(June 30, 2016 at 9:20 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(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.

But what will this accomplish, realistically?

Acting locally is great in theory, but how will this affect the larger picture? In my opinion, it will only further entrench the original issue of considering female breasts/nipples as pornographic if we *wink wink* ban male nipples as a token show of solidarity. It does not in any way do anything whatsoever to address the underlying issue.

It's not our place to force people to show their solidarity anyways. Things should only be banned if they're illegal or harmful to the forum. Everything else should be a personal judgement call. I don't know why anyone would want members to not be allowed to choose for themselves if this is something they wish to show solidarity on. We aren't the moral police and we aren't here to enforce moral values on anyone. The point in having staff is simply to keep the forum running smoothly.

(June 30, 2016 at 9:21 pm)Esquilax Wrote: 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.

I disagree. She is pointing out the you on the Staff are settling on the law as a defense, while not acknowledging the fact -- fact -- that you can do more, but are, to judge from the posts in this thread, clearly unwilling to do so. It is not a tu quoque (which is a logical and not social concept), but rather, it is a challenge: put your money where your mouth is. It's very easy to espouse equality, but really, look at all the squirming here in this thread.

Earlier in this thread, I half-jokingly posting a snippet for "The Trees", by Rush:


I posted that precisely because I understand the concern that equalization is not always beneficial. Pruning a tree often results in fresh growth, though, if done well. You can choose to prune or not, as you see fit. But, to use if you'll forgive me another quote from Rush, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." Conceding to the default is itself a decision.

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.

(June 30, 2016 at 9:21 pm)Esquilax Wrote: 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.

I've made it plain in this very thread that I have full faith in the good intentions of the Staff here, and nothing I've posted should be read as an attack upon them. I wouldn't post to this extent at any forum if I thought the management was fishy.

Just so we're clear on this, for once and all: I don't associate myself with her insinuation. I have also relayed this to her privately.

You guys do a great job. But I can't help but feel a little down in the mouth reading the way Staff ganged up and took raw slaps at her. I know you guys are regular posters and have your duties as an extra, which doesn't remove your right to behave as a lay member, but when reading back through this thread, the mockery emanating from the Staff is distasteful. You can like or disagree with this sentiment, but no matter your feelings, you will have to deal with it.

(June 30, 2016 at 9:38 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(June 30, 2016 at 9:20 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: 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.

But what will this accomplish, realistically?

Acting locally is great in theory, but how will this affect the larger picture? In my opinion, it will only further entrench the original issue of considering female breasts/nipples as pornographic if we *wink wink* ban male nipples as a token show of solidarity. It does not in any way do anything whatsoever to address the underlying issue.

Considering that you have no power over the wider world, why do you seem to think I want you to change the world? The very post you quoted made it plain that I don't expect you to change the "larger picture" ... yet you keep insisting that is my point? I'm confuzzled.

No one is saying that your moderation here is the only action you should take. What is being said is that if you feel honestly that equality is important, you will act in accordance with that sentiment in your own sphere of control.

It's really not that hard to understand. I can't fix racism in the world, for instance, but I can sure tell someone in my own house that slurs aren't welcome. I can tell them that they won't shit on my non-white friends. I've done so, too. It's not that hard.

This is no different. No one is asking you to fix the world. But you are being asked whether your deeds match your words.

(June 30, 2016 at 9:44 pm)Losty Wrote: It's not our place to force people to show their solidarity anyways. Things should only be banned if they're illegal or harmful to the forum. Everything else should be a personal judgement call. I don't know why anyone would want members to not be allowed to choose for themselves if this is something they wish to show solidarity on. We aren't the moral police and we aren't here to enforce moral values on anyone. The point in having staff is simply to keep the forum running smoothly.

That's a fair point. But earlier in the thread, reference was made to ideals about free speech as the basis for Staff action. That is clearly not a practical justification; it is a principled justification (one I agree with, for what that's worth). But it's not really fair argumentation to at first appeal to principle, but whe answered with principle in kind, disavow it to argue practicality.

(June 30, 2016 at 9:59 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(June 30, 2016 at 9:44 pm)Losty Wrote: It's not our place to force people to show their solidarity anyways. Things should only be banned if they're illegal or harmful to the forum. Everything else should be a personal judgement call. I don't know why anyone would want members to not be allowed to choose for themselves if this is something they wish to show solidarity on. We aren't the moral police and we aren't here to enforce moral values on anyone. The point in having staff is simply to keep the forum running smoothly.

That's a fair point. But earlier in the thread, reference was made to ideals about free speech as the basis for Staff action. That is clearly not a practical justification; it is a principled justification (one I agree with, for what that's worth). But it's not really fair argumentation to at first appeal to principle, but whe answered with principle in kind, disavow it to argue practicality.

You'll have to water it down for me, baby. I don't know what you're saying at all.

What are we doing it for then? If it is a token representation of solidarity with 'the cause,' then I will decline, personally. I won't speak for the rest of the staff on that point.

I see your point, but that's a poor metaphor. In fact, a better metaphor would be if you were to tell people in your house that if they're going to be racist, they had better include racism against white people as well. I do not agree that equality is served in any way by entrapping more people in what is a shitty system to begin with.

(June 30, 2016 at 10:01 pm)Losty Wrote:

(June 30, 2016 at 9:59 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: That's a fair point. But earlier in the thread, reference was made to ideals about free speech as the basis for Staff action. That is clearly not a practical justification; it is a principled justification (one I agree with, for what that's worth). But it's not really fair argumentation to at first appeal to principle, but whe answered with principle in kind, disavow it to argue practicality.

You'll have to water it down for me, baby. I don't know what you're saying at all.

On the one hand. I'm seeing justifications saying that the staff must be practical. On the other hand, I'm seeing justifications asserting principle as the motivation. Shifting defense from principle to practicality leads me to think the defense is rather ad-hoc and not thought out.

If the staff must be practical, appealing to free speech is irrelevant. If the staff is acting out of principle, then creating an aritifical divide in how nip pics are treated, on the basis of practical law, seems equally irrelevant.

I'll make this clear right now: I will accept whatever decision the staff arrives at (I have no choice!), so long as the process is thoughtful.

(June 30, 2016 at 10:15 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: What are we doing it for then? If it is a token representation of solidarity with 'the cause,' then I will decline, personally. I won't speak for the rest of the staff on that point.

I see your point, but that's a poor metaphor. In fact, a better metaphor would be if you were to tell people in your house that if they're going to be racist, they had better include racism against white people as well. I do not agree that equality is served in any way by entrapping more people in what is a shitty system to begin with.

Not that I agree with your recasting, but as it stands, in your own words, you're admitting to differential treatment.

The reason why I don't agree with your recasting is that I don't accept racism against whites in my house either ... but that's barely relevant, right?

The fact is that the policy here accepts the status quo when it can do better, if only for one little corner of the 'Net. That is the issue.The fact is that by not encouraging (if not mandating) a better system, a tacit approval is given to the system in place. If y'all want to dig your trenches and fight there, so be it ... but understand the ground you've chosen for your fight.

<edited>