander guidlines would be fitting.
I don't think it's constructive for one member to accuse another of being this or that without properly defending their assertion. There's been a lot of, "you're a sexist", and not a lot of, "here's why." This is supposed to be a forum where extensive discussion flourishes, not a place where discussion gets replaced by insults.
I might add that if a poster takes issue with another on the grounds of apparent sexism or racism, then that's where the block/ignore function comes into effective play. Unless it's clear and obvious that a poster is a troll, is a sexist, is a racist, is a Nazi, etc., then I think the offended member ought to keep it to him or herself. Personally speaking, I don't have anyone blocked or ignored, but there are a few posters on here that I don't like and so don't read anything they write anymore. Although I'm guilty of not living up to this, I think it's better to say nothing instead of accusing someone of being such and such - even if you think it's true. Again, unless it's obvious, members can always message a moderator to get them to look at something.
To explain why I was motivated to bring up a petition to introduce guidelines against slander. The topic isn't about whether you agree that Mongrel slandered me or not, since that's irrelevant to whether you think we should have slander guidelines. Is that now more clear hopefully? The only reason why I had to give examples, not only Mongrel but also TimeLine is because this is a repeated thing, and it can get very ugly. So that makes me think we need slander guidelines.
Quoting Beebert
Thank you, if possible let's focus on discussing slander guidelines. Even for people who disagree that Mongrel slandered me, because deciding that is not the point of this thread.
Actually, when Mongrel was asked to show one of Agustino's racist posts, she did just that, and I provided another, and Baden thought both were sexist. So, that was not the case in her and Agustino's situation.
Quoting Agustino
This is important because this member has 6 times in a row refused to discuss the topic of the thread, and it's important. Don't derail the thread. You can start your own if you want to discuss surrounding issues.
No, I addressed the topic (as I always have) as I was addressing Buddha's post. Stop being hysterical.
And it's ironic and disgusting that you slandered Mongrel on your own "slander" thread:
Don't forget to vote on the poll on the first page, even though you've already voiced your opinion here, but it may be easier for the moderators to see all the data summed up there!
"Actually, when Mongrel was asked to show one of Agustino's racist posts, she did just that, and I provided another, and Baden thought both were sexist. So, that was not the case in her and Agustino's situation"
It took quite a while before you did though. Neither you nor Mongrel handled the situation well.
Oh, no, we handled It very well, and you haven't shown otherwise. However, you handled it very poorly by supporting Agustino in his sexist posts.
Pipe down, Beebert; you're not making your wrong stance right by getting hysterical. We didn't attack him. He wrote some horridly sexist posts and we rightly called them sexist. So, relax and save us the drama. It's not my fault you supported him in his sexist posts.
And he never apologized for those posts since he never admitted they were sexist, and they were.
That's your personal opinion, one with which Mongrel and I clearly don't agree. The only prejudices shown was Agustino's sexist posts, post with which you are unfortunately fine with. So, stop going around trying to impose your opinion on me or we will continue to debate the issue.
She didn't make a gigantic scene out of it;' Agustino did, freaking out and saying she was slandering him and demanding she back up her accusations, which she did. And now Agustino is continuing to throw a fit and having the gall to start his "anti-slander" thread by going on a slanderous rant against Mongrel. So, he was being very childish as were you by using this thread to take an erroneous swipe at me when I had said none of my disapproving feelings about how you had handled yourself.
No, he successfully branded himself with his sexist posts.
We don't have a courtroom to sort that kind of thing out. People should feel free to bring up stuff that bothers them. They should feel like the moderators will lend an unbiased ear.
Whether anything is done about a problem.. I guess that depends on how busy the moderators are with other things. Watching total eclipses and such.
Sure, but he hasn't admitted he was wrong or even admitted his posts were sexist. So, he's made it clear he has no interest in learning or changing and will probably make more sexist posts.
I didn't say you "attacked" me, so that own strong word was of your dishonest making. I said you took an erroneous swipe at me and you did. And don't tell me to shut up when you didn't shut up and opened your mouth to wrongly tell me I handled things poorly. So start the shutting up on your own end. And my understanding of Agustino's posts is a correct personal understanding. If you don't think saying women on TV secretly want to be groped by Trump and are a bunch of lying hypocrites isn't sexist, you are sexist yourself and have real problems.
But thanks for your apology. I don't see you as an enemy.
Except by failing to admit his sexist post was sexist and wrong and failing to apologize to Mongrel, and actually slandering her for rightly accusing him, he clearly has no intent on repenting and changing himself. People defending his sexist posts sure aren't helping him.
"Why did you bring up mongrel Though? Dont you at least have to admit that you either were looking for revenge or proving yourself good and right or something, or you made a catastrophic mistake by letting 90 percent of the OP be about her and how insane she was in "accusing" you. And then you End with "Please use this thread just to discuss the introduction of slander guidelines."... Sure, but seriously, what did you expect?"
I cannot for the life of me understand the controversy surrounding this line. It's basically just reiterating the age-old adage that people say one thing and do another, i.e. people are hypocrites. That's not controversial, that's not sexist, that's just common sense. If you think someone votes in the privacy of a voting booth in the same way they would vote in public, then I have some bad news for you.
I am not going to comment on this, but you may understand my posts as you like. I am not a sexist and I dont have to prove that to you, nor do I care what your ressentiment thoughts are about me. Sorry if I sound rude, but if you are Always going to go on like this when discussing, you shouldnt do philosophy because this is something else.
No, it's not basically that at all. It was specifically saying that women on TV actually wanted to be groped by Trump and were also lying hypocrites too. That is both a degrading depiction of a large group of women, saying they're all just out there wanting old man Trump to grope them. If you don't see that as sexist and wrong, then you're sexist too with a disgusting notion of how women are. So, you and I are done here. I won't be reading any more of your repellent posts.
If you don't consider Agustino's horridly sexist posts as sexist, then you are sexist too. But feel free to denounce them as sexist any time. And sorry if I sound rude, but if you agree with those sexist beliefs and discuss philosophy as you've been doing defending them, then you shouldn't do philosophy...and other activities involving women.
Attempts to debate someone and immediately gets blocked. Fantastic example of debating standard expected.
I would venture to say that is because Agustino is sexist. In this case, I want to move away from asking whether a particular statement he says is sexist and look at his behaviour.
Why is it, of all the testing insults and disagreements spoken in discusions with Augstino, he chooses to pick out what's been said by two prominent female posters? How come I'm not in the slanderous fire pit? Or any of the other regular posters who have pointed out his sexism?
Timeline and Mongrel are hardly the only people to ever steadfastly identify Agustino as sexist, yet he specifically targets them. He seems to lose it when challenged or attacked by women in a way he does not when opposed or criticised by men.
I wasn't talking about flawed appeals to popularity or authority. Whether all or even any women think someone is sexist is not the measure of they are. That's a question of their comments and behaviour itself.
Consensus isn't relevant to reasoning about an issue like this. It merely rehtorical. My arguments and observations were about Augstino's behaviour and what they amounted to. If you want to talk about that, you'll have some postion worth attention or refuting. What's sexist isn't defined by who thinks it's sexist, but by whether it is, you know, sexist.
Your last paragraph was oxymoronic. Deeming something sexist is most definitely based on consensus. Defining anything as sexism is wholly attitudinal, subject to whichever group is in the majority (or, as clearly evident in this case, making itself loud enough to appear a majority).
Sexism is defined by ideology. Not acknowledging this depicts you as an ideologist by default.
Then why did you bring up the issue of "two prominent female posters" claiming Agustino is a sexist? :|
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Surely consensus plays some part, as if no one claims Agustino's a sexist, then he's probably not, no?
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
But we are the ones who define what is sexist or not........
It's a bit more complicated than that. I appreciate you aren't supporting everything he says, but there is a way you sort of are. Take all the concerns about sexism in his statement about women on TV. You defended that as not sexist.
Where exactly does that leave people concerned the that statement equivocates the thoughts and likes of women, without taking to account the differences between a woman's thoughts on. Trump's sexist behaviour and thoughts about voting for them?
In defending Augstino that the comment is not sexist, you are saying there is no sexism in this equivocation, as if it were alright to be dishonest about the thoughts women, to ascribe to them a lack of authority in objection to Trump's harassment and assault merely because they happen to vote for Trump or otherwise like him.
Americans say "Todd is sexist." They don't say "Todd is a sexist."
Where? If it came out that way I would like to apologize, but first I must see a quote of mine that can be understood that way, so that I might see if it is true or if there are some misunderstandings here. I believe I quite clearly have claimed that agustino's statements were sexist or could be understood as such, while believing that he in fact didnt intend them to be but rather wanted to prove a Point about human behavior, irrationality etc.
For example, I see the following as a human tendency which I thought agustino was trying to talk about; in the thread called 'sexism' my last post contained: "They perhaps dont want the war, but the prattle and babble before (That actually helps leading to catastrophy) almost all want", which I think sums up quite a lot of the behavior of People in modern times. Including here.
Are you laughing because I'm a male? Look who's sexist now.
I advise a brain transplant.
My observation was about the way Augstino treats two prominent female posters who disagree with him. He seems to attack them with more fervour, like there is something wrong and dangerous about how they are mistaken or criticise him, in comparison to men.
The point being that in his behaviour towards women, that is what place he thinks women thoughts and opposition have in the discussion of philosophy, he is sexist. When men "slander" him with whatever, there's a brief intense conflict and everyone moves on. If a woman does it, he goes on about it endlessly, like some great slight has been committed on the world. He doesn't seem to view "women" (that is anyone who belongs to the category of "women" by them blessing to the category of "woman") as intellectual equals. By his behaviour, it would seem he gives a respect to men in opposing him or making arguments he does not give to women.
"Consensus" is only a measure by the authority of knowledge persons. We can only trust because those talking have an understanding of some issue we are talking about. It's only really rhetorical. In the situations where it is used, there is actually an argument of description going on, which is the reason to accept to reject an argument-- e.g. these twenty people saw this person go into a store, so we have evidence they did and a claim they disn't go into the store is falsified.
So the answer is: no. Just because people think there is no sexism doesn't mean there probably isn't. They might just not notice it. Strictly speaking, the "probably" argument doesn't even work here because sexism is a description made of only present states. When someone claims sexism, they aren't proposing some state of the world we don't know whether exists. Rather, then are suggesting an existing state is sexist.
Someone might be wrong about a state expressing a sexist relationship, but there isn't a potential for some unknown state of the world involved, so it's not coherent to approach the presence of sexism like it were a claim about whether a particular species of bird lived in the forest.
We aren't the one's who define what's sexist. At least, no more than we define what's a tree, a house or a falling rock. Any of them are logical meanings expressed by the world. It's not popularity or whim that' define them, but rather there logic itself.
A tree, a house or a falling rock are objective phenomena. Sexism is defined by one's subjective perception and thus cannot be categorised as a 'logical meaning expressed by the world'. Those are some serious mental gymnastics, I think Wittgenstein may like to have a word with you.
Edit: what sort of definition of 'consensus' is that? Who has an objective understanding of the issue here - how is this not a matter of he said versus she said? Why is it the person crying sexism has been given the upper hand in such proceedings? Have you ever heard of tyranny of the majority? Or tyranny of the minority?
Sexism is an objective phenomena. If your are treating women as lesser, that is an objective expression of the world. If you are specifically attacking women who criticise you, that it an objective expression of the world. And so an so on.
Sexism isn't subjective. it an objective expression of our thoughts, statements, understandings and action towards other people. There are no mental gymnastics at all, just a respect for how are actions mean something in relation to other people.
If you can't take the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen.
"We aren't the one's who define what's sexist. At least, no more than we define what's a tree, a house or a falling rock. Any of them are logical meanings expressed by the world. It's not popularity or whim that' define them, but rather there logic itself."
Would you then call the apostle Paul sexist? Back in his days nobody would. Rather the opposite. These days though, he is considered one by many post-modernists. What does that tell you about what you believe to be the universally understood concept 'sexism'?
So then perhaps the true sexists are also those who call others sexists then. Yes so it must be.
My point was never that there was a universally understood concept of sexism. Just the opposite, that sexism is a logical expression objectively defined, and like anything, may be misunderstood or not known by someone at all.
As is the case with people thinking about Paul in the past. Many people didn't understand how he was sexist in the past (and maybe some did; after all, the text and the culture of the timearen't the extent of human thought).
Nothing about the situation playing out here pertaining to Augustino appears to be a matter of objective sexism to me however. It almost seems as if everyone has a differing subjective definition of sexism, with at least fifty per cent not considering Augustino's posts to have been sexist at all! How do you explain this in a world where sexism is as objective as a tree, a rock or even a house?
Edit: who decides what the correct understanding of sexism is then?
Edit 2: even the concept of 'treating women as lesser' is a subjective perception.
Only if you are commit about three equivocation fallacies, such that you equate criticising sexists with attacking women. At least in most cases.
There is a point where they intersect. Since women can be as sexist as men, sometimes situations arise where women could be rightly criticised for being sexist, yet an attack of no quarter would amount to ganging up and bundling a woman out of discussion.
In this situation, there can be a sexism. If some concerned men were to go into a group sexist women and run them out of town, it would qualify as sexism-- men would be rejecting women and anything to say and denying them a place, etc. It would be more or less the same sort of sexism Augstino is displaying in his attacks on Mongrel and Timeline, only directed at woman who were sexist.
Half the people in question don't know what they are talking about.
The tree is in front of them and they haven't noticed it. And then some of them think it's their belief of whether the tree exists or not that defines whether it does.
*edit*
No-one decides what's a correct definition of sexism. Like any logical meaning, it's defined in itself. There is nothing subjective about these meanings. In addressing sexism, we are describing something that's happening in society, not only cheerleading for someone's subjective viewpoint.
All our experiences are "subjective perceptions" in the sense that are means of knowing about a truth or things is only our experience. This doesn't make the states and truths we know any less objective. It just means (objective) truths and states are known in experiences.
*edit*
Quoting Dogar
The tyranny of majority/minority just isn't relevant. Sexism is a logical expression which is given regardless of whether anyone agrees or disagrees and whether it's considered acceptable or not.
In terms of who gets the upper hand, the objector to sexism does because our ethics considers sexism unacceptable. Sexism is described, and since that's an ethical problem, the sexist if shamed and/or punished. (One is, of course, free to argue a different ethic, that sexism isn't ethically objectionable, but take issue with the normative significance of sexism, rather than whether sexism is there).
Sexism=prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
It was conclusive. He made some sexist remarks i.e. the ones that I noted were sexist and got no convincing dissent about.
Stereotyping women is sexist. He did that. It's not up for argument any more. Sexist comments like those by anyone will be deleted in future and those making them will receive a warning. Hope that's clear.
Finally, expect this discussion to be closed soon.
He didn't just mention Mongrel, nor was his end query about her, but about slander guidelines.
I understand, but I hope you realize that I, and probably several others, will be on the look out for anything that even comes close to sexism. I just hope it gets deleted and shut down. I don't know why Agustino's posts weren't if they were so clearly and obviously thought to be sexist in the first place.
Is that what you want Agustino?
We were too permissive. We're trying to rectify that.
What @Agustino wants is written in the title of the OP. It's called "ATTENTION!". What @Agustino should do is go back to presenting his arguments and idoleology in a reasonable way, which he's perfectly capable of doing.
I think you're right on that point.
I'd better hurry I guess, Baden raised his axe 8 minutes ago, as of this moment.
No, I don't think we should have any rules about slander. First, as far as I can tell, everyone here is operating behind the front of a 'user name' and beyond that, very little information is known. There are no reputations at stake here, I don't see how any of us could actually be materially harmed (in the real world) by anything said here. One could certainly be offended, annoyed, hurt, angered, etc., but that's different than ruining someone's reputation.
Second, the thin-skin disease seems to be spreading. It's not epidemic yet, but there are now two or three cases, and that's enough to start a wider infection. Please apply skin thickener to your sore spots, everyone.
Third, (just my opinion) everyone here has been, is, or will be guilty of writing something that somebody else considered rude, inappropriate, disgusting, stupid, etc. Except me and thee, of course, and even thee has been slightly irritating lately.
The object of any rule of behavior (in this forum) is to prevent productive discussion from becoming impossible owing to too much sturm and drang. Rules don't require that anyone adopt opinions they really don't believe in; it does require everyone to exercise some degree of skill in expressing opinions which would, if expressed too baldly, cause a firestorm.
Now, Agustino--just to pick a fine fellow at random as an example--is a skilled writer with very strong opinions--all to the good for a forum like this. (I've strenuously disagreed with him on lots of topics. I may even have called him a crypto fascist, or something -- I can't quite remember) and I am quite sure that it is well within his operational capabilities to express unpopular opinions in a graceful way that won't result in firestorms. That goes for just about everybody here. There are only a few who seem to lack the capacity to be at least somewhat slippery when it comes to saying the unspeakable.
And, you know, sometimes the unspeakable needs to be said, even though the speaker will get burnt at the stake for saying it.
In general (not picking on any particular person here): bossiness, argumentiveness, name-calling and labeling, swearing, nay-saying, pedantic comments, lecturing, going off-topic, self-righteousness, demanding others answer one's questions, etc. are "alpha male" type traits that wear out one's welcome. If the conversation were in person, things like shouting and being physically intimidating would fit this pattern. It absolutely doesn't NOT matter what the gender is of the person committing these errors. A woman could commit these behaviors just the same as men. Thankfully, no one person embodies all of these extreme, pushy, over-ripe qualities. I know i have erred similarly in my life, though I try to avoid that on this forum. But anyone is apt to be mistaken in judgment or in knowledge from time to time.
(From another thread. I'm posting this again because I think it bears repeating).
Nope. Baden says sexist comments will be deleted.
Both of you are very valued posters and make good points. On the sexism issue specifically, Mongrel is correct. The policy has been clarified and we're moving on. On the slander issue, I agree with Bitter, we don't need specific rules above and beyond the guidelines. It would be covered under flaming, basically.
Post deleted in proactive self defense.