Quote from Seattle Traditionalist

Does Seattle Traditionalist deserve an infraction for his Post #199 in the "Do MRAs analyze themselves" thread.

Following is the latter part of a message I am sending to Marx.

I am interested in what the members here think about me receiving an infraction for the comment I made in the currently most popular thread here.

Message to Marx:
The second part of my questions or comments is related to the substance of my offense. I must admit, when I wrote about "a woman openly challenging their sexism!" I never had in mind that I was breaking any rules or was even close to breaking any rules. I was led to believe that members had the right to state their opinions, pretty much regardless of what their opinions were, and that that is of course the foundation of vigorous intellectual debate, and is what made this forum fun, interesting, and so popular. In fact, I think that you and Celtic Druid have directly told me that I would not be banned for stating my opinions, even after it was clear that my opinions were not in the mainstream here. This infraction you are giving me seems to be a violation of this free speech principle that you earlier led me to believe that you follow and that this forum honors.

The entire point of the thread I posted into is about whether it is good for there to be as much negativity towards women as is showed by the members. To say it is a crime to say that many of the comments here are sexist or anti-woman seems to be making the claim that the entire problem that Tera is trying to address is a problem that is not allowed to be discussed. That in effect, anybody who is supportive of Tera is guilty of "promoting hostilities against men" and is therefore to be punished.

I could very much defend the proposition that many comments here are negative towards women in general. I could very much support the argument that there is anti-woman sexism expressed on this forum to some extent. For me to highlight this in a thread whose purpose is to discuss this issue seems perfectly appropriate to me.

I think this infraction is very much about trying to curb my right to free speech, and I thought this forum was better than that.

I assure you, no one here is trying to curb your free speech. Marx made his decision and I won't question that out of respect but I assure you he isn't trying to curb your free speech.

Truthfully, if you were on a feminist site, you would go straight to being banned, this site nor Marx operate like that.

If it's any consolation, it would appear Karl reprimanded himself as well tonight, so one could hardly call his actions discriminatory.

I would suggest that if you have an issue with the actions of admin that you take the matter up with admin. Taking your issues to the board members can yield you very little as these decisions are not up to us and it is not incumbant upon admin to consult with us on their decisions.

I have read #199 thoroughly.

I disagree with much on ST's position on chivalry and have taken him to task several times on matters of Form of Argument.

But I have no problem with him expressing his (strange) opinion and being open to debating them.

I see nothing at all in #199 that calls for an infraction. There was a bit of mild banter, but compared to some of the intolerance and name calling recently elsewhere, it was very mild.

But it is Karl's board and his judgment is usually quite OK with me.

ST, if it is any consolation, I have been given a share of whacks -here- in my time and even speared in the back on another MRA forum. It can get 'robust' at times.

Your stances may be wordy and unpopular in part but at least you are polite.

Is this a hit n run thread ST?

Well if we're going to cry publicly...

Here's a facsimile of what I said via PM in response, and also in the pertaining thread within the admin's subforums.

Quote from Marx

Quote from Seattle Traditionalist

This is very interesting, my first infraction. I guess my questions for you are in two parts. First of all I guess I would like the meaning of infractions explained to me. What are serious infractions, what are not serious infractions. There is a mention of "may result in restricted access until expires". Does my infraction lead to restricted access, what are the restrictions, when will the restrictions expire if there are restrictions. I want to know my about how this infraction business works.

Oh God, I wish I hadn't given you an infraction now... just so I don't have to read all this monolithic and excessive yabbering in response. Can't you just 'try' to talk like a normal human being? You're like a fucking child who's just discovered something scientific "why... why this.. why that.. why does it do that ... and why does it do it that way... and why.. .and why ... and whyyyyyy" OH GOD !!!!!!
Anyway, to answer your question(S) as briefly as possible without boring myself to sleep, in fractions are a means of issueing a card to someone who has done something perceived as wrong.
Serious infractions are, for example, repeated attacks at someone. I do not employ restricted access for infractions. So you need not concern yourself with that element - the mention of it in that PM was simply a standardized message, which I guess now you've made such a big deal out of it, I shoudl look into editing at some point.

Quote from Seattle Traditionalist

The second part of my questions or comments is related to the substance of my offense. I must admit, when I wrote about "a woman openly challenging their sexism!" I never had in mind that I was breaking any rules or was even close to breaking any rules.

Have you ever looked at them?

Quote from Seattle Traditionalist

I was led to believe that members had the right to state their opinions, pretty much regardless of what their opinions were, and that that is of course the foundation of vigorous intellectual debate, and is what made this forum fun, interesting, and so popular. In fact, I think that you and Celtic Druid have directly told me that I would not be banned for stating my opinions, even after it was clear that my opinions were not in the mainstream here.

And are you banned? No. So why are you bringing that up? Derailing the point, perhaps?

Quote from Seattle Traditionalist

This infraction you are giving me seems to be a violation of this free speech principle that you earlier led me to believe that you follow and that this forum honors.

Naturally, nothing is wihtout it's limitiations. Heavily pro-male folk have received infractions too when they take the freedom of speech concept too far.

Quote from Seattle Traditionalist

The entire point of the thread I posted into is about whether it is good for there to be as much negativity towards women as is showed by the members.

And I did not give an infraction for that element of your post... so another moot point.

Quote from Seattle Traditionalist

To say it is a crime to say that many of the comments here are sexist or anti-woman seems to be making the claim that the entire problem that Tera is trying to address is a problem that is not allowed to be discussed.

Not at all. It is allowed to be discussed, naturally. Negative statements about MRA's is frowned upon though, and unlike feminist boards, we don't simply delete & ban people for their opinions. There are good ways, and bad ways, of addressing POV's. Crying that MRA's to be sexists is not one of the good ways.

Quote from Seattle Traditionalist

That in effect, anybody who is supportive of Tera is guilty of "promoting hositilites against men" and is therefore to be punishied.

Not at all. As already explained both in the originating infraction PM and earlier in this same reply, the infraction was about labelling MRA's as sexist - which is not 'supportive of Tera's post. She did not say that MRA's are all sexists - you said that.

Quote from Seattle Traditionalist

I could very much defend the proposition that many comments here are negative towards women in general.

So? What do you want, a medal? We know there are some negative comments toward women in general... what's your point?

Quote from Seattle Traditionalist

I could very much support the argument that there is anti-woman sexism expressed on this forum to some extent.

You've just said the same thing twice now, only adding 'sexism' for a little weight; an excuse to repeat the same line... but in reality, there's not a whole lotta difference.

Quote from Seattle Traditionalist

For me to highlight this in a thread whose purpose is to discuss this issue seems perfectly appropriate to me.

As I said though, you're taking it out of context - putting your choice of words into Tera's mouth, saying "well she said this, and i'm only agreeing with her" when in reality, she asked a simple question - which admittedly got rather skewed - and you have chosent to interpret it to your own, pro-misandry, viewpoint.

Quote from Seattle Traditionalist

I think this infraction is very much about trying to curb my right to free speech, and I thought this forum was better than that.

Well, diddums. I don't really care what you think about the infraction. I've got one myself - so don't feel like the spotlight is entirely on you. Although, from my observations, you seem to enjoy the spotlight being all over you.

I don't really care what you think about the infraction. I've got one myself

Hahahahahaha !! Good one.

I hope you are going to behave yourself Marx.

Further to may last - Don't get your knickers in a twist ST.

I don't know - nor particularly care - who said this, but 'someone' cool and obviously intelligent once said something to the effect of;

Why say metropolis, when you can just as easily say city?

Which, as I understand it, means something along the lines of;

You do not have to pull out a big dictionary, thesaurus and whatever other linguistic tools you may have to hand when making a post.

Instead of waffling endlessly with unformatted paragraph after paragraph - just write the fuckin' words down in plain English.

You will attract a considerably larger audience if your posts are short, concise and legible.

Attempting to write a post the size of the Bible itself just to say "waaah I don't like you" is hardly beneficial to anyone, and that includes you, ST.

If you want people's attention - write it down in plain English. Leave the faux scholary elsewhere, it is not necessary.

..and I have one polite request. If people respond to you, be nice and respond back. I have addressed you twice tonight and neither time have you responded. Sooner or later I will just ignore your posts.

I applaud the plain English approach...as I mentioned before (according to some Celtic Druids posts) it is not always easy for a foreigner to decipher cryptic texts. For STs posts for example I just use the scrollwheel on my mouse.

Quote from Feckless

For STs posts for example I just use the scrollwheel on my mouse.

Quote from Feckless

I applaud the plain English approach...as I mentioned before (according to some Celtic Druids posts) it is not always easy for a foreigner to decipher cryptic texts. For STs posts for example I just use the scrollwheel on my mouse.

You might also try the back button on your mouse.

Also, here's a handy tool for making member's magically vanish before your very eyes!!!

copy-paste from GARAK #2

Seattle Traditionalist message I am sending to Marx

...many of the comments here are sexist or anti-woman...
...many comments here are negative towards women in general...
...there is anti-woman sexism expressed on this forum to some extent...

Really? I doubt that.
MRAs are against feminism. Their comments are directed against feminist ideology.

This forum and their members are in no way 'anti-woman' or 'negative towards women in general'.

As you know yourself, women are also posting in this forum. 1000s of comments are from women - Is TERA not a woman? Just one example...

Seattle Traditionalist message I am sending to Marx
....anybody who is supportive of Tera is guilty of 'promoting hostilities against men'...
...trying to curb my right to free speech, and I thought this forum was better than that...

Interesting complaint, but TERA continues to post in this forum...nobody is banned, and as far as I know there was never any deleting or editing of your and her postings. So, what do you want? What do you really want?

I think, you are not accustomed to the fact, that members here are entitled to talk back to your comments, if they do not agree with your comments. You miss the idea of free speech.

Free speech means not only free speech for you, but also for all others, who disagree with you.

Quote from yohan

...So, what do you want? What do you really want?

to...