[R]Possible Trolling or Flaming?

[West Leas Oros 2]

And you wonder why I have a problem with identity politics?

not really - you're a man, it's no surprise to me that your emotions would get in the way of making good political decisions

Given previous posts and the subject, this seems fishy, at least.

[New Visayan Islands]

Something worth looming over.

[West Leas Oros 2]

On the subject, idk about you, but I would put this as maybe "a bit sus"

sure, but those general trends do help the argument that men are on average more influenced to do harm by emotions than womyn (plus these trends seem to occur in every culture, so it's clearly something specific to males and not solely due to culture). if we lack full matriarchy, we should at least more carefully vet men than women and that'd of course end up skewing the ratios a bit.

There are similar posts but idk. It's probably nothing, but as I said, bit fishy.

This one actually strikes me a little more dubious.

and yet men are far more likely to make reckless decisions and be violent criminals, fascinating

[New Visayan Islands]

Popping Second Opinion Flare...

[Santheres]

On the subject, idk about you, but I would put this as maybe "a bit sus"

sure, but those general trends do help the argument that men are on average more influenced to do harm by emotions than womyn (plus these trends seem to occur in every culture, so it's clearly something specific to males and not solely due to culture). if we lack full matriarchy, we should at least more carefully vet men than women and that'd of course end up skewing the ratios a bit.

There are similar posts but idk. It's probably nothing, but as I said, bit fishy.

This one actually strikes me a little more dubious.

and yet men are far more likely to make reckless decisions and be violent criminals, fascinating

The first one is weird but still a statement that you can argue against and I don't believe it is intended as trolling.

The second one is an argument often made but with women and/or ethnic groups as the target rather than men. I don't believe those have been considered actionable in the past, and I agree. While Cekoviu could stand to support their statements more (which I believe NVI has loomed on already), it would take no more than to notice that the insurance industry agrees with that assessment to make it just a standard argument making use of studies (however flimsy those studies may be).

[West Leas Oros 2]

On the subject, idk about you, but I would put this as maybe "a bit sus"



There are similar posts but idk. It's probably nothing, but as I said, bit fishy.

This one actually strikes me a little more dubious.

The first one is weird but still a statement that you can argue against and I don't believe it is intended as trolling.

The second one is an argument often made but with women and/or ethnic groups as the target rather than men. I don't believe those have been considered actionable in the past, and I agree. While Cekoviu could stand to support their statements more (which I believe NVI has loomed on already), it would take no more than to notice that the insurance industry agrees with that assessment to make it just a standard argument making use of studies (however flimsy those studies may be).

Thanks!

[West Leas Oros 2]

Ok, I'm pretty certain this ain't cool.

at the moment i'm not even arguing there is systemic sexism (although there is, but that's beside the point). in fact, i'm saying we should have systemic sexism, it should just be discriminating against men rather than women. sooo uh there you have it

[Cekoviu]

Ok, I'm pretty certain this ain't cool.

at the moment i'm not even arguing there is systemic sexism (although there is, but that's beside the point). in fact, i'm saying we should have systemic sexism, it should just be discriminating against men rather than women. sooo uh there you have it

it's a political opinion that can be argued with, does not generalize one group as being all [X trait], and is consistent with what i've said so far. i do not think this could be reasonably construed as actionable.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Ok, I'm pretty certain this ain't cool.

it's a political opinion that can be argued with, does not generalize one group as being all [X trait], and is consistent with what i've said so far. i do not think this could be reasonably construed as actionable.

Gee, it's almost like people have an issue with advocating for the oppression of a group of people, who could have guessed. Seems like trolling to me, but what do I know? I'm male, after all.

[West Leas Oros 2]

And considering your actions in the past, you are without a doubt acting bad faith. You've pulled this bullshit before.

[Cekoviu]

And considering your actions in the past, you are without a doubt acting bad faith. You've pulled this bullshit before.

care to point out some specifics so the mods (and i) actually know what you're talking about?

[West Leas Oros 2]

And considering your actions in the past, you are without a doubt acting bad faith. You've pulled this bullshit before.

care to point out some specifics so the mods (and i) actually know what you're talking about?

Here’s some pretty telling evidence.

i happen to consider male sex to be a large demerit in fact, so that is consistent.

[Cekoviu]

care to point out some specifics so the mods (and i) actually know what you're talking about?

Here’s some pretty telling evidence.

i happen to consider male sex to be a large demerit in fact, so that is consistent.

that was 2 days ago in the same thread you're reporting, how is that "in the past"

[West Leas Oros 2]

Here’s some pretty telling evidence.

that was 2 days ago in the same thread you're reporting, how is that "in the past"

Rules is rules, and I intend to report this. Last I checked, rules violations don’t have a statute of limitations, at least not one that short.

Stop trying to justify bigotry on a technicality.

[Cekoviu]

that was 2 days ago in the same thread you're reporting, how is that "in the past"

Rules is rules, and I intend to report this. Last I checked, rules violations don’t have a statute of limitations, at least not one that short.

no i understand that, but you said "considering your actions in the past" and "you've pulled this bullshit before" and i assumed you were referring to something that occurred in the actual past, so i was wondering what that was. sounds like you're not referring to anything from before like 2 days ago in that one thread, though?

[West Leas Oros 2]

Rules is rules, and I intend to report this. Last I checked, rules violations don’t have a statute of limitations, at least not one that short.

no i understand that, but you said "considering your actions in the past" and "you've pulled this bullshit before" and i assumed you were referring to something that occurred in the actual past, so i was wondering what that was. sounds like you're not referring to anything from before like 2 days ago in that one thread, though?

I’m not going to comb through your old posts just to show you have a history with this. Actually, you know what? I will. Give me a moment.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Take a good look, ladies -- this is why we should hate men!

*** Warned for Trolling ***

This isn't Tumblr. You don't get an eye blind turned towards your bashing entire groups of people just because they're the "right group to bash." And this?

Thanks and yes

Also not good.

Care to explain?

[Cekoviu]

*** Warned for Trolling ***

This isn't Tumblr. You don't get an eye blind turned towards your bashing entire groups of people just because they're the "right group to bash." And this?



Also not good.

Care to explain?

what's there to explain here? i jokingly said something exaggerating my views in a way that was overly inflammatory and left little room for argument, and i got smacked for it. it's not as though that means i'm operating in bad faith in this completely separate interaction, since i'm currently making real arguable points & saying what i truly believe rather than shitposting.

[West Leas Oros 2]

1. Ah yes, the well known hive mind, men. I too, wake up every morning and telepathically link with the hive and ask, “how can I oppress women today?”.
2. Not the male population apparently. Apparently men being jerks is a good enough reason to call for their subjugation. But if you take issue with someone advocating subjugation of a group you’re a part of based on their past experiences with them, congratulations, you’re a hypocrite.
3. Regardless of whether you’re a good person, you still are ideologically poisoned. Nobody who isn’t ideologically poisoned would spew the hateful rhetoric you have with sincerity.

1. yeah, given my observations i would not be surprised if that were the case
2. oh yes it's definitely just that men are jerks and not that i have an extensive array of negative experiences with men going beyond them being dicks, such as observing senseless public male-on-male violence, being the target of men's sexual harassment, watching my parents' marriage fall apart because of my father's sex addiction and his inability to communicate induced by deeply-rooted toxic masculinity, etc. but no yeah my reasoning is definitely that simplistic and reductive; i am a woman after all, just so irrational & quick to rush to conclusions! x

All x are y.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Care to explain?

what's there to explain here? i jokingly said something exaggerating my views in a way that was overly inflammatory and left little room for argument, and i got smacked for it. it's not as though that means i'm operating in bad faith in this completely separate interaction, since i'm currently making real arguable points & saying what i truly believe rather than shitposting.

Well what you “truly believe” leers dangerously close to a violation, if you ask me.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Can I seriously get a mod over here?

[Santheres]

1. yeah, given my observations i would not be surprised if that were the case
2. oh yes it's definitely just that men are jerks and not that i have an extensive array of negative experiences with men going beyond them being dicks, such as observing senseless public male-on-male violence, being the target of men's sexual harassment, watching my parents' marriage fall apart because of my father's sex addiction and his inability to communicate induced by deeply-rooted toxic masculinity, etc. but no yeah my reasoning is definitely that simplistic and reductive; i am a woman after all, just so irrational & quick to rush to conclusions! x

All x are y.

I would ask if you are joking, but if you were, that would be spamming in moderation and still a violation. It should be extremely obvious that 2 started sarcastic. "It's definitely just that men are jerks" is a sarcastic statement indicating that the reality of Ceko's stance is actually based in life experiences which are heavily informing their beliefs while they're being treated as though it's just random assertion.

The fact that you're reporting this of all things - on top of the rest of this thread - suggests to me that you're just throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks. I understand that Cekoviu isn't steering well clear of the line but this smacks more of you attempting to wield moderation as a cudgel against a poster you dislike than an actual concern over whether or not they are trolling.

Care to explain?

what's there to explain here? i jokingly said something exaggerating my views in a way that was overly inflammatory and left little room for argument, and i got smacked for it. it's not as though that means i'm operating in bad faith in this completely separate interaction, since i'm currently making real arguable points & saying what i truly believe rather than shitposting.

This is accurate. That was a "joke" that was overly inflammatory. Overly inflammatory "jokes" are often otherwise known as a type of trolling.

Cekoviu: you are dancing closer to the line than I appreciate. Please try to find a better way to word these things and stay away from the trolly shitposting since that just colors your other interactions.

West Leas Oros: might I recommend placing Cekoviu on your foe list?

Thanks!

[West Leas Oros 2]

Thanks. I’m just a bit pissed that someone would “get away” with saying this kind of stuff, considering that it comes off as a sexist tirade. I get that it seems like I’m just trying to get Cekoviu in trouble, but I am upset that moderation (IMO) doesn’t stand up to bigotry enough. Also, even though 2 started off as sarcasm, it clearly (at least to me) was done as an attempt to “justify” hatred of all men. Something doesn’t cease to be “all x are y” because it has an anecdote.

Sorry. I just don’t want sexist propaganda being given little more than a slap on the wrist. It comes off as biased and like the mods don’t really care about this sort of hate being spewed.

Sorry for the intrusion and the bother, and thanks for the assistance.

[Santheres]

You are, of course, welcome to your own beliefs on that. On top of "well, the reverse is said all the time and generally allowed" which obviously you would disagree with making it okay, I might also recommend you refresh yourself on the differences between punching up and punching down.

[West Leas Oros 2]

You are, of course, welcome to your own beliefs on that. On top of "well, the reverse is said all the time and generally allowed" which obviously you would disagree with making it okay, I might also recommend you refresh yourself on the differences between punching up and punching down.

That doesn’t feel like a good excuse. Pardon me if my views are rigid here, but I think that advocating for the oppression and subjugation of any group shouldn’t be tolerated here, full stop. I don’t abide that “punching up” or “the reverse is said” stuff. It’s still a sexist tirade and it should still be not tolerated here, imo.

I think the old ruling seems applicable here.

To paraphase (sorta):

You don't get an eye blind turned towards your bashing entire groups of people just because they're the "right group to bash."