News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban 748
An anonymous reader writes The news aggregator Fark is ancient in dot com terms. Users submit news links to the privately run site and tear it — and each other — to pieces in the discussion threads. (Sound familiar?) While the site isn't as popular as during the early 2000s, the privately run discussion forum has continued and has its champions. site operator Drew Curtis announced today that Gifs, references, jokes and comments involving sexism will be deleted. "Adam Savage once described to me the problem this way: if the Internet was a dude, we'd all agree that dude has a serious problem with women. We've actually been tightening up moderation style along these lines for awhile now, but as of today, the FArQ will be updated with new rules reminding you all that we don't want to be the He Man Woman Hater's Club. This represents enough of a departure from pretty much how every other large internet community operates that I figure an announcement is necessary."
Given how bare-knuckled Fark can be, is it time? Overdue?
Given how bare-knuckled Fark can be, is it time? Overdue?
Lipstick (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Will they ban this ? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, for the same reason why a news article that talks about a white supremacist assaulting a African-American isn't automatically racist. Or one about Westboro Baptist Church picketing a funeral of someone who was gay doesn't make it automatically homophobic. The context of the whole article is what makes it misogynistic (or racist, or homophobic, or ...)
Now if that Reuters article had that same line, but then followed it with that the woman shouldn't have been out of the kitchen. Or she just needed to fix a sandwich. Or any other misogynistic ideas according to modern society then yes, it would be banned.
Re:Will they ban this ? (Score:5, Interesting)
While I understand what you are saying, I disagree in the intent of the policy. Sexism is offensive, misogyny is hatred. Being offensive isn't prohibited for if it was, the internet would cease to exist. Being outright hateful is though.
If I say "that awful parking job had to be by a woman", I'm sexist. If I say "that bitch deserves to be raped for that parking job", I'm misogynistic. It's the later trolling they don't want.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps it was poorly stated on my part. What I was meaning was an article about WBC picketing a funeral does not make the article homophobic just because the subject the article about is.
The original comment was would Fark prohibit a legitimate news article that reported on a (horribly understated) misogynistic action. And I was saying no, because it wasn't the news article that was necessarily misogynistic, rather it was the action being reported on. If someone came along and said that the victim got wha
Re:Will they ban this ? (Score:4, Insightful)
The ban isn't necessarily on news, it's on comments that people make.
Re:Lipstick (Score:5, Funny)
That's how we got Kim Kardashian.
Sigh (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You still have Something Awful.
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't want to feed the troll, but...
How exactly is forcing someone to like somebody supposed to work?
Re:Sigh (Score:4, Funny)
I think it's called marriage.
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
It was basically "jerk logic". People complaining about being "forced to like gays" were actually only being forced to tolerate their presence.
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that, in the mozilla case, it was a couple of gay employees who couldn't tolerate the presence of the new CEO who donated private funds to an anti gay marriage effort. Gays are human, too, thus they can be just as intolerant as any other human.
Re: (Score:3)
"Tolerate my intolerance" is a failed argument when it comes to civil rights.
What about ignore my hypocrisy when I am lecturing you on tolerance?
Disagree != Flamebait (Score:5, Interesting)
While surely this could have been worded differently for clarity and to lighten the offense, I don't believe its flamebait (just a bit misguided).
I disagree with the post in that it's not just liberals that want to control people's mind, it's an establishment problem that relates to people in office/power and not just liberals. Half of waking up is to notice the corruption, the other half is to start broadening your view to ensure you are getting the full picture.
When the News is manipulated to give you a specific opinion, that is mind control. For example, everyone in the US is under the belief that Iran is evil, hell bent on destroying Israel, and bent on world domination. They have a larger military than most countries in the region, yet have not invaded anyone in over 200 years. Assad from Syria is painted as a horrible dictator today, yet prior to the revolt in Libya, US media repeatedly claimed that Syria was the most progressive country in the Middle East. You won't hear about the Saudi Arabian police killing people for speaking out against the government, or putting a women in jail for driving in US media. Ignore the slave labor problems in Dubai and UAE. Those guys are our friends, so we have TV specials showing you how great they are and fire journalists that cover a story that is not favorable.
You will also hear intentionally manipulated "news" to ensure that you have a biased opinion and reaction. Zimmerman/Martin is an easy example, and on the surface the Ferguson MO is another. OWS was just a bunch of bums, they were not demanding accountability for criminal acts by executives. And when protesters are too big of a nuisance, send in agent provocateurs. I'm sure you remember that during the Oakland OWS protests which turned violent the majority of protestors arrested for violent confrontation were not from California. (Interesting that similar reports are coming from Ferguson IMHO.)
People may want to (falsely) believe that the only kind of mind control is like the Manchurian candidate, because someone shaped their reality to have that belief. Just like most people associate the word "conspiracy" with insanity and impossible. Not rational when you look at it, we all know conspiracies happen. I'm sure you remember the TV show "Survivor" which was full of people conspiring to win. Yet if I told you that a winner was in a conspiracy you may have difficulty agreeing. People will argue that they plotted or planned and manipulated, very rarely will they agree with the term conspiracy.
Shaping thought is not new, not novel, and not unique. We like to think it only happens to those other guys, but it has been happening here for generations. Further, US Media has been working at demoralizing the USA for a long time (has nothing to do with homophobia or sexism, ask for clarity if you are lost). You don't have to like it, and you can surely ignore that portion of reality, but you can't deny the facts. There is plenty of material to study if you so desire.
Last point so that I'm not writing a novel, is that there is more than one reason for the people in power to do this. If the people in power can keep us arguing with each other about our differences they get to stay in power and gain more power. The Hegelian dialectic is exactly this. Own both sides of the argument so that people line up in the center. Provide a problem so that you can implement a solution you want towards a resolution that you want. Hegel was not the first person to understand this social control method, he was just the first person we know of that wrote down the process.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Sorry, being forced to "tolerate" someone is, for me, functionally indistinct from being forced to approve of them."
Well, then you don't know the definition of "tolerate".
If you approve of something, then you cannot tolerate it because tolerance implies disapproval. It's part of the definition.
tolerate: allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of something that one does not necessarily like or agree with without interference
It's not our fault that you can't read a dictionary, or refuse to accept the me
Re: (Score:3)
"Sorry, being forced to "tolerate" someone is, for me, functionally indistinct from being forced to approve of them."
Well, then you don't know the definition of "tolerate".
If you approve of something, then you cannot tolerate it because tolerance implies disapproval. It's part of the definition.
tolerate: allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of something that one does not necessarily like or agree with without interference
It's not our fault that you can't read a dictionary, or refuse to accept the meanings of words. Look inward.
I think the person you were responding to knows the actual dictionary definition of tolerance but many liberals who are rabid supporters of the gay community seem to be confusing the word tolerance and acceptance or affirmation. They are quick to call anyone who is not affirming gays as intolerant. I tolerate their existence in society but I do not support specific rights for gays. Their human rights should suffice.
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
How exactly is forcing someone to like somebody supposed to work?
You missed the point entirely. It's the statement that they generally "just don't like gays". Homosexuals make up about 5% of the population, 1 in 20. Saying you just don't like people who are homosexual is saying you don't like a random 5% of the population for no reason other than who they are attracted to. Personality, political views, religion or anything else they can choose is fair game, but sexuality is not in the same way that race and gender isn't.
Imagine if it were "I just don't like blacks" or "I just don't like women". It's the literal definition of bigotry - a general dislike of a large group for reasons that have nothing to do with anything that group can control, or anything that applies to all members.
Re: (Score:3)
You aren't being forced to like somebody because they are gay. You are being told that it is immoral to dislike a person based upon the sole criteria that they are gay. Of course, you are free to dislike that person for a variety of other reasons that are deemed non-discriminatory in the legal sense.
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
> We're not forcing you to like anyone. We're simply requiring you to behave, in public, as if you don't hate them.
It's not even that. He can still hate people. He just can't ACT on it.
It's like he wants to act like ISIS and doesn't even see the painfully obvious parallel.
Tolerating people you don't personally approve of is just the cost of living in a free society that manages to tolerate YOU.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Tolerating people you don't personally approve of is just the cost of living in a free society that manages to tolerate YOU.
+5
Recommended viewing for the politically correct (Score:4, Interesting)
Please take a minute and 45 seconds to absorb the following (quite funny) video:
http://www.boreme.com/posting.... [boreme.com]
Re:Sigh (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, not liking a group of people is a perfectly okay position to take. Lots of people who claim to stand up for "equality" themselves dislike lots of other groups (capitalists, conservatives, etc.). Likewise, equality [of outcome] and [positive] human rights are something many people reject, including people ostensibly intended to be "beneficiaries" of such policies. What you are complaining about are valid political positions you simply happen to disagree with.
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, not liking a group of people is a perfectly okay position to take. Lots of people who claim to stand up for "equality" themselves dislike lots of other groups (capitalists, conservatives, etc.). Likewise, equality [of outcome] and [positive] human rights are something many people reject, including people ostensibly intended to be "beneficiaries" of such policies. What you are complaining about are valid political positions you simply happen to disagree with.
Being gay isn't an ideology. Disliking homosexuals is completely different from not liking capitalists, conservatives, liberals, etc. Disliking homosexuals is disliking people for something that they didn't choose and cannot change. It is not a political opinion, and it is not acceptable.
Furthermore, note that "disliking homosexuals" is marginal, even among evangelical Christian organizations. For example, the Southern Baptist Convention [wikipedia.org] is the largest protestant body in the US, and are evangelical Baptists. Their Resolution on Homosexuality [sbc.net], while harmful and deeply misguided, doesn't go nearly that far. In fact, it contains the language "God loves the homosexual."
Finally, I feel obligated to point out that you seem to be implicitly lumping LGBT rights activists with those seeking "equality of outcome," as though that program is seeking some sort of government handout. The key issue for LGBT rights activists is freedom to marry, which is "equal treatment under the law," not "equality of outcome."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Disliking homosexuals is disliking people for something that they didn't choose and cannot change. It is not a political opinion, and it is not acceptable.
Scratch homosexual and put in pedophile (used in the broad, incorrect way) and are you still so strongly supportive? How about the rest of the "fire Eich" brigade? I don't see too many people defending their rights. You think one is morally wrong and some people think they're both morally wrong. Eich did "tolerate" homosexuals by the way- he just didn't think they should marry. You may disagree with him but disagreeing with his right to have a political opinion is a bit different than wanting him to "tolera
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
First, let me state in no uncertain terms that, in very important ways, homosexuality and pedophilia are not equivalent and cannot serve as functional substitutes for one another in a debate in general. This is because "homosexuality" describes desires upon which to act is normal, healthy, and acceptable, while "pedophilia," in the sense you mean, describes desires upon which to act is harmful and unacceptable.
That said, in the broad sense you mean, I am supportive of pedophiles who refrain from acting on their desires. I don't know all that much about pedophilia, but I am under the impression that, as with attraction to a specific gender, attraction to children is innate and cannot be altered through willpower or other known means. Those who are afflicted with attraction to children yet do not harm them (either themselves or through child pornographers) deserve our acceptance and understanding. Anyone who spurns them causes suffering and misery, without justice. (In fact, I suspect this widespread hatred likely causes many such people to look more favorably on those who would encourage them to harm children.)
Also, by the way, I do not think that people who express (in words, without threat or intimidation) dislike for homosexuals or disapproval of homosexual acts or marriage are "morally wrong." Some are expressing political opinions which are misguided. This is not morally or ethically wrong; I just disagree with them. Others describe broader positions, the collective prevalence of which does real harm to homosexuals beyond the political realm by creating the unjust social burden of being treated as an outcast or deviant in many contexts and communities, with consequences ranging from loneliness and shame to poverty and suicide. Nevertheless, those espousing these positions are not committing a moral act; they are simply wrong, and the harm they cause is in the domain of ethics, rather than morality. (Those who shout slurs or otherwise intentionally intimidate people are morally wrong, but we weren't discussing them I don't think.)
Finally, stop trying to create some sort of equivalence over, for example, being fired for a political opinion and being fired for being gay. Both are generally wrong, but they are not the same.
Re: (Score:3)
I said why it's not acceptable: because having sex with children harms them. Citation from scientific literature: Early sexual abuse and lifetime psychopathology: a co-twin–control study [cambridge.org]. I'm on a university campus, so I don't know if it is paywalled or not. From the abstract:
In the sample as a whole, those reporting CSA [childhood sexual abuse] were more likely to receive lifetime diagnoses of major depression, conduct disorder, panic disorder and alcoholism, and were more likely to report suicidal ideation and a history of suicide attempt.
See? No equivalency with homosexuality, just like I said. Gay marriage isn't some first step down a slippery slope toward marrying dogs, sex with children, or whatever else some people imagine.
Re:Sigh (Score:4, Insightful)
The very fact that you think you have the moral authority to say people should be fired for their political beliefs is what I'm contending. You say that because you think it causes harm that it's totally fine to infringe on political freedom. If Eich had have started firing people for supporting pro gay marriage groups I'd have the same problem with that (plus other problems since I'm pro gay marriage).
There are a whole lot of people that think that homosexuality is harmful. They are wrong. You are never going to change their minds by telling them "no u". Emotional arguments cannot defeat emotional arguments. They only inflame people.
I am perfectly capable of defending someone's political freedom without having to agree with their politics. If I wasn't then I wouldn't be capable of defending anyone's political freedom.
The reason you feel you are arguing over and over again is because you keep insisting you have some kind of moral authority and ignoring the fact that people are telling you that you do not. You give absolutes that don't apply to yourself as soon as you feel they don't.
Re: (Score:3)
In post 47703383 [slashdot.org], an ancestor of your post, I wrote
...for example, being fired for a political opinion and being fired for being gay. Both are generally wrong, but they are not the same.
You can see my confusion when you write things like
you think you have the moral authority to say people should be fired for their political beliefs
I'm not arguing from an appeal to authority. I'm not arguing from an appeal to emotion. My argument, as I've made it in this discussion, is
Re: (Score:3)
The important point is that homosexuals marrying does not harm anyone in any real sense. Some people get upset by it, but that isn't nearly enough to justify banning it. On the other hand paedophiles do directly harm children, so their behaviour cannot be tolerated.
In the same way Eich's behaviour cannot be tolerated either. He tried to harm homosexuals by preventing them from marrying, and from having equal rights to heterosexuals.
Tolerance is accepting behaviour you dislike but which does not hurt anyone.
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
As a gay man, I have had to accept that people dislike me for something I didn't choose. Your draconian attempts to force others to accept me make things worse for me.
Organizations like the HRC very much push laws like ENDA, which goes far beyond "equal treatment under the law". As for marriage, a far better way of achieving "equal treatment under the law" is to stop having the state interfere in how people arrange their personal lives or try to come up with legal definitions for religious concepts.
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
For starters, I much prefer open discrimination to hidden discrimination; I prefer hearing "we don't want to hire you because you're gay" to lame excuses, or worse, ending up in a workplace that doesn't accept me.
I could go on, but my general point is that the progressive activist approach of "demanding equality" through legislation is only one of many possible approaches, and one
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
Disliking homosexuals is disliking people for something that they didn't choose and cannot change. It is not a political opinion, and it is not acceptable.
What? Fuck you sideways. I mean, I personally have no problem whatsoever with lesbigaytrangenderedetc people but I will stand up for anyone's right to do so. I get off the bus before it gets to the stop where you're permitted to treat people with prejudice when you're in a position of power. If I am a public figure who has a responsibility to people regardless of their sexual orientation, ideally you would have no idea what my personal position in fact is because I would do my job and it would not matter.
Further, there's plenty of gay people who don't like straight people, or don't like straight people of certain kinds. Are you going to go tell them that's not okay? Or is it still acceptable to hate on nominally white, nominally straight males?
Furthermore, note that "disliking homosexuals" is marginal, even among evangelical Christian organizations [...] "God loves the homosexual."
If you're going to start claiming that evangelical christians are like god, then you're really going to have to deal with an endless deluge of laughter and derision.
The key issue for LGBT rights activists is freedom to marry, which is "equal treatment under the law," not "equality of outcome."
No, no it is not. The key issue for LGBT rights activists is equality, which is "equal treatment under the law". It is a mark of how far our society has not come that we are actually arguing over one specific aspect of equality with such fervor. Next, we will get to move onto the next aspect of equality, still without actually recognizing that homosexuals are human beings who deserve equal protection under the law to every other human being. Instead, we continue to treat them like a subclass, and make them beg, plead, and finally fight for each individual right. Perhaps soon we will permit them to sit in the front of the bus.
Re: (Score:3)
Disliking homosexuals is disliking people for something that they didn't choose and cannot change. It is not a political opinion, and it is not acceptable.
What? Fuck you sideways. I mean, I personally have no problem whatsoever with lesbigaytrangenderedetc people but I will stand up for anyone's right to do so. I get off the bus before it gets to the stop where you're permitted to treat people with prejudice when you're in a position of power. If I am a public figure who has a responsibility to people regardless of their sexual orientation, ideally you would have no idea what my personal position in fact is because I would do my job and it would not matter.
If you're going to make me split hairs, having an opinion that you choose to keep to yourself is only wrong in that the opinion may be misguided or factually wrong. It is only making certain decisions based on such opinions, or expressing them in a way that could cause harm, which is unacceptable. Furthermore, I don't mean to imply that I support firing people, or writing censorship legislation. Not every debate needs to transform into some meta-debate about free speech. I'm saying that I'm not okay lea
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, in free countries, people should be free to like or dislike whoever they want for any reason they want, and form their associations accordingly. The reason gays, feminists and other left wing activists get so much shit is because their 'tolerance' only goes in one direction. They want to dictate what others can do to/say about them, but they want it no holds barred when they're the ones spewing vitriol. Get a gay person fired because he's gay? Instant condemnation and legal action. Get a brand
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a very US American thing to pretend that the only valid position against homophobia is the dogma that sexual orientation is 100% genetically determined. Instead of "Fuck your hateful god and his moral law" they say "I'm sorry if my life is an abomination, I can't help it, I was born this way". I think this is a reactionary biologistic position. It devalues my conscious choice, in my case in my early teens, to become gay. I'd rather tell young people that what you are isn't set in stone and that what makes life worth living is to experiment and invent yourself, sexually and otherwise.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, but you can't choose to become gay. If you were previously attracted to the opposite sex (in your pre-teen years, presumably, since you "chose" in your early teens) then you are in fact just bisexual but chose to live as a homosexual.
Sexuality isn't binary, there is a whole range between straight and gay. It is fixed though, and although you can choose within a certain range you can't force yourself to be something you fundamentally are not. People trying to convince you otherwise are just trying to
Re:Sigh (Score:4, Insightful)
"Disliking homosexuals is disliking people for something that they didn't choose and cannot change."
I sure as fuck chose my lifestyle, thanks. Three bad engagements to women, and I made up my mind to date men after that.
What nonsense are you on about?
Then that would make you bisexual. Not everyone is. Are you unable to conceive of someone who has different sexual preferences to you?
No wonder you're anonymous (Score:3)
Any body part with nerve endings and/or usable contact surfaces can be brought into play in sexual relations under the right circumstances. This has nothing do do with the gender of the party or parties involved. The fact that you don't know these things speaks very poorly about your competence and experience in the sexual arena.
Been there, had that done to us (Score:4, Insightful)
That's precisely the kind of thinking that led to child labor in factories and mines; it is also why we have to subsidize low paying jobs through our taxes so people can survive at a (somewhat) more reasonable level. It is what led to "whites only" and "separate bathrooms"; It is why the male/female employment ratios are so skewed; it is why older engineers are replaced by younger ones who know far less and don't have families to support; it is why the EPA, or something like it, really needs to exist. And so on.
Business, large and small, incorporated or not, as entities, resemble people only to the degree that most of them, left unregulated, exhibit sociopathy and/or psychopathy. History has shown this explicitly, time and time again. No one is guessing about this: the facts have been in for a long time, and new facts consistent with the old continue to arrive with distressing regularity.
The idea that business, left to its own discretions, will do the right thing is nothing more than a fantasy. Unregulated business is a very bad idea, and further, the premise that bad businesses will automatically fail because customers will do the right thing is equally bankrupt, and for many of the same reasons. Large numbers of people are both selfish and disinterested in the welfare of others.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
And who was "concerned" exactly? And how did he "insult" them?
I think I was "concerned" and I didn't feel "insulted", I simply thought he was wrong. If you can't work with or for people who hold political or religious beliefs you disagree with, you have a problem with professionalism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
The regulars didn't leave, AmiMoJo, least of all you who seem to show up regularly in the tediously increasing (and increasingly tedious) number of stories about how white western women, the most privileged creatures on this planet, have it so bad.
I certainly haven't noticed a raft of gay hating posts around here (any more than the usual trolling) but any chance to drum up a moral panic eh? What I did see was a lot of discontent with the McCarthyist pogrom that was going on. That's the sort of thing that raises hackles, and it can be traced back to the post structuralist academics who teach people that the phrase 'I find that offensive' is a valid argument and why we have hate speech laws at the same time we claim to value freedom of speech.
Anyway, yeah Fark. If they're going to tackle sexism they need to make sure they tackle all sexism, so no dick, cock, or misandric jokes either.
Otherwise that would be sexist.
It's been on the downslope for a while regardless, my guess is there aren't many gasps left in the old boiler.
Re: (Score:3)
Your comments frighten me. That makes you a terrorist.
Re: (Score:3)
It's that anyone who doesn't immediately jump on board The Right Viewpoint on those women's issues articles is instantly labelled misogynistic. So in that view, probably 80% of Slashdot is Bad People.
In other news, it's a bad idea to expect the Internet to be polite and politically correct. Story at 10.
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
Riddle me this - if women are somehow, somewhere being paid less for doing the same job, having the same experience and qualifications as men, why wouldn't employers hire the cheaper employee? I mean did you perhaps miss the whole outsourcing thing? They aren't moving operations wholesale to Shanghai for the local cuisine.
Which leads us to the next question, which is - what sort of mind is unable to take the minimal critical steps internally not to ask these sorts of questions immediately?
Sexual abuse, really: http://www.apa.org/pubs/journa... [apa.org]
And that doesn't even factor in the whole US prison thing.
Healthcare, female specific health issues garner between two and twelve times as much funding as male, and even then the feminists complain about movember.
And we can talk about lifespan disparities, the enormous suicide disparities, jail sentencing disparities, numbers enrolling and graduating from third level institutions disparities, inequality of outcome in the family courts (see what I did there?), VAWA laws that have resulted in female child abusers actually getting child support from their underaged victims, disparities in the numbers of homeless, and so on and on and on.
Although I do like the way you rounded it off with a fairly elderly shaming tactic. Vintage.
Re: (Score:3)
What wage disparity exists, comes as a result of what career paths women choose to take. So says a number of studies. Giving women the same wages as men, despite them being in less demanding jobs, is pure man-hating, women-are-perfect, political correctness gone completely awry.
Huge populations of men are doing long jail terms and then being made unemployable and homeless for the rest o
Re: (Score:2)
Pick any random story about equality and it will be full of people accusing the women involved of attacking them personally and of being whiney bitches.
Clarify this for me: Are you saying:
1. Such posts exist, and some get upmodded.
- or -
2. The majority of such comments get upmodded and misogyny is the dominant sentiment in this community.
If you're saying 2, we should take action. But first, citation needed, because I think you are mistaken. If you're saying 1, it is better to allow a few fools to express th
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Interesting)
AmiMojo counts sentiments like yours as proof of hate. If you disagree (or ask for meaningful evidence) that the problem is all around us and unbearable then you obviously support misogyny.
When you ask for meaningful evidence of misogyny on slashdot (or wider society) you only underscore your blindness to the problem. You shouldn't need anyone to point out examples, because an intelligent person would be able to find a discussion and skim it. When you learn to use the internets, you'll spend a lot less time whining.
Every woman I know well enough to tell me whether she has been raped has been raped. (I don't ask, obviously.) Either you live in a magical fairy world where women are treated better than they are in Northern California, or women don't trust you well enough for you to know how serious the problem is. And let me tell you, based on your statements, I am something less than shocked.
Re: (Score:3)
there were endless posts about how "just not liking gays" was somehow a perfectly okay position to take
Who determines what positions are and aren't OK to take?
Re: (Score:2)
Or Slashdot. It's got really, really bad here over the last couple of years. Things really nose dived after the Beta exodus and a lot of regulars left.
We're still here. We're just too tired to post any more.
Re: (Score:3)
In the mozilla case, it was the CEO who was discriminated against by a few gay employees because of his politics, possibly due to religious convictions. They used the lobbied pro-gay culture bias to stick it to him and won. There's no justice in that.
Perhaps the reason it's 'gotten really bad' is because there is validity in the arguments being made? Perhaps people are getting sick of the hypocrisies surrounding affirmative action and feminism in particular?
People are not obligated to like you. People a
Muh freedom of speech (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't get why people want to lock themselve in an echo chamber. That seems silly to me.
Re: (Score:2)
You're a straight white male, aren't you?
Look around you and what do you see? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't get why people want to lock themselve in an echo chamber. That seems silly to me.
--- and a bizarre question to be asking here.
You can see the posters here circling the wagons when topics like gender equality come up on Slashdot.
Long overdue (Score:5, Funny)
This is long overdue.Thank god for the censorship which will shape our future.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Censorship only applies to governments.
No, that's just plain wrong.
The first amendment only applies the US government.
Freedom of speech is a universal ideal.
The right to freedom of speech is a legal quandary.
Censorship is an action that anyone can do, rightly or wrongly, legally or illegally, in a multitude ways with a broad spectrum of severity.
If you think that it is only limited to a niche type of occurrence and doesn't apply to you then you're pretty damn closed-minded.
That being said, why is this offensive speech worthy of protection and not, anti-semitic, anti-christian, anti-islamic, anti-gay, pro-abortion, anti-abortion,.....
It's worthy of protection against censorship the same way that anti-semit
Not moderated on their pay site? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm just wondering if it will be moderated on 'totalfark'. Totalfark is the paid side of Fark. I could see this as just revenue generation.
Because narrowly defining "sexism" will work! (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically, like just about every other "ism" out there, we'll see mission creep. Or people abusing a badly defined policy to censor legitimate and non-infringing dialogs.
I'm not saying the sentiment isn't noble. But they just don't have an apparatus in place to make sure it gets applied in a fair, even-handed manner.
It's always amazed me... (Score:5, Insightful)
When I was on Fark, you could make all sorts of rape, incest, murder and violence jokes, but I just mocked the delusions of 3D printer nutters and it got me banned.
Drew is a bit of a douche.
Re:It's always amazed me... (Score:4, Interesting)
Policies like this new one are why it's not as popular. They started down the path of pleasing their corporate overlords (ie, advertisers) a long time ago and started removing all the boobies pics and anything that might appear NSFW could get you banned because *gasp* heaven forbid they lose the ad-revenue of all those 9-5 desk-imprisoned FARKers click click clicking away all day on the company dime.
FARK has sucked for years. This is par for the course for Drew "FYIGM" Curtis and the constant nagging "join totalfark" ads and even the "please disable adblock" nag on their site.
The toothpaste (Score:2)
has left the building
Whatever.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Fark already defies internet culture. (Score:5, Interesting)
A lot of things run counter to typical internet culture on Fark. You can't even curse on that site. It has moved away from porn. People actually pay for membership. They do IRL meetups almost every week somewhere in the world. They've been pretty successful at banning memes in the past.
I find it more witty than harsh.
Re: (Score:2)
I met some wonderful people on TotalFark, but I don't read the internet to be pissed off and overall that place is a complete dump of assholery, and I have never looked back. Reddit works just fine.
Re:Fark already defies internet culture. (Score:5, Interesting)
"Reddit works just fine."
Not even. For such a supposedly 'open' community, a ton of the bigger subreddits have fucked rules.
Example, tried to post two days ago in r/aquariums regarding a problem I have. I have a new account since Reddits PW system is irreparably broken. Because I have a new account, I can't post in the aquariums section (and don't want to derail another thread with my issue) and AutoModerator removed my submission. Why? It thinks a self-post with no link, no brand names, nothing like that being mentioned, is SPAM.
Well, here I am two days later, half my tank is dead.
At least 4chan's /an/ managed to help keep half my tank alive.
Fuck Reddit.
Re:Fark already defies internet culture. (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of things run counter to typical internet culture on Fark.
No, Fark has just started to run counter to what made Fark good and fun and famous. Boobies links, "I'd hit it" jokes, erudition, and irreverence for taboos and political correctness have been replaced with sponsored headlines, recycled 4chan memes, and the kinds of banal, insight-free commentary you'd expect to hear from lumpy blue hairs sipping coffee in rural truck stops.
Much ado about nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
The official announcement thread for the new policy pretty much says it all. Fark regulars openly mocked this new policy, much like anti-beta posts here... All while shown prominent links to Foobies (along with plenty of other not exactly "wymyn friendly" advertisements) in the sidebar. This policy will last a whole week, unless Drew goes nuclear and literally bans half the userbase. But hey, we need another MetaFilter since Google has starved off the original, right?
For those seriously debating the "need" for websites to take actions like this, look at Slashdot as a role-model. Put bluntly, sites that feel the need to censor their comments simply have inadequate moderation systems. As much as Slashdot's doesn't always work to bring the best to the top, it does do an amazing job of pushing the complete garbage to the bottom. Browse at -1, and Slashdot looks much like Gorgor-era Fark; browse at 2+, and threads look like a coherent discussion of the issues broached in TFA.
Re:Much ado about nothing (Score:5, Informative)
Your idiot Fark mod is Genevieve Marie. No need to hide the moron's Fark handle.
Re: (Score:2)
What's lower is FARK mods already banning people over on FARK for things being said here and on Reddit.
So they get zero fucking quarter from me.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Good catch, but I wouldn't really call one slip "constant".
You are wearing a tower of twelve fedoras.
Damnit, why do people keep insisting on calling a trilby a fedora?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, just like this. Browse at "0" and you see stuff like this. Thank you for being a great example to pla's post!
It's a load of crap (Score:5, Insightful)
Go check out the main page thread where this was discussed. Basically, it was all the women saying thank you, some of the men saying that's great, and just the mention of "well, what about misandry" getting said poster curb stomped. It's still perfectly fine to call a man a "fedora wearing neckbeard" or a "men's rights actvist (MRA)" as derogatory terms, but if you make even the slightest negative remark about anything "feminism" and you'll get you comment either deleted, get a "time out", or even so far as get banned.
One of the moderators is a very outspoken feminist. And while she is actually a very bright young woman, she has no clue just how much damage she actually does to her own cause with some of the crap she spews there (think Jezebel level man hating). I'm betting she had a strong hand in these changes.
(posted as AC because my screen names here and there are almost identical, and the way the "popular kids" are acting now, if someone knew I posted this it might bring the banhammer down on my head)
Re:It's a load of crap (Score:5, Insightful)
"Derailing" is apparently the new term for pointing out inconsistency and hypocrisy. Not really surprising, ideologies love redefining words.
We get it. Women are precious, delicate snowflakes who have to be protected from harsh language and a world that is out to make a meal out of them, and society has to do it, because they're too fragile to do it for themselves.
Wait, what do you mean that's not the message feminism is trying to send? Could have fooled me.
Re: (Score:3)
Not my monkeys, not my circus
I'll have to remember that little quip the next time someone's complaining about "women-hostile conditions in the $X industry."
Bad summary. (Score:4, Insightful)
Silly submitter, "sexism" is just fine. It's just misogyny that's not allowed. When did the concept of "subset" fall so far from general understanding?
Ah well. Fark has been as relevant to me as Jezebel or Stormfront since about the turn of the century, so I'll just go on not giving a fuck.
What constitutes sexism? (Score:4, Interesting)
What I want to know is exactly what they think constitutes sexism, and whether it goes both ways. Most people think of it only as misogyny, but there is plenty of hatred the other way around as well. For instance, a few weeks ago, Vice had a rather intriguing article about a person calling themselves "The Femitheist", a 22-year-old college student infamous for posting a lengthy rant in which she claimed that the world would be better off if men were treated like animals - forcibly castrated in a public "ceremony" and used as breeding and/or labor slaves, with the penalty for refusing to accept that being an immediate execution. The scary part about this is that as bugfuck insane as it is (she claimed in the Vice article that it was a "joke" after people got understandably pissed at her) there were feminists and tumblr SJW cheering her on.
Now, I'm not a feminist or a tumblrite, but I'm sure if I posted the same thing word for word (except with females as the sub-human class) I would have an army of angry feminists calling for my head - and I'm sure if I told them it was "a joke", they'd only get more riled up. I'm certainly not saying this "Femitheist" person shouldn't have the right to say what they want, but it's ridiculous that a double-standard exists.
Re:What constitutes sexism? (Score:4, Interesting)
IMHO, a lot of academic radical feminism borders on misandry.
There are arguments to be made about gender imbalances in every society, but radical feminism often takes it to such an absurd level that I question when it stopped being a legitimate cultural critique and started being the expression of individual emotional imbalance.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, it was worse than that. If I remember the rant correctly (I did read it a few times on 4chan), she had the idea that the men are given a female "judge" (which she, creepily enough, said should be a direct blood relative if possible) who decides whether he's worth "milking" (her word) for a sperm sample before they are castrated and turned over as slaves. I think she also mentioned the idea of some males being kept as breeding cattle for several years before being sent for castration. The fun part was wh
Manners vs. Censorship (Score:2)
While I can understand the statement from Fark and the justification behind it, it's quite the large assumption that people will understand the true difference between someone asking them to play nice vs. someone trying to censor them.
Ignorance will likely assume the latter is at play, and people will be offended by this request.
As others have pointed out, it's also quite difficult to define sexism these days with a hard line acceptable by all.
History (Score:2)
I history has taught us anything, then that it's impossible to change a made up mind through the use of force.
What's wrong with being sexy? (Score:2)
- Nigel Tufnel
what about misandry? (Score:5, Interesting)
What a joke, considering the site's intent (Score:4, Insightful)
Criticizing feminists and feminism is not misogyny. Unfortunately, white knighting fools get this wrong quite a bit. Calling people 'haters' or their positions as hateful are not arguments either.
I'm sure he won't also allow equivalent criticism of men, right? Oh wait, who am I kidding? Anti-male feminist vitriol is perfectly ok. People who actually take so much offense to free expression that they insist on censorship are really the ones who need help. If these were baptists, no one would give them any mercy, but when feminists and/or women are the target, suddenly 'equality' gets thrown out the window by knee jerking white knight mangina useful idiots swooping in to 'save' them. This 'fark dude' is one of them apparently.
I also like how he claims his site "represents enough of a departure from pretty much every other internet community that [he figures] an announcement is necessary", totally ignoring the fact that lots of sites are doing this, now, out of a relatively new culture of PC corporate sterility and/or morbid fear of losing clicks. This new 'social justice' bandwagon of appealing to the feelings of the easily offended makes for a 'perfect' excuse. What happened to round-filing complaints for unpopular criticism and calling whiners out for the losers they are?
No word on misandry (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is not surprising, considering sites like Jezebel routinely use disparaging remarks against men in the headlines and content of their articles, like calling someone who wants equality for men a "jackass" and a "shitnugget." http://jezebel.com/jackass-sui... [jezebel.com]
I'm not saying that they are in any way responsible for people posting porn GIFs, or posting misogynistic comments. Two wrongs don't make a right. I *am* saying that Jezebel needs to take a very close look in the mirror and lead by example. No civil rights effort has ever succeeded by villainizing the other side, and equality should mean equality, not superiority or an attempt to collectively punish a group of people based on a few bad actors.
I'll admit that men have many advantages over women in America. We are not a minority -- we are, in fact, a majority, and thus can exert more political influence. Under 30, we are better educated, earn more, have more health benefits, options, and social programs. We live longer. We're excluded from compulsory military service. We are more likely to pass along our genes. We get courted by women who try to impress us, please us, and pamper us. If we're not impressed, we can obtain the genetic material of a more suitable mate for a nominal fee without having to deal with that whole "relationship" thing. We prevail in custody cases under a presumption that we're better parents. We are but 30% of the homeless population. We are sentenced more leniently for the same crimes, and more likely to receive warnings for speeding. When we make bad decisions, it's an accident -- everyone knows we have good intentions. We are almost never charged with sexual assault, let alone convicted, and we receive more support when we're the victims. We can use our sexuality to our advantage. Women are often our fiercest advocates, and protect us unfailingly against external threats. Women provide for us.
Imagine the outcry if any of that were true.
Humor vs. Measured Offense Potential (Score:5, Insightful)
My partner and I have been together for almost 13 years. We have one of those very good relationships where we talk about problems instead of getting to the point of yelling, etc. She has a very audacious sense of humor and feels comfortable joking about spousal abuse (amongst other things) because she knows that spousal abuse is such a foreign concept in our relationship. ("I know I said I would cook tonight, but I'm ordering pizza. Please don't beat me...") I say the same back.
If someone didn't understand the context and overheard us joking in this way, they might think there was an actual issue with violence in our household. And I think this is the impetus with the new censorship rule on Fark. If you're not a frequenter of Fark discussions and stumble across one of many memes without the historical context, you'll think everyone there is a rape-shrugging, gay-bashing, general hater. And you would be wrong.
----------------------
Let's talk about a couple of the memes:
40 lbs. Box of Rape (http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2Z7SafOiCXM/hqdefault.jpg) - If you simply read someone threaten to "send a 40 lbs. box of rape" to another person, you'd think that was a horrible concept. Boxed rape!? The idea alone is atrocious. That is until you figure out that someone took a photo of a box of rapeseed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapeseed), considered the homonym audaciously humorous, and put it online. The internet went wild with the hilariously outlandish concept of "boxed rape" (the action, not the seed) and it has since been part of tongue-in-cheek, context-driven discussion.
Blazing Saddles references - The Mel Brooks movie 'Blazing Saddles' is synonymous with audacious humor and if any one work of artistic endeavor was to embody the spirit of Fark, it would be this movie. It addresses rape, penis size, stereotypes (beneficial and detrimental), racism, homophobia-- nothing is so sacred that it cannot be laughed at. But consider the actual context-- Mel Brooks projects absurdity upon each of these ideas by making their offenders look absolutely ridiculous. And for the most part, Fark feels and acts within the same vein.
Glenn Beck's mythical crime in 1990 - Fark is one of the grand purveyors of the myth that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990. They publicized the hoax not as a means of directly implicating Glenn Beck in a crime that never happened, but to demonstrate the effectiveness of the political messaging system that was/is constantly making extreme accusations in the form of inquiry. So Fark (amongst others) shot back. "Why hasn't Glenn Beck denied...?"
'Legitimate' Rape - A couple years back, a conservative politician stated that abortions do not need to be available to women because in the case of 'legitimate rape', the female body has a means of preventing any impregnation at all. This, of course, is absolutely absurd... which is why Fark latched onto it. It's demonstrative of really, really stupid politician commenting on thing about which he knows little and Fark thrives on such snafus. So when a story comes up regarding rape, you're likely to see the idea of "legitimate rape" be brought up-- not because they're suggesting a distinction, but because they're restating the absurdity of this concept.
-------------------
If you are under the impression that Fark users tell jokes that promote rape, sexism, racism, or discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation, then you don't know Fark. Farkers celebrate every gain in the realm of gay rights and attack heinous acts with derision.
If you don't understand that Fark's use of rape, sexism, and homosexuality in their humor comes from a Mel Brooks-style commentary on the absurdity various ideals and actions, then you don't understand Fark. It's disappointing that this kind of humor will no longer be tolerated as it pertains to these specific topics because it's a cathartic outlet for audacious humor in a good direction.
HAHAHA "bare-knuckled" (Score:3)
It gets image macros from 4chan and still can't decide on what the irony tag is for. Fark has long become a shadow of its former self. The left leaning political correct mob has been in control for many years now -- even being a consistent critic of public officials on both sides of the political aisle gets you into trouble because in those times when you do write anything critical of a left leaning politician, you get 10 replies of people knocking down strawmen and breathlessly posting whataboutisms.
Dumb Adam Savage Quote (Score:3)
Re:I hope it's just me (Score:5, Insightful)
They're not women who were there and now feel like they need to change their own environment.
How are you so sure about that? Have you done any analysis to determine the extent to which the sexist comments have intimidated women and discouraged them from making their gender known?
Re: (Score:2)
Between the first amendment and the explicit immunities specified by section 230 of the Communications Decency act, a site operator is pretty damn ironclad even in the case of absurdly nasty forums (so long as the copyright infringement is kept to a dull roar and the service isn't linked to too many gruesome murde
Re:I hope it's just me (Score:5, Insightful)
Please leave the politics elsewhere.
ROTFL (Score:5, Funny)
Slashdot is a haven for rational thought
Stop it, please. You're killing me.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That's it for Fark (Score:4, Insightful)
Bullshit! (Score:3)
That kind of sexist bullshit is why we are having this discussion in the first place!
Towing is NOT just for bulls! Cows have exact same right to tow if they feel like towing! It's in the constitution!
If the cow's constitution allows her to tow without hurting herself or others nobody - NOBODY, has the right to tell her she can't tow if she wants or needs to tow!
Cows have live in the shadow of fear what's right and what's wrong for them for to long!
Cows are no longer afraid to speak up against their oppresso