[IMC-bristol] hiding zaskers posts

[Jamie Lokier]

mmmark wrote:
> The guidelines are clear enough, if they have been
> broken the comments should be hidden if not they
> should remain.

Hi mmmark,

arclightfire says the commands don't "promote" sexism, while V says
they do.  One way, the guidelines say to hide them, the other way,
they don't.

Imho, there's a good case for saying that all use of blatant sexist
language, except when it's clearly a parody of sexism or quoting for
the purpose of talking _about_ sexism, promotes sexism.  (Same for
racism, homophobia, xenophobia etc.)

However, that's a dangerous line to tread as it's extraordinarily
difficult for some people to express themselves without someone else
finding it to be offensively sexist.  It's very unpleasant to say
something or do something you didn't realise was offensive or in any
way a problem, only for someone to take offense and get you marked as
sexist/troll - particularly if they don't indicate what you can change.

(I don't mean to imply that zaskar's comments are that innocent, but
that a change to the editorial guidelines to codify all sexist
language as being appropriate for hiding could be used inappropriately).

As a man, who considers myself a feminist and against divisive isms of
all kinds, I find many comments by women to be sexist in a way that
offends me (for example, getting lumped in with all men by a comment
such as "Men!"), (as well as the usual offensive comments by men), but
I don't think I'd want them silenced on a forum for political or
activist opinion making.  I'd prefer the opportinity to explain that I
was offended, and why.

However, given the world we're in, it's understandable that V may find
some comments warrant a more direct response than that.

-- Jamie