Sexism: not just for "young girls" anymore February 22, 2025 12:23 PM Subscribe
Are the only problems with this comment the ones described in this mod note? Would it be better if it said "women"? The community deserves clarity in rules, not to wonder if mods are worried users are thinking of "immoral actions" (what?). Why wasn't this just deleted for being objectifying, rather than left standing with a mod note that doesn't seem to align with the existing guidelines?
It's funny - I thought you were a part of that contingent, but obviously I'm mistaken!
posted by kbanas at 12:40 PM on February 22 [1 favorite]
posted by kbanas at 12:40 PM on February 22 [1 favorite]
I just want notes to be lucid/reflect existing policies/not to return to the boyzone days
posted by sagc at 12:48 PM on February 22 [17 favorites]
posted by sagc at 12:48 PM on February 22 [17 favorites]
Centering the 'immoral actions' part instead of the objectification is... not ideal.
We shouldn't have to explain how ironic sexism is still sexist.
"Sexist comment deleted--we don't do that here."
posted by box at 1:07 PM on February 22 [20 favorites]
We shouldn't have to explain how ironic sexism is still sexist.
"Sexist comment deleted--we don't do that here."
posted by box at 1:07 PM on February 22 [20 favorites]
Deletion, schmeletion, a “knock it off” mod note would probably be fine if it captured the core issue people had with the comment. But it doesn’t really - it’s not the legal implications of “young” it’s that it’s archetypal unsolicited old-guy horniness.
posted by atoxyl at 1:41 PM on February 22 [28 favorites]
posted by atoxyl at 1:41 PM on February 22 [28 favorites]
Would it be better if it said "women"?
it's not a bad question nor suggestion.
the moderator highlighted the exact words that are of contention. I believe this is the proper citation method. I believe the moderator was explaining why, and I think it is boyzone, this comment could be problematic then a slip into the boyzone in the context of the post and subject matter. I think the comment highlights the moderator didn't view this as some sort of malignant comment but a boy zone slip that's not acceptable. The note serves as discouragement for this sort of comment.
I think having it disappeared would dilute the desired effect communicating this is not acceptable and it serves as a sort of warning.
Having read the thread and this one, I would think this is a very tough call whether to leave a note or deletion. Also, the pushback given within the thread would lose his context and traction if the comment was deleted.
posted by clavdivs at 2:09 PM on February 22 [8 favorites]
it's not a bad question nor suggestion.
the moderator highlighted the exact words that are of contention. I believe this is the proper citation method. I believe the moderator was explaining why, and I think it is boyzone, this comment could be problematic then a slip into the boyzone in the context of the post and subject matter. I think the comment highlights the moderator didn't view this as some sort of malignant comment but a boy zone slip that's not acceptable. The note serves as discouragement for this sort of comment.
I think having it disappeared would dilute the desired effect communicating this is not acceptable and it serves as a sort of warning.
Having read the thread and this one, I would think this is a very tough call whether to leave a note or deletion. Also, the pushback given within the thread would lose his context and traction if the comment was deleted.
posted by clavdivs at 2:09 PM on February 22 [8 favorites]
I think atoxyl has it. "Fuck off with that sexism" might be fine without a deletion but letting this kind of one dimensional gross sexist comment go undeleted and then entirely missing the point in the mod comment while elsewhere on this site people get deleted for using impolite words just kinda sucks.
Also can someone explain to me whether I missed a controversy about creamed corn? No lo entiendo.
posted by kensington314 at 2:22 PM on February 22 [14 favorites]
Also can someone explain to me whether I missed a controversy about creamed corn? No lo entiendo.
posted by kensington314 at 2:22 PM on February 22 [14 favorites]
It's also the wink-nudge of "I'm sure you meant no harm". It's almost like they've hung out together in a boyzone before.
posted by donnagirl at 2:36 PM on February 22 [14 favorites]
posted by donnagirl at 2:36 PM on February 22 [14 favorites]
Delete the comment. Warn the user that their next infraction is banning.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 3:06 PM on February 22 [1 favorite]
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 3:06 PM on February 22 [1 favorite]
So, i'm not usually super charitable toward the mods, and i'm going to extend some minimal charity here. I do think, in this instance, that the decision to post a mod note without a deletion was a perfectly cromulent one. (One of the drums i keep banging here is that mod notes by themselves are one of the tools in the mods' toolbox, and they can go a very long way toward establishing and enforcing norms!)
The mod note itself, however, was very bad and needed to be formulated very differently; as it is, it contributed to a bigger derail without actually emphasizing the relevant principle.
If this were in my community, it would have been something like:
The mod note itself, however, was very bad and needed to be formulated very differently; as it is, it contributed to a bigger derail without actually emphasizing the relevant principle.
If this were in my community, it would have been something like:
Hey, this isn't cool at all. Fond references to "scantily-clad girls" are pretty objectifying and sexist even in the best of circumstances, and we don't need that stuff around. The fact that this is a derail from the thread topic makes it worse, too! I think you meant well here, but please consider more carefully next time.posted by adrienneleigh at 4:25 PM on February 22 [27 favorites]
We've got women being referred to as "breeders" over here and as men's wives and girlfriends (as opposed to people with their own agency) over here and that's just off the top of my head. What's going on?
posted by The corpse in the library at 4:38 PM on February 22 [10 favorites]
posted by The corpse in the library at 4:38 PM on February 22 [10 favorites]
I really don't want Lemkin to have milkshake ducked, but unless he's William F. Buckley sipping schnapps in a country club somewhere and posting to MetaFilter from his iPhone in 1986 somehow, there's really no great explanation for the tone deafness of this comment. And even that explanation would be less than ideal because it would mean that Lemkin is William F. Buckley. I at least would like confirmation that "young girls" is just old man speak for "women aged 25-30" because jeez louise, that's just not a turn of phrase dudes drop casually anymore, man.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 5:26 PM on February 22 [16 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 5:26 PM on February 22 [16 favorites]
I was really surprised by that comment viz Lemkin's posting history that I have personally seen. Wildly out of character and really terrible. We haven't heard from him since this has blown up so I'm holding out for a sincere and thoughtful apology...
posted by supermedusa at 5:30 PM on February 22 [4 favorites]
posted by supermedusa at 5:30 PM on February 22 [4 favorites]
It's also the wink-nudge of "I'm sure you meant no harm". It's almost like they've hung out together in a boyzone before.
I see and consider this in decision. a clean wipe of the comment with no note or very small note could also be seen as a ;-) I'll get rid of your comment. I think there's a difference between a malignant comment and something such as the comments in play. if there's any malice aforethought, it would be the commenter making the comment for the sole purpose of it being deleted or discussed. Adrienne has a better example of a mod note. I did have the sense, reading the original mod note, as if I'm going to be led down to the questionnaire section of metatalk, would this comment make it into a Elmore Leonard novel. Is Hugh Hefner still alive. I think the connotations (could) speak for themselves without the acknowledgment part of the original mod note.so I do agree that that part of the mod note is most likely unnecessary.
as opposed to people with their own agency) over here an.
I have no idea what he meant there and I speak about 23 dialects of metafilterite.
perhaps label this exhibit C. exhibit B... okay,
feels like I'm writing a unnecessary amicus brief.
posted by clavdivs at 5:59 PM on February 22
I see and consider this in decision. a clean wipe of the comment with no note or very small note could also be seen as a ;-) I'll get rid of your comment. I think there's a difference between a malignant comment and something such as the comments in play. if there's any malice aforethought, it would be the commenter making the comment for the sole purpose of it being deleted or discussed. Adrienne has a better example of a mod note. I did have the sense, reading the original mod note, as if I'm going to be led down to the questionnaire section of metatalk, would this comment make it into a Elmore Leonard novel. Is Hugh Hefner still alive. I think the connotations (could) speak for themselves without the acknowledgment part of the original mod note.so I do agree that that part of the mod note is most likely unnecessary.
as opposed to people with their own agency) over here an.
I have no idea what he meant there and I speak about 23 dialects of metafilterite.
perhaps label this exhibit C. exhibit B... okay,
feels like I'm writing a unnecessary amicus brief.
posted by clavdivs at 5:59 PM on February 22
According to Wikipedia While living at sea, L Ron Hubbard had "Commodore's Messsengers" who were young girls aged 11-13 when the group formed. "In 1975 while sailing in the Caribbean, due to the heat and humidity, the Messengers devised their uniforms themselves: white shorts, tie tops and platform shoes with knee high socks."
My brain went immediately to thinking that "which I think is the way to go" must be sarcasm intended to mean its exact opposite, kind of like a person might talk about the "Awesome" new policies of Trump. So the comment is about another guy who famously lived at sea to avoid the law, and also did terrible things. That he opens his comment with a wisecrack seemed like a clue to me. If it was intended to be read straight, yeah pretty gross.
Oh also, Kensington314, I think the creamed corn thing refers to mod deletions in this thread about cornbread recipes
posted by surlyben at 6:04 PM on February 22 [8 favorites]
My brain went immediately to thinking that "which I think is the way to go" must be sarcasm intended to mean its exact opposite, kind of like a person might talk about the "Awesome" new policies of Trump. So the comment is about another guy who famously lived at sea to avoid the law, and also did terrible things. That he opens his comment with a wisecrack seemed like a clue to me. If it was intended to be read straight, yeah pretty gross.
Oh also, Kensington314, I think the creamed corn thing refers to mod deletions in this thread about cornbread recipes
posted by surlyben at 6:04 PM on February 22 [8 favorites]
The problem is that our main moderator has no issue with the comment except that it might make other people think of illegal activity as in sex with children. He's not at all bothered by random casual objectification of women. It doesn't even occur to him that it might seem problematic enough to cover his ass by mentioning it in the note.
Maybe, just maybe, clavs, you don't see the comment as malignant because no one has routinely, relentlessly, violently reduced that value of your entire gender cohort to sets of physical attributes.
posted by donnagirl at 6:05 PM on February 22 [24 favorites]
Maybe, just maybe, clavs, you don't see the comment as malignant because no one has routinely, relentlessly, violently reduced that value of your entire gender cohort to sets of physical attributes.
posted by donnagirl at 6:05 PM on February 22 [24 favorites]
Wildly out of character and really terrible.
I would say it's very much in character. Like a velociraptor testing the fences, these comments feel like feints to see what the site's reaction will be.
posted by mittens at 6:16 PM on February 22 [19 favorites]
I would say it's very much in character. Like a velociraptor testing the fences, these comments feel like feints to see what the site's reaction will be.
posted by mittens at 6:16 PM on February 22 [19 favorites]
I would say it's very much in character.
My feeling as well.
posted by LionIndex at 6:20 PM on February 22 [2 favorites]
My feeling as well.
posted by LionIndex at 6:20 PM on February 22 [2 favorites]
I pray that the diligent readers of this thread never read the dire works of one Jonathan Swift.
posted by Candleman at 6:51 PM on February 22 [3 favorites]
posted by Candleman at 6:51 PM on February 22 [3 favorites]
I pray that the diligent readers of this thread never read the dire works of one Jonathan Swift.
Possibly ironic douchey sexist comments are not the height of satire. And they’re not the way to go.
posted by snofoam at 7:16 PM on February 22 [24 favorites]
Possibly ironic douchey sexist comments are not the height of satire. And they’re not the way to go.
posted by snofoam at 7:16 PM on February 22 [24 favorites]
I was really surprised by that comment viz Lemkin's posting history that I have personally seen.
The Porky’s guy?
posted by atoxyl at 7:55 PM on February 22 [10 favorites]
The Porky’s guy?
posted by atoxyl at 7:55 PM on February 22 [10 favorites]
Thank you to the MeFite who alerted me to this thread.
For the record: "young girls" is straight from the Wikipedia article.
I never intend to cause offense. I apologize that I have.
Under the circumstances, deleting the comment seems appropriate.
posted by Lemkin at 8:05 PM on February 22 [11 favorites]
For the record: "young girls" is straight from the Wikipedia article.
I never intend to cause offense. I apologize that I have.
Under the circumstances, deleting the comment seems appropriate.
posted by Lemkin at 8:05 PM on February 22 [11 favorites]
The comment seems like pretty standard back-in-the-day “boyzone” stuff though so it feels like the response could have been by the book - “that dirty old man schtick doesn’t play here these days, cut it out.” The disconcerting part was the mod note suggesting that the mod didn’t get that it wasn’t about the specifics but about this type of comment being categorically frowned upon.
posted by atoxyl at 8:18 PM on February 22 [10 favorites]
posted by atoxyl at 8:18 PM on February 22 [10 favorites]
It's also the wink-nudge of "I'm sure you meant no harm". It's almost like they've hung out together in a boyzone before.
It's one thing to observe a history of poorly worded mod notes/comments made by Brandon. People are currently having a heyday with his spammers comment: are there spammers with impishly delightful stories, eluding our mods to to sell their wares to unsuspecting MeFites? The verdict is out.
But to project layers of malice and/or impugn motives, shouldn't a person produce receipts? This is the nastiness some of us object to. It's quite enough to challenge Brandon on his communication style. If you're accusing him of having some kind of 'boyzone sympathies', let's see it. Where is the proof? Otherwise, stick to what is evident.
posted by ginger.beef at 8:50 PM on February 22 [6 favorites]
It's one thing to observe a history of poorly worded mod notes/comments made by Brandon. People are currently having a heyday with his spammers comment: are there spammers with impishly delightful stories, eluding our mods to to sell their wares to unsuspecting MeFites? The verdict is out.
But to project layers of malice and/or impugn motives, shouldn't a person produce receipts? This is the nastiness some of us object to. It's quite enough to challenge Brandon on his communication style. If you're accusing him of having some kind of 'boyzone sympathies', let's see it. Where is the proof? Otherwise, stick to what is evident.
posted by ginger.beef at 8:50 PM on February 22 [6 favorites]
My take is not that Brandon is intentionally malicious; it's that he's so invested in being aligned with and upholding a status quo that's already outmoded here (e.g. ahem, guys, those young girls' eyes are up here) that it prevents him from understanding the actual issues and dynamics involved in the living, evolving site.
posted by knucklebones at 10:33 PM on February 22 [4 favorites]
posted by knucklebones at 10:33 PM on February 22 [4 favorites]
I have advocated less deletion. It is good that the comment was not deleted. It's much harder to understand a mod note about a deleted comment. It lacks context. It's less likely we would be having this conversation if it were deleted.
If the comment had been deleted, the "Gross, Lemkin" comment would have also been deleted. The "Gross, Lemkin" comment says something a mod note cannot— it demonstrates the community, or a significant portion of us, are grossed out by what was said.
posted by ftrtts at 12:28 AM on February 23 [12 favorites]
If the comment had been deleted, the "Gross, Lemkin" comment would have also been deleted. The "Gross, Lemkin" comment says something a mod note cannot— it demonstrates the community, or a significant portion of us, are grossed out by what was said.
posted by ftrtts at 12:28 AM on February 23 [12 favorites]
"In 1975 while sailing in the Caribbean, due to the heat and humidity, the Messengers devised their uniforms themselves: white shorts, tie tops and platform shoes with knee high socks."
That just leads to the question of how someone went from reading about 11-13 year-old girls (including Hubbard's daughter) wearing white shorts and tie tops to writing about "young girls in halter tops and hot pants". That somehow makes it even creepier than the original comment appears.
posted by Umami Dearest at 12:37 AM on February 23 [10 favorites]
That just leads to the question of how someone went from reading about 11-13 year-old girls (including Hubbard's daughter) wearing white shorts and tie tops to writing about "young girls in halter tops and hot pants". That somehow makes it even creepier than the original comment appears.
posted by Umami Dearest at 12:37 AM on February 23 [10 favorites]
wearing white shorts and tie tops to writing about "young girls in halter tops and hot pants"
Lemkin is famously good at understanding women's clothing.
posted by phunniemee at 2:47 AM on February 23 [4 favorites]
Lemkin is famously good at understanding women's clothing.
posted by phunniemee at 2:47 AM on February 23 [4 favorites]
The wording is from the Wiki article, "They were mainly young girls dressed in hot pants and halter tops", which is sourced to a book about Hubbard, where the line is "little girls dressed in hot pants and halter tops - the new uniform of the Commodore's faithful band of messengers". Lemkin's addition, "which I think is the way to go", is the part that I don't think should be acceptable on the site; I'm glad that others pushed back on it.
posted by paduasoy at 3:47 AM on February 23 [5 favorites]
posted by paduasoy at 3:47 AM on February 23 [5 favorites]
But to project layers of malice and/or impugn motives, shouldn't a person produce receipts?
Sigh. ginger.beef, people have shared this space for decades, impressions are formed. I'm not sure that I need receipts for any dude's boyzone behavior, MeFi used to be a cesspool of it, and Brandon was an incredibly active member back in that day.
My comment was doing two things: pointing out that Lemkin is an admitted BrandNewDay account, so he's never innocently or unknowingly violating community norms, and suggesting that he and Brandon both likely had bad behavior back in MeFi's boyzone past and that shared behavior lead to the gentlest most performative wrist slap here.
But since you insist and call my comment nasty, here you go.
I searched for Brandon's name and the word boyzone to find this, then read for context. I haven't been holding it in my pocket waiting to gotcha him for 10 years. You would have to read the whole thread but basically it's: in a thread about rape, some asshole tried to say some of the women participating couldn't possibly pretend to care about rape because they watch Game of Thrones. Brandon, later in MeTa, says he does not think the comment was assholish. This was 2015 btw, long after boyzone had been tamped down a bit. If you read after his comment, you can see that the community reaction was not positive.
posted by donnagirl at 5:33 AM on February 23 [9 favorites]
Sigh. ginger.beef, people have shared this space for decades, impressions are formed. I'm not sure that I need receipts for any dude's boyzone behavior, MeFi used to be a cesspool of it, and Brandon was an incredibly active member back in that day.
My comment was doing two things: pointing out that Lemkin is an admitted BrandNewDay account, so he's never innocently or unknowingly violating community norms, and suggesting that he and Brandon both likely had bad behavior back in MeFi's boyzone past and that shared behavior lead to the gentlest most performative wrist slap here.
But since you insist and call my comment nasty, here you go.
I searched for Brandon's name and the word boyzone to find this, then read for context. I haven't been holding it in my pocket waiting to gotcha him for 10 years. You would have to read the whole thread but basically it's: in a thread about rape, some asshole tried to say some of the women participating couldn't possibly pretend to care about rape because they watch Game of Thrones. Brandon, later in MeTa, says he does not think the comment was assholish. This was 2015 btw, long after boyzone had been tamped down a bit. If you read after his comment, you can see that the community reaction was not positive.
posted by donnagirl at 5:33 AM on February 23 [9 favorites]
Also if Brandon was a good, professional moderator who improved the community in a variety of ways, I wouldn't give two shits about his past behavior. People change.
posted by donnagirl at 5:37 AM on February 23 [6 favorites]
posted by donnagirl at 5:37 AM on February 23 [6 favorites]
It really sounds like a joke that didn't land, because to be honest even most people who wanted to be waited upon by tween girls in questionable attire, and I'm sure they're out there (but are hopefully not here), would not generally say so in public. There are some subjects that are a poor fit for ironic dark humor, at least in the context of a forum where people default to taking you seriously. The question of whether there are subjects that should never be joked about in any context feels orthogonal to whether this joke was ever going to work here, which I can tell you it definitely wouldn't have.
Look, I am of the opinion that humor can be cleansing and healing. I don't think it can fix THE WORLD, but I think a person who has been hurt by an experience can hear a joke and feel seen, in a positive way; they can feel like their experience has been validated. Like, "I see you, you're right, that was fucked up." But I think that jokes like that, to work, have to center on, and take the viewpoint of, and advocate for, the aggrieved person. This joke took the side of the creepy guy with the little girls waiting on him. Again, I am not saying Lemkin is really that guy, but I am saying that if you're going to make a joke like that work for an audience of people who are themselves not creepy guys, it has to be a shimmeringly amazing joke that clearly does not actually take the side of creepiness and also is such a great joke that it works even out of context.
This wasn't that joke; it feels kind of tossed out there with a shrug, and in the fog of posting you sometimes have that, like, hey, we are telling many jokes here, if you don't like this one, maybe you'll like the next joke. But...again, this is not a subject for a casual goof, if indeed a subject for a goof at all. Because even if your joke is AWESOME, a number of people will always say, "How can you joke about that?" and then it's just you with some pissed off people in a room that has gone all cold and dark and quiet. No one wants to find themselves in that room.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 5:37 AM on February 23 [15 favorites]
Look, I am of the opinion that humor can be cleansing and healing. I don't think it can fix THE WORLD, but I think a person who has been hurt by an experience can hear a joke and feel seen, in a positive way; they can feel like their experience has been validated. Like, "I see you, you're right, that was fucked up." But I think that jokes like that, to work, have to center on, and take the viewpoint of, and advocate for, the aggrieved person. This joke took the side of the creepy guy with the little girls waiting on him. Again, I am not saying Lemkin is really that guy, but I am saying that if you're going to make a joke like that work for an audience of people who are themselves not creepy guys, it has to be a shimmeringly amazing joke that clearly does not actually take the side of creepiness and also is such a great joke that it works even out of context.
This wasn't that joke; it feels kind of tossed out there with a shrug, and in the fog of posting you sometimes have that, like, hey, we are telling many jokes here, if you don't like this one, maybe you'll like the next joke. But...again, this is not a subject for a casual goof, if indeed a subject for a goof at all. Because even if your joke is AWESOME, a number of people will always say, "How can you joke about that?" and then it's just you with some pissed off people in a room that has gone all cold and dark and quiet. No one wants to find themselves in that room.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 5:37 AM on February 23 [15 favorites]
Lemkin has been here not quite three months? Maybe he didn’t know to use hamburger {/} to indicate snark/sarcasm? Or do we not use that tool anymore?
posted by toodleydoodley at 6:01 AM on February 23
posted by toodleydoodley at 6:01 AM on February 23
I am in favor of not deleting things in part because I think it's valuable for the community to have knowledge, and a record, of which people say shitty things, and what those things are. I don't think the comment should have been deleted.
I do think a mod note should have been left, but it should have mentioned that sexism is not appropriate and it should not have included anything about the user meaning well. I agree with others that the current note reads like BB doesn't think the comment was sexist and like his sympathies are with Lemkin's sexism.
posted by lapis at 6:01 AM on February 23 [12 favorites]
I do think a mod note should have been left, but it should have mentioned that sexism is not appropriate and it should not have included anything about the user meaning well. I agree with others that the current note reads like BB doesn't think the comment was sexist and like his sympathies are with Lemkin's sexism.
posted by lapis at 6:01 AM on February 23 [12 favorites]
Lemkin has been here not quite three months? Maybe he didn’t know to use hamburger {/} to indicate snark/sarcasm? Or do we not use that tool anymore?
I assumed the sarcasm was self-evident. But that’s not the issue.
It was a William F. Buckley joke, wasn’t it. Now I’m reminded of Krusty doing his “Chinese waiter” bit.
I’m sorry.
posted by Lemkin at 6:28 AM on February 23 [3 favorites]
I assumed the sarcasm was self-evident. But that’s not the issue.
It was a William F. Buckley joke, wasn’t it. Now I’m reminded of Krusty doing his “Chinese waiter” bit.
I’m sorry.
posted by Lemkin at 6:28 AM on February 23 [3 favorites]
Lemkin has been here as Lemkin for not quite three months, but also has acknowledged coming back to the community in this new account after a long break, which is totally fine. He knows from hamburger.
posted by donnagirl at 6:41 AM on February 23 [7 favorites]
posted by donnagirl at 6:41 AM on February 23 [7 favorites]
Thanks for clarifying donnagirl. I have big gaps in attendance.
posted by toodleydoodley at 6:52 AM on February 23 [1 favorite]
posted by toodleydoodley at 6:52 AM on February 23 [1 favorite]
Eh, I also heard the comment as sarcasm laden. I can see why people might find it to cross a line - it was certainly a crude joke - and the mod note was weird - but I find the reaction to it a bit over-the-top.
posted by coffeecat at 8:09 AM on February 23 [12 favorites]
posted by coffeecat at 8:09 AM on February 23 [12 favorites]
I think it's also possible that given the contentious meta talk threads over the last few months, a mod might have overthought their wording in the note trying to thread a needle and satisfy various demands. It's a bit damned if you do damned if you don't right now. I'm inclined to give benefits of doubt where I can, but I also admit I'm not as attentive to every thread and every comment as someone else might be. Maybe I'm missing some things.
posted by supermedusa at 8:38 AM on February 23 [4 favorites]
posted by supermedusa at 8:38 AM on February 23 [4 favorites]
Some good comments above about community expectations of behavior and how ppl change their behavior or don’t. I came to MF from slash dot which, let me just say, had rather different expectations of behavior, and so being accustomed to finding every nugget of value buried in an entire fucking barn of shit, I haven’t been the most vocal advocate of a supportive, respectful community. I’ve mostly been really quiet about my disappointment, or simply checked out.
posted by toodleydoodley at 9:31 AM on February 23
posted by toodleydoodley at 9:31 AM on February 23
Mod note: One comment removed at user's suggestion.
Also, if you see an problematic comment, please flag it or flag it with a note. Posting a link to said type of comment in a MeTa thread isn't as visible as a flag.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 1:50 PM on February 23
Also, if you see an problematic comment, please flag it or flag it with a note. Posting a link to said type of comment in a MeTa thread isn't as visible as a flag.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 1:50 PM on February 23
I’ve mostly been really quiet about my disappointment
... dad?
posted by ginger.beef at 2:19 PM on February 23 [8 favorites]
... dad?
posted by ginger.beef at 2:19 PM on February 23 [8 favorites]
Maybe, just maybe, clavs, you don't see the comment as malignant because no one has routinely, relentlessly, violently reduced that value of your entire gender cohort to sets of physical attributes.
absolutely correct. there is no back tracking on my definition of what another person may consider malignant.
A malignant comment made with malice a forethought is my main concern.
Finding out that Lemkin is a brand new day member only gives me the inclination that they should have known better.
I've always believed in self-censorship and this does not mean eliminating one's thought or idea but perhaps the manner of conveyance, something I occasionally practice. The consequences to Lemkin may have come and gone but
what would have been an appropriate confrontation and or consequence of this comment. moreover, what would be a better procedure for dealing with a comment like this in the future.
posted by clavdivs at 2:32 PM on February 23 [1 favorite]
absolutely correct. there is no back tracking on my definition of what another person may consider malignant.
A malignant comment made with malice a forethought is my main concern.
Finding out that Lemkin is a brand new day member only gives me the inclination that they should have known better.
I've always believed in self-censorship and this does not mean eliminating one's thought or idea but perhaps the manner of conveyance, something I occasionally practice. The consequences to Lemkin may have come and gone but
what would have been an appropriate confrontation and or consequence of this comment. moreover, what would be a better procedure for dealing with a comment like this in the future.
posted by clavdivs at 2:32 PM on February 23 [1 favorite]
I agree with you completely clav but I just don’t know where we can find enough duct tape on a Sunday.
posted by B_Ghost_User at 2:47 PM on February 23 [4 favorites]
posted by B_Ghost_User at 2:47 PM on February 23 [4 favorites]
Maybe he didn’t know to use hamburger {/} to indicate snark/sarcasm? Or do we not use that tool anymore?
been here since 2008 -- this is news to me.
posted by philip-random at 3:27 PM on February 23 [5 favorites]
been here since 2008 -- this is news to me.
posted by philip-random at 3:27 PM on February 23 [5 favorites]
Posting a link to said type of comment in a MeTa thread isn't as visible as a flag.
I find that hard to believe in a context where MeTa threads have to be approved by a moderator. It seems they would be equally visible, to moderators at least.
It's a shame the mod note was so off-kilter in this case, because it otherwise supports the idea of noting comments like this without deleting them - an approach supported by many and a good way to deal with instances like this. Notes like that would be far more effective, though, if they could be attached to the comment in question (like a reply, without suggesting any support for threaded comments in general) or at least inserted directly under the comment in question. Something to think about in designing a new site platform, perhaps.
In general, notes pointing out a comment is inconsistent with guidelines should also quote the relevant guideline, not make up some new rule that looks like morality-policing.
posted by dg at 3:43 PM on February 23 [10 favorites]
I find that hard to believe in a context where MeTa threads have to be approved by a moderator. It seems they would be equally visible, to moderators at least.
It's a shame the mod note was so off-kilter in this case, because it otherwise supports the idea of noting comments like this without deleting them - an approach supported by many and a good way to deal with instances like this. Notes like that would be far more effective, though, if they could be attached to the comment in question (like a reply, without suggesting any support for threaded comments in general) or at least inserted directly under the comment in question. Something to think about in designing a new site platform, perhaps.
In general, notes pointing out a comment is inconsistent with guidelines should also quote the relevant guideline, not make up some new rule that looks like morality-policing.
posted by dg at 3:43 PM on February 23 [10 favorites]
Also being a advocate for less deletion, I absolutely agree with the sentiment expressed in this thread, the decision to not delete the comment but leave a mod note was correct, the content of the mod note was bad. FWIW, I also read this comment as sarcasm, but I still think it should have a mod note.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 3:56 PM on February 23 [10 favorites]
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 3:56 PM on February 23 [10 favorites]
I'm very confused by all the folks asserting that Lemkin is a BND user. My understanding via reading his various comments is that he's a longtime lurker but this is his first account -- did i miss something salient here?
posted by adrienneleigh at 7:26 PM on February 23
posted by adrienneleigh at 7:26 PM on February 23
notes pointing out a comment is inconsistent with guidelines should also quote the relevant guideline
Hell this should be automated by the mod toolset - there should be a list of standard responses aligned to the guidelines, with embedded links to the specific one.
"we don't do that here - (link to no boyzone)"
"yeah nah mate, fuck off with that shit - (link to spam policy)"
posted by coriolisdave at 8:51 PM on February 23 [6 favorites]
Hell this should be automated by the mod toolset - there should be a list of standard responses aligned to the guidelines, with embedded links to the specific one.
"we don't do that here - (link to no boyzone)"
"yeah nah mate, fuck off with that shit - (link to spam policy)"
posted by coriolisdave at 8:51 PM on February 23 [6 favorites]
I'm very confused by all the folks asserting that Lemkin is a BND user. My understanding via reading his various comments is that he's a longtime lurker but this is his first account -- did i miss something salient here?
As far as I know all he’s actually said is that he was around in some capacity in the early 10s, took a break for a while, and came back.
posted by atoxyl at 9:14 PM on February 23 [2 favorites]
As far as I know all he’s actually said is that he was around in some capacity in the early 10s, took a break for a while, and came back.
posted by atoxyl at 9:14 PM on February 23 [2 favorites]
>> Posting a link to said type of comment in a MeTa thread isn't as visible as a flag.
> I find that hard to believe in a context where MeTa threads have to be approved by a moderator. It seems they would be equally visible, to moderators at least.
I find it very easy to believe. A comment inside an already posted MeTa thread is not queued and a moderator would have to actively monitor the thread to see it; flags on the other hand probaby trigger a notification.
posted by Too-Ticky at 12:42 AM on February 24 [2 favorites]
> I find that hard to believe in a context where MeTa threads have to be approved by a moderator. It seems they would be equally visible, to moderators at least.
I find it very easy to believe. A comment inside an already posted MeTa thread is not queued and a moderator would have to actively monitor the thread to see it; flags on the other hand probaby trigger a notification.
posted by Too-Ticky at 12:42 AM on February 24 [2 favorites]
I for one am 100% here for the 'leave the comment up but make a mod note explaining what about that kind of comment is unacceptable', approach pour encourager/éduquer les autres if nothing else. A+ handling at that level as far as I'm concerned, but the content of the mod note missed the boat - if you'll pardon the pun - in a big way.
In the original comment -
Anyway, L. Ron Hubbard also took to the water as a respite from his legal complications. Okay, whatever.
Only he formed his own Navy and was attended aboard ship by young girls This is just the truth; an asterisked note that you do literally mean young girls, pre-teens, rather than using 'young girls' to mean adult women, which is common, but sexist and infantilizing, would be good here.
in halter tops and hot pants, We've already established that Lemkin's grasp of fashion terms is shaky at best, and there does seem to be some question about what exactly the pre-teen girls on L. Ron Hubbard's boat were wearing.
which I think is the way to go. Absolutely the fuck not. Get out. This reads as condoning or encouraging the behaviour described and that is unacceptable. If you're not completely sure something this provocative will be read as sarcasm, you have to explicitly tag it as sarcasm.
What the mod note took issue with was the 'young girls' phrasing, which, again, was literally true; but not the user's condoning of the unacceptable behaviour of Hubbard. I find this kind of confusing.
posted by ngaiotonga at 5:07 AM on February 24 [15 favorites]
In the original comment -
Anyway, L. Ron Hubbard also took to the water as a respite from his legal complications. Okay, whatever.
Only he formed his own Navy and was attended aboard ship by young girls This is just the truth; an asterisked note that you do literally mean young girls, pre-teens, rather than using 'young girls' to mean adult women, which is common, but sexist and infantilizing, would be good here.
in halter tops and hot pants, We've already established that Lemkin's grasp of fashion terms is shaky at best, and there does seem to be some question about what exactly the pre-teen girls on L. Ron Hubbard's boat were wearing.
which I think is the way to go. Absolutely the fuck not. Get out. This reads as condoning or encouraging the behaviour described and that is unacceptable. If you're not completely sure something this provocative will be read as sarcasm, you have to explicitly tag it as sarcasm.
What the mod note took issue with was the 'young girls' phrasing, which, again, was literally true; but not the user's condoning of the unacceptable behaviour of Hubbard. I find this kind of confusing.
posted by ngaiotonga at 5:07 AM on February 24 [15 favorites]
Invoking irony/sarcasm/jokes doesn't magically make sexist comments any less sexist. What it does, is give cover, reassurance and plausible deniability to any other folks who think comments like that are an appropriate contribution to the discourse.
I note that the "microaggressions" page does clearly state that ironic racism is not acceptable here, from which I hope we can extrapolate that other ironic *isms are not acceptable either.
posted by quacks like a duck at 5:25 AM on February 24 [12 favorites]
I note that the "microaggressions" page does clearly state that ironic racism is not acceptable here, from which I hope we can extrapolate that other ironic *isms are not acceptable either.
posted by quacks like a duck at 5:25 AM on February 24 [12 favorites]
I lean more toward 'delete the offensive thing so that other people don't have to see it' side.
If someone shits on your floor, you don't leave it there as a message to other would-be shitters.
posted by box at 5:35 AM on February 24 [1 favorite]
If someone shits on your floor, you don't leave it there as a message to other would-be shitters.
posted by box at 5:35 AM on February 24 [1 favorite]
I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not this comment should have been deleted. I do have a strong opinion on the mod comment, which was terrible and missed the point entirely.
To leave a bad comment up with a mod note to "educate" user about what isn't acceptable requires that the mod understand and communicate what made the comment unacceptable. That didn't happen here.
I understand that the moderator in question might feel like they're damned if they do, damned if they don't: If they delete bad comments, people complain that there are too many deletions. If they don't delete and leave a comment instead, people complain about the comment. However, insofar as comments lead to complaints I think it's because the comments are revealing the the flaws how the moderator is deciding what requires moderation in the first place.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 7:24 AM on February 24 [15 favorites]
To leave a bad comment up with a mod note to "educate" user about what isn't acceptable requires that the mod understand and communicate what made the comment unacceptable. That didn't happen here.
I understand that the moderator in question might feel like they're damned if they do, damned if they don't: If they delete bad comments, people complain that there are too many deletions. If they don't delete and leave a comment instead, people complain about the comment. However, insofar as comments lead to complaints I think it's because the comments are revealing the the flaws how the moderator is deciding what requires moderation in the first place.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 7:24 AM on February 24 [15 favorites]
I would simply like to say that no amount of money would ever make me want to be a mod here, lol.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:22 AM on February 24 [26 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:22 AM on February 24 [26 favorites]
I didn't think the breeders comment should have been deleted; it's exactly what the muskrat thinks of women and it was a pointed reference.
This comment however is gross, and indeed beamed straight from 1978. I was a young girl at that point and not much surprises me about attitudes towards young girls then - it was really, really bad, young people, be glad you missed it and I hope those times never come back - but fwiw wearing platform shoes on board a boat is not just gross but dangerous.
I don't care either way about the deletion/non deletion. I lean towards leaving the comment, pretty much always. But there needed to be a mod note specifically about why it's gross and frankly the ages of the girls in question is not the only issue here.
posted by mygothlaundry at 9:27 AM on February 24 [4 favorites]
This comment however is gross, and indeed beamed straight from 1978. I was a young girl at that point and not much surprises me about attitudes towards young girls then - it was really, really bad, young people, be glad you missed it and I hope those times never come back - but fwiw wearing platform shoes on board a boat is not just gross but dangerous.
I don't care either way about the deletion/non deletion. I lean towards leaving the comment, pretty much always. But there needed to be a mod note specifically about why it's gross and frankly the ages of the girls in question is not the only issue here.
posted by mygothlaundry at 9:27 AM on February 24 [4 favorites]
I note that the "microaggressions" page does clearly state that ironic racism is not acceptable here, from which I hope we can extrapolate that other ironic *isms are not acceptable either.
and yet the moderators have a history of letting microaggressions stand, implying that they are indeed acceptable
posted by i used to be someone else at 9:48 AM on February 24 [5 favorites]
and yet the moderators have a history of letting microaggressions stand, implying that they are indeed acceptable
posted by i used to be someone else at 9:48 AM on February 24 [5 favorites]
and yet the moderators have a history of not letting microaggressions stand, implying that they are indeed not acceptable.
This isn't a black or white, yes or no topic - there's lots of grey in there and it's full of our favourite word, nuance.
I'm with kittens for breakfast on this, no amount of money would make me want to be a mod.
posted by ashbury at 6:57 PM on February 24 [1 favorite]
This isn't a black or white, yes or no topic - there's lots of grey in there and it's full of our favourite word, nuance.
I'm with kittens for breakfast on this, no amount of money would make me want to be a mod.
posted by ashbury at 6:57 PM on February 24 [1 favorite]
I lean more toward 'delete the offensive thing so that other people don't have to see it' side
When the comment is playing in the "is it Just A Joke and does that make it less not-okay" zone, a.k.a. "indistinguishable on sight from a boundary-testing maneuver", I would like it on the record to see what track record the user puts down over time.
(I'm not the target of misogyny, and I'd defer to a preference among those who are that want this invisible, but that's not been my read of the room.)
posted by away for regrooving at 10:56 PM on February 24 [3 favorites]
When the comment is playing in the "is it Just A Joke and does that make it less not-okay" zone, a.k.a. "indistinguishable on sight from a boundary-testing maneuver", I would like it on the record to see what track record the user puts down over time.
(I'm not the target of misogyny, and I'd defer to a preference among those who are that want this invisible, but that's not been my read of the room.)
posted by away for regrooving at 10:56 PM on February 24 [3 favorites]
there's lots of grey in there and it's full of our favourite word, nuance.
Ah yes, the nuanced microaggression. Always a favo(u)rite.
posted by donnagirl at 2:56 AM on February 25 [3 favorites]
Ah yes, the nuanced microaggression. Always a favo(u)rite.
posted by donnagirl at 2:56 AM on February 25 [3 favorites]
I'm not the target of misogyny, and I'd defer to a preference among those who are that want this invisible
I also love receipts.
posted by phunniemee at 4:08 AM on February 25 [4 favorites]
I also love receipts.
posted by phunniemee at 4:08 AM on February 25 [4 favorites]
Late to this, but an irony of this whole thing was that Hubbard apparently was not creepy towards his messengers, based on their later recollections, although other men in the group definitely were. That doesn’t mean Hubbard was normal about it — he trained them to speak with his intonation and cadence, so they could deliver his messages “in his voice,” which is weird, but his behavior was less creepy than the comment in question, so there’s that.
posted by GenjiandProust at 4:55 AM on February 25 [3 favorites]
posted by GenjiandProust at 4:55 AM on February 25 [3 favorites]
(Speaking of his intonation and cadence, Andy Daly's appearance on The Dead Authors Podcast as L. Ron Hubbard is a riot.)
posted by neuromodulator at 9:58 AM on February 25 [2 favorites]
posted by neuromodulator at 9:58 AM on February 25 [2 favorites]
As someone who flagged this comment because I thought it was pretty obviously misogynistic (let's punish the wives of men who do shitty things), I'm glad the 'young girls' comment stands and this thread is here. It reveals a pattern.
posted by kitcat at 10:45 AM on February 25 [6 favorites]
posted by kitcat at 10:45 AM on February 25 [6 favorites]
When the comment is playing in the "is it Just A Joke and does that make it less not-okay" zone
I’m somewhat baffled by what people are even doing treating “is it a joke?” as a relevant topic of debate. I’m 99 percent sure it was meant to be funny. It’s just in a category of humor that again I can only think to describe as “dirty old man” - “guess ol’ L. Ron did have one or two good ideas wink wink” - and one that used to be more prevalent here but that there was a deliberate effort to tamp down because it creates an unwelcoming environment regardless of not being “serious.”
I’d be pretty surprised if Lemkin posted it knowing the girls were that young, but I don’t think it would have been cool regardless, which is why the mod note felt weird. He’s definitely said some other borderline stuff but his whole schtick is kind of “just flew in from back in the day” so “dude, this isn’t back in the day” seems like a good first tier response.
posted by atoxyl at 11:35 AM on February 25 [6 favorites]
I’m somewhat baffled by what people are even doing treating “is it a joke?” as a relevant topic of debate. I’m 99 percent sure it was meant to be funny. It’s just in a category of humor that again I can only think to describe as “dirty old man” - “guess ol’ L. Ron did have one or two good ideas wink wink” - and one that used to be more prevalent here but that there was a deliberate effort to tamp down because it creates an unwelcoming environment regardless of not being “serious.”
I’d be pretty surprised if Lemkin posted it knowing the girls were that young, but I don’t think it would have been cool regardless, which is why the mod note felt weird. He’s definitely said some other borderline stuff but his whole schtick is kind of “just flew in from back in the day” so “dude, this isn’t back in the day” seems like a good first tier response.
posted by atoxyl at 11:35 AM on February 25 [6 favorites]
whether or not it was intended as a joke, at who's expense was it made, moderators, community, Hubbard, Lemkin?
posted by clavdivs at 1:48 PM on February 25
posted by clavdivs at 1:48 PM on February 25
Are you asking those people/groups, or suggesting it was at the expense of those people/groups? Either way, the joke was made at the expense of women.
posted by lapis at 3:04 PM on February 25 [12 favorites]
posted by lapis at 3:04 PM on February 25 [12 favorites]
« Older Keeping Disrespectful Robots Out of Metafilter. | Matthew Green, Servo5678, owner of pressthebuttons... Newer »
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by kbanas at 12:38 PM on February 22 [10 favorites]