Reply to: Maybe someone can shine some light

[vetran]

I thought complaining about bans was a bannable offence?

The first rule of Ban Club is You do not talk about Ban Club?

[SpontaneousOrder]

You sound aggrieved SO. all things in moderation eh ?
except moderation. obv

I'm not aggrieved - just following up on a previous post about the irrationality and sexism inherent in feminism, after a banning which in all likelihood, given the reasoning supplied, was a result of that very same irrationality and sexism.

Seemed a waste not to use the ammunition given to me, in such wonderful irony, to drive the point home.

I'd give you a well-deserved rimshot smiley, for your gag, if we had one. And I don;t know how to put in other smileys like some people do.

[EternalOptimist]

You sound aggrieved SO. all things in moderation eh ?
except moderation. obv

[SpontaneousOrder]

I'm guessing it was your comment that she 'got what she deserved'. What she got were threats of death and rape - I hope you don't think anyone deserves that for having strong opinions?

You mean this bit? Where I put that sentence in inverted commas, and then said that I can't justify the psychos making threats?

Sarkeesian 'got what she deserved' - i.e. while I can't justify the psychos making threats, I don't feel sorry for her at all.

**edit** and this is besides the point, but she didn't get that flak for having strong opinions. She got it for telling outright lies, scamming, and ripping off other people's work without credit.

[NotAllThere]

I thought complaining about bans was a bannable offence?

No, you're think of PCG (as was) forums. We're much more relaxed about such things around here - just biased and arbitrary. It really does only seem random.

[eek]

I thought complaining about bans was a bannable offence?

I'm sure suggesting someone gets a ban is also a bannable offence... Mind you probably talking about bans outside of the have your say thread is probably a bannable offence.

After all Moderation on this site is arbitrary, biased and seemingly random.

[northernladuk]

I thought complaining about bans was a bannable offence?

[eek]

Moderation on this site is arbitrary, biased and seemingly random. I thought everyone knew and understood that....

[TheFaQQer]

Ah, suck it up princess.

That high?

Doesn't seem to have worked.

Try getting your quotes right.

[NotAllThere]

Whine, whine, moan, moan, juvenile pontification and philosophising

Ah, suck it up princess.

Sorry, I thought you'd got banned because this constant sixth form level nonsense is dull as **** and everyone is sick of seeing it.

That high?

7 days while he considers why his post was unacceptable.

Doesn't seem to have worked.

[vwdan]

I know. And strangely people keep reading the dull as tulip nonsense no matter how many times they complain Maybe I should start another thread to figure that one out too.

Ya got me!

[mudskipper]

I suspect the scumbag is a red herring.

I'm guessing it was your comment that she 'got what she deserved'. What she got were threats of death and rape - I hope you don't think anyone deserves that for having strong opinions?

[SpontaneousOrder]

Sorry, I thought you'd got banned because this constant sixth form level nonsense is dull as **** and everyone is sick of seeing it.

I know. And strangely people keep reading the dull as tulip nonsense no matter how many times they complain Maybe I should start another thread to figure that one out too.

[DodgyAgent]

Just logical fail? Or incredible sexism?

My recent ban has expired now. Here's a short sequence of events:

1) Posted a detailed video where Karen Straughan is interviewed by a BBC representative, in which she details why she is an anti-feminist, because she believes feminism is bad for women and people in general. And then why she's more recently become a men's rights activist.

2) Someone alludes to Gamergate

3) I mention that it's not really anything to do with the video, but pass comment because Martin Fowler (who I'd mentioned) has recently-ish indirectly referenced other people who in turn have referenced GamerGate. I pass comment that in my opinion Anita Sarkeesian is an utter scumbag - because she is (I'd personally use much stronger words if they weren't filtered).


Here's where it gets interesting... Cojak then calls me (an active member of the forum) a scumbag, then bans me for calling someone the other side of the world a scumbag.



Although that quote seems confused because as far as I'm aware Sarkeesian is not a moderator of this forum


I did however attempt to make contact and suggest that I had been banned in error, but this was ignored... so....


I log back in after a week and are then able to read the explanation for my infraction:



Which is even more bizarre.


So here's my question:

Is this a case of someone just getting really confused, and then not wanting to admit so? If so then fine - it's not my forum. Just sayin'...

Or is this a case of Cojak supposing that because I called a particular woman a scumbag, then I must be saying that all women are scumbags?

If the latter is the case then ofcourse this is incredibly sexist of Cojak - objectifying women in such a way - removing their own personal & moral agency in the supposition that one woman's actions are representative of all women.

It's ironic that the original video I linked to exists [i.e. Karen campaigns to highlight that...] precisely to point out that such objectification of women is precisely why feminism is typically bad for women in the first place.




Yes. Perhaps we should have a look back through the last year of threads and see just how many men (including those active in this forum!) have freely been called scumbags or worse, and then compare that to the number of women. I'd bet good money that we're below our quota for calling women derogatory names.

Of course, I'm not sexist and don't like the idea of categorizing the actions of individuals into male/female - with quotas for the tolerance or praise of each.

A person should be judged on the merits of their actions, as a person - and castigated according to their vices, as a person.

The fact of the matter is that Anita Sarkeesian, in my opinion in accordance with the above, is a proper ****. It's a shame that other more primitive people champion sexism and bigotry under the faux banner of equality.

Live with it

[stek]

It's says forum is for both genders but what about MF?