I was initially rather upset at the turn of events in this thread. But now, I want it to stand.
I still want the posts reported, but I do not want them necessarily deleted.
If they are deleted, I would prefer that to be the discretion of the poster, so that he have the choice of how to preserve/regain his own dignity.
censorship and online discourse
We like to believe that we have the right to say whatever we want online.
When we begin to express opinions that are unreservedly offensive, such as generalizing half the women on the planet as “selfish and making stupid comments”, then we cross into territory that is not
acceptable in public discourse.
Most forums have statements about acceptable content, and warn that unacceptable content is not tolerated, and will typically list things that are unacceptable. Cplusplus.com prefers not to be so lawyeresque, but it does have such a statement:
|Feel free to participate in a constructive and polite way in any topic of this category. Messages may be deleted or moved without prior notice and may prompt the suspension of user accounts.|
When confronted by incorrect action (or, in this case, words), a deep part of the human psyche kicks in, called pride
. It makes us, initially, angry
to have been corrected. But here is where the response may vary. After that initial anger, some of us can recognize that we were, in fact, outspoken and perhaps we need to learn something. This is a difficult choice to make, particularly as it requires us to admit we were wrong. Others of us, however, cannot let go of the apparent damage to our reputation because the perceived insult is intolerable to the ego
Ego is where pride and anger cannot let go. Ego is where we are unwilling to look inward and make corrections, and so must instead find fault with others first. The turn in this thread exemplifies the problem, and presents us with the common responses made by ego in an attempt to regain face.
To be clear, while I did not directly attack anyone in this thread, it was taken as such
The first way to deal with unwanted rebuke is to categorize it as something beneath you. The response you got was not valid; it was “typical”. Typical of what? Or whom? Why, of those who aren’t as intelligent, capable, or understanding of you. In other words, the response is invalidated because it shows contempt for your a priori
See how this is a logical problem?
• I am correct, therefore you must be incorrect.
• I cannot be incorrect.
See also how this helps an injured ego hang on? By refusing the possibility that you have made an error you close yourself to checking your ego.
from a feminist
calling someone a racist, misogynist
Next is what psychologists and sociologists call “categorization”. In neither case is the categorization directed at the person making the angry response, but it is meant to undervalue his opponent.
The first form is easiest to recognize. Calling someone a “feminist” is directly labeling him/her, and is meant pejoratively. (Like calling someone a “baby”.)*
The second form is similar, but uses a role reversal to do the same thing. In this scenario, the attacker pretends that he
is being attacked with unjust and outrageous labels by his opponent.
Here, it is claimed that I called him a racist. To be clear, the word “racist” is introduced here. Somehow additional negative qualities have aggregated themselves into the problem that, until now, where not there. Also, until now, no one has called anyone “misogynist”. It was not even said that anything misogynistic had been posted (even though it had). What was said was that I would prefer not to see misogyny posted in the thread that I started, along with my opinion of said misogyny: “I would rather my thread not turn into misogynistic BS.”
Turning the attack, as you might call it, is another common pattern of deflecting responsibility for what was actually said. Misogynistic remarks were made. Claiming insult only seeks to avoid responsibility for those remarks.
as soon as they speak something you don't like
starts to cuss and report lol.
Next is a formulated
effort to discredit one’s opponent by categorizing his response into small-mindedness.
Both play back to the idea of censorship, but in this case, the idea that censorship is being applied because what was said was simply not liked.
Part of the appeal of this response is that there is a degree of truth to it. I don’t
like what was said.
The lie, the twist to it, is that this implies that the censorship is simply a way of removing my opposition’s point of view. The reality is that the censorship is because my opposition’s language is offensive and inappropriate
. Language about a keeping women in their place, for whatever reason, is, often by explicit definition, inappropriate. Especially on a C++ forum. Even in the lounge, the language was added to a topic that had nothing to do with women’s status in the world. I suppose if a topic had been specifically started to discuss women’s affairs it might be a different issue, but regardless, in this
venue, in this
topic, the language is unwanted and, moreover, remains socially unacceptable.
starts to cuss
Oh, and yeah, sorry for the (very mild) cussing. You know, it is not a logical fallacy to call someone a jerk, or a moron, or an a-hole (Which I have yet to explicitly do to you), or to point out that someone is behaving like a jerk, or a moron, or an a-hole. It might be a bit of a faux pas
, socially speaking, but when someone is behaving like a jerk, and a moron, and an a-hole, it is wholly valid Truth In Advertising.
If someone enters your home and begins saying uncouth things to your family, it is reasonable to tell them to “get the hell out”. If someone starts spray painting your car, it is reasonable to tell them to “get lost”. If someone starts editorializing your words into something you did not say, it is reasonable to tell them that they are getting reported.
And if someone starts a topic about boorish, uncouth behavior, and someone else decides to join and begin exhibiting boorish, uncouth behavior, it is totally reasonable to tell them to scram.
Heck, I was even kind about it. I first
asked very nicely, of a very generalized everyone
, please do not derail my thread with anti-woman commentary.
It would seem to me that the one who cannot manage a proper response is the one who has been so offended, by an online forum, of all things, that he has gone to great response to post as much garbage about women and angry attacks at those who are consistently asking him to stop
We don’t care what you think about women
We don’t want to hear it. Whether you like it or not, it is misogyny. It is socially unacceptable. It is rude to trash someone’s thread because you are angry about it. All this does is reflect very poorly on you.
Because all you are doing is proving the original point of this thread.
*While I personally think feminism is a form of extremist androgyny, feminists throughout the ages have raised a lot of very good and valid points about our male-centered society and the negative consequences on women. Don’t become a feminist; but read what they say, because a lot of what they say is right.