It’s seems many of the major contributors got it just fine.
So it’s not ridiculous to make that leap that’s what she’s talking about, I am of course not in her head. So others may also speculate and object. Regardless, the point is that’s not what happened. The conversation was stopped using unnecessary modding.
That’s my point, we are now discussing it on a separate thread because the other one remains closed. You and I have had major disagreements and you’ve called out my articles and what I said as false or hold no weight. But we’ve been allowed to have that conversation. This one wasn’t allowed and I don’t believe it’s zero content as many other major contributors on here were perfectly able to understand.
Your original post was a link to an article and these words:
Patriarchy’s fault.
It’s coherent in the sense of I believe I know what Andrew is trying to express (because I’ve read enough of his posts over the past few years to know his general way of thinking about this subject).
It’s not coherent in the sense of here is an interesting situation that has arisen in the world, dear reader, and the reason for this reductio ad absurdam is X.
She’s a feminist, and she’s writing about a problem that exists, ergo she probably thinks patriarchy has something to do with it, even if that’s not what the article says, but I’m showing you the article anyway because it’s interesting… would be one thing.
She’s a feminist, and she’s talking about a problem that exists, ergo her entire article boils down to a juvenile game of Blame the Patriarchy, so I’m showing you the article to point out how oppressed I am as a man… is another thing.
I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but if all you write is
you’re right. So I tried to explain it but instead it was split into a thread called no point and then locked. That’s the problem I have with the decision. I don’t know who would qualify as the average poster, but it seems many major posters were able to figure it out. I clearly explained that one article asks for men to stop cat calling, isn’t it at least “interesting” she later is upset over the lack of cat calling and blames it on “our culture” for feeling this way. It looks like others got that no problem after a bit more explaining.
No, there’s something we’re still not mutually understanding here.
I understand (I believe) your “point” in the two-word post just like all the members who are backing you up here. By understand, I mean I could have written an essay explaining your point of view to a newbie, and you didn’t need to add any explanation at all.
Yet I agree with Tempo that there was no coherent argument (i.e. it was tantamount to a zero-content post), because you didn’t say anything of substance.
It’s like the difference between the opening chord of a song and the actual song, or at least a full phrase of music.
Or for that matter, it’s like the difference between a catcall and walking up to a pair of beautiful strangers who happen to be holding bouquets and saying
(That’s how dodgy looking old men do it on the metro in Montreal. Catcalling isn’t on the same level!)
Is it a rule every article posted must have some substantial explanation? Since many articles and links posted on here do not and others got it no problem and it was not modded.
Let’s say I just posted the two links without the “patriarchy” bit, or better yet, this picture.
This would be modded? Since no one can see how the two relates? I think anyone who sees it can get what I’m trying to point out here. It would be fine in funny political pictures would it not?
To be clear, the original post was just the first link and the two-word sentence fragment about patriarchy, right?
As for the double article version of the post, if the thread title were “Ironic Juxtaposition of the Day”, it wouldn’t need any explanation (or argument), and I would approve.
The thread title is a problematic one that we’ve tried changing before, but what we have now is male bashing in the media, and the articles aren’t prima facie male bashing (to the average reader who probably doesn’t think phasing out grid girls is a horrifying form of oppression), so the way you presented it it’s pretty much a koolaid good, fruit juice bad kind of post, if you know what I mean.
No, it was the first link calling for an end to cat calling and other behavior with the bit about how that’s the patriarchy. And than the 2nd link about how she misses getting cat called now and that’s “our culture’s” fault. And a sentence about how it’s funny it’s also that patriarchy’s fault.
I’m still unclear on if the rules require each link to have some substantial explanation.
I think that’s a perfectly fine criticism and yes, I can definitely have made it more clear.
But here is what I have to say. Did it have to be split into a thread called “no point”? And then locked? To me it seems like it’s more to silence and undermine my position with the excuse of it being no content when it seems others got the content just fine. I would see the case if people didn’t get it and was confused. But many major posters understood it.
I’m not a new poster, I contributed to many threads. If it’s really about the content not being clear, why not just allow me to clear it up? This didn’t feel like a fair way to deal with it, it’s really rare and serious when a thread gets locked. Others see it too. Not just me.
It was removed, my edit shows tempgain edited it out after changing the title the 2nd time after I changed it to another title that wasn’t “no point” as you see it’s been changed to “still no point”. And then added back, idk if it’s a glitch or what. But it tells me tempogain removed it the first time.
I don’t think so. It seems deliberately locked. It usually takes a lot for it to be locked too.
Late to the game, did not see either articles. But judging by that title you quoted it honestly feels self deprecating and satirical, like Colbert from his Colbert Report days.
Would love to hear hanna’s nicknames for the rest of us… I won’t be offended, I promise .
Honestly Andrew, it seems like you’re waaaay more obsessed with the P word or on dwelling in it than the rest of us are. Personally I’m beyond tired and over that subject, and you’ve been upsetting yourself searching then voluntarily falling for those click baits for much longer and way more intensely than I have, so I can’t even imagine what you’re feeling every day. Actually curious why you can’t just go live your best life.
I feel (almost) this way about many posters here.
Alright, so seeing that – Frankly the second post seems (purely based on headline) more of a self-reflection and examination than anything. It’s not about you, it’s about her.
Dear @yyy, perhaps it’s due to all the legal speak combined with your endearing persona – whenever you do throw those terms out there they always feel like they’re coming from this
Going back to the OP, I’ve got to say I don’t really understand how this site is moderated either. Just look at the list of topics on the front page. Does that seem well-organized to anyone?
I don’t know why the mods try so hard to fit every topic into a particular box unless a lot of users are really using those tags to filter content, which seems unlikely given the amount of traffic here. Does it matter whether my post on Sexual Reassignment Surgery in Taipei is labeled “The Temporary Forum” or “Living in Taiwan?” I’m really not sure. Would it matter if we were all free to apply whatever labels we saw fit?
If any mods are reading this feel free to jump in.
If a mod really did assign a “No Point” label to someone’s post that does seem like evidence of bias. I didn’t read the original post (doesn’t sound like my cup of tea), but it seems like mods should assign the most neutral, judgement-free labels possible when re-labeling someone’s post. “No Point” implies a value judgement.
I only glanced at the post and I got the point. However, I am a proud Guardianista, albeit not your typical one. Valenti’s just a byline chasing hack. They’re paid to write any old crap that piques the punters’ interest. The more piqued the better.
So if she writes about the “patriarchy” so much that she actually has a column in The Guardian, why would @Andrew0409’s assumption that she is in fact writing about the patriarchy be incorrect?
Which would bring us to the next question. Why then did @tempogain temp his post? Is it Andrew’s job to make explicit the Guardian’s columnist’s subject area?
I think that what may be going on here is that mods tempt to communicate to other mods with posts/titles/actions that make no sense to anyone who doesn’t have access to the moderator’s forum.
My experience (I ended up with a one month suspension) was similar to yours in that I felt the moderator was trying to silence me (really tried very hard to silence me) and undermine my position (by trolling me). That undermining took place before I was able to make my position clearer (although I suspect that wasn’t possible given the attempts to silence me).
.
