(June 30, 2016 at 8:15 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I get that. I am responding, however, to the continual rebuttals here inside this thread (not the moderator's thread) which address only the legal dimension (understandable as it is) but ignore the larger point. I find it frustrating that people for whom I hold such high opinions wave the law around even as that point of contention has already been addressed.

If the Staff don't wish to make it an equal point, in order to represent a higher understanding than that provided by the law, great. But her point is that that also says something, and you cannot then say "I'm for equality" as you retreat into the trenches of a law which is inherently unequal. By standing pat on what the law says, and not working to go past it, what is the message the Staff is delivering?

If you're fine with the way the law reads and feel no need to be better than it, great. But own it -- own that buy-in that you're wielding in your own defense. If you want to be better than the law, you can be.

I'm thinking that is the point of this thread, to make us think about what we take for granted. It's making me rethink my positions on gender issues, and that isn't a bad thing. I was joking about not posting my own nips -- it's more a matter of not scarring the eyes of these youngsters with some old guy's flat tits -- but seriously, what sacrifice is being requested?

I really don't get the line-drawing and digging-in that's going on, outside of the context of emotions being bruised ... and that's not really a good way to moderate a forum, is it?

Esquilax's point is well put, though. Like I said, we all disagree with the lines that the law has drawn. We don't think that the proper reaction would be to take a sexist law farther. We don't agree that expressing that solidarity actually accomplishes anything at all. It is not going to make the situation better for anyone.

As for the line drawing---that is coming from a reaction (however biased) to the origin story of this issue. It came as a reaction to the issue at TTA, and the immediate levying of the charge of sexism on part of the staff here combined with the later accusation of orchestrating a child nudity post in order to shut down the conversation here---that, for better or worse, colored our reception and lines were subsequently drawn.

(June 30, 2016 at 8:19 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(June 30, 2016 at 8:02 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: @Thump


The issue here is that there is more in play here than just the inequity in standards of what is and is not considered pornographic with respect to gender differences.

No matter what we do, we are going to have to compromise on deeply held coconvictions or expose ourselves to liability.  To me the ad revenue is much lesser concern - I'm not the one who pays the bills however.

It isn't and never has just been about just what is strictly legal - and in that regard, you have to consider that some overzealous prosecutor or busybody in the most conservative corner of this country could cause serious problems.

What liability might you have that is not legal? I'm not privy to information about ad revenue, but I'm also not sure how not posting male nipples mught affect that adversely.

Perhaps you could elucidate?

It doesn't have a damn thing to do with not posting male nipples. Not wishing to unnecessarily restrict posts informed that part of the decision.

The liability comes from some busybody suing or prosecuting because their little Johnny saw some boobs here.

I personally am not interested in censoring posts of the sort that don't create that sort of liability.

Not to mention that I do not own the site, so I kind of have a responsibility to give greater weight to what the owner wants.

(June 30, 2016 at 8:03 pm)Esquilax Wrote: We won't get past needless sexualization by doubling down on it for short term, largely rhetorical gain. Is that sexist? I won't deny we live in a culture of sexist double standards, but I won't countenance the idea that the staff are somehow participating in sexism by recognizing the counter-productive nature of this particular request. The change you want will not be achieved by doubling-down on the thing you're objecting to.

How, then, would you propose changing double-standards if you don't challenge them?

(June 30, 2016 at 8:03 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Now, to address the wider thread for a moment: I'm aware that this has become a shitshow but, to belay any accusations of bias on my part, I should perhaps point out that I was absent during the particularly contentious moments of this thread- I have a disabled wife and sometimes she comes first- and played no part in the decisions that Heatheness seems, somehow, intent on weaving into a wider conspiracy against her. I may be an admin, but I am not the shadowy hand of some secret cabal come here to destroy some unsuspecting user. At least, not this time: no, here I'm just a peep, giving their opinion on the situation as I see it.

I don't know that anyone here has begrudged you your absence, and I think it's a sort of well-poisoning to "belay any accusation". You obviously have bigger fish to fry. and all of us here understand those priorites.

My best wishes to Luckie.

(June 30, 2016 at 8:30 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: We don't think that the proper reaction would be to take a sexist law farther. We don't agree that expressing that solidarity actually accomplishes anything at all. It is not going to make the situation better for anyone.

But it isn't taking the sexism farther, now is it?

(June 30, 2016 at 8:30 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: As for the line drawing---that is coming from a reaction (however biased) to the origin story of this issue. It came as a reaction to the issue at TTA, and the immediate levying of the charge of sexism on part of the staff here combined with the later accusation of orchestrating a child nudity post in order to shut down the conversation here---that, for better or worse, colored our reception and lines were subsequently drawn.

Can you clarify this part? Forgive my incomprehension, but I don't hink I'm getting what you're trying to say and don't want to do you the disservice of going off half-cocked.

(June 30, 2016 at 8:30 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: It doesn't have a damn thing to do with not posting male nipples.  Not wishing to unnecessarily restrict posts informed that part of the decision.

The liability comes from some busybody suing or prosecuting because their little Johnny saw some boobs here.

Nonsense. I have several times specifically said that I respect the forum's desire and indeed requirement to stay inside the law, and nowhere in that post you quoted did I advocate for showing female breasts.

Her entire point is that if the Staff is committed to equality, ought they not put that into practice?

No one is asking you to show little Johnny some tits, so really, quit the goddamned strawman already.

(June 30, 2016 at 8:30 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: I personally am not interested in censoring posts of the sort that don't create that sort of liability.

In other words, you're happy doing the minimum possible to comply with the law. Great, I understand that. Don't feel like going further? Okay. You've said as much, and I'm pretty sure that was her point.

(June 30, 2016 at 8:35 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(June 30, 2016 at 8:30 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: We don't think that the proper reaction would be to take a sexist law farther. We don't agree that expressing that solidarity actually accomplishes anything at all. It is not going to make the situation better for anyone.

But it isn't taking the sexism farther, now is it?

It is taking a sexist law farther. By taking something we all agree is sexist and instead of working to change that part of it--we make a move that accomplishes nothing except a token show of solidarity--but actually more permanently entrenches the original sexism, because nothing changes outside of this forum.

(June 30, 2016 at 8:35 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(June 30, 2016 at 8:30 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: As for the line drawing---that is coming from a reaction (however biased) to the origin story of this issue. It came as a reaction to the issue at TTA, and the immediate levying of the charge of sexism on part of the staff here combined with the later accusation of orchestrating a child nudity post in order to shut down the conversation here---that, for better or worse, colored our reception and lines were subsequently drawn.

Can you clarify this part? Forgive my incomprehension, but I don't hink I'm getting what you're trying to say and don't want to do you the disservice of going off half-cocked.

When bennyboy posted his picture of the nude children, we unapproved his post and locked the thread. We were then accused of developing a patsy, convincing bennyboy to post the pictures so that we could lock the thread and shut down this conversation. This combined with the fact that the OP caused a ruckus at TTA for this very issue colored our reception of the motivation for raising this issue.

(June 30, 2016 at 9:13 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(June 30, 2016 at 8:35 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: But it isn't taking the sexism farther, now is it?

It is taking a sexist law farther. By taking something we all agree is sexist and instead of working to change that part of it--we make a move that accomplishes nothing except a token show of solidarity--but actually more permanently entrenches the original sexism, because nothing changes outside of this forum.

This looks to me like a form of rationalization.

(June 30, 2016 at 9:13 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: It is taking a sexist law farther. By taking something we all agree is sexist and instead of working to change that part of it--we make a move that accomplishes nothing except a token show of solidarity--but actually more permanently entrenches the original sexism, because nothing changes outside of this forum.

But you're not responsible for anything outside this forum, and no one is asking you to assume that repsonsibility outside your own purview. But surely you can have a say here, in this little corner of the internet, right? I'm not sure how emplacing a nonsexist policy here more permanently entrenches the original sexism, though. Could you expand upon that?

"Think globally, act locally" is something that in my military days I scoffed at as hippie-dippy bullshit. But I think it's an approach that should be given more thought here, no matter your personal feelings about the OP or her heavy-handed approach. I just don't understand why the line is being drawn here.

(June 30, 2016 at 9:13 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: When bennyboy posted his picture of the nude children, we unapproved his post and locked the thread. We were then accused of developing a patsy, convincing bennyboy to post the pictures so that we could lock the thread and shut down this conversation. This combined with the fact that the OP caused a ruckus at TTA for this very issue colored our reception of the motivation for raising this issue.

Understood, thanks for the clarification. As I've said, I can see your side of it too.

(June 30, 2016 at 8:30 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: How, then, would you propose changing double-standards if you don't challenge them?

They should be challenged, I just disagree that the way Heatheness is addressing this is a particularly effective way of doing that. Pointing out that the sexualization of the female form is a cultural construct with sexist implications, and that that construct was largely built by men without the input of the women being sexualized is a very valid idea, but if the issue at hand is that female bodies are unfairly policed due to a system stacked against them, unfairly policing the bodies of more people is, at best, a childish tu coque masquerading as social justice, and at worst simply indulging in the very behavior that was found to be objectionable in the first place.

It just depends on what your aims are: if you just want to shine a light on an arbitrarily decided double standard without heed to progress or even making a point, then doing more of the arbitrary thing you don't like definitely accomplishes that. But actually enacting a change in cultural thinking will require something more substantive to be said.

Quote:I don't know that anyone here has begrudged you your absence, and I think it's a sort of well-poisoning to "belay any accusation".  You obviously have bigger fish to fry. and all of us here understand those priorites.

My best wishes to Luckie.

Thank you for your kind words.

Unfortunately though, this isn't the first charge of conspiracy or bias I've seen lodged against my colleagues in the staff, and I know from experience that those making them tend to see the colored username and assume ill-intention regardless of what's actually going on. Nobody who could actually see the staff discussions on these issues could ever honestly make these insinuations of collusion and so on.

That said, if I really wanted to close down a thread on false pretenses, I wouldn't need to go on this roundabout to do so. There's a button right on my admin dash that could accomplish exactly what Heatheness seems to be implying in a matter of moments, and in a far more effective fashion. It would take almost no effort on the part of any one of us on the staff, but here's the thing: in all the time I've been here that button hasn't been used once. Which I think is the biggest vote of confidence for us there is: we have the power to easily do all the evil things people have ever accused us of doing. We just haven't, because we have no reason to and we've got enough professional dignity not to even want to.

There's actually a lot of crazy shit MyBB lets moderators and admins do. I'll let the body-snatchers style paranoia start itself now.