[NSFW] Clarifying Commenting Guidelines to Respect LGBTI Members

nonbeliever93 on 09/01/2018 - 12:52
Last edited 10/01/2018 - 19:16 by 1 other user

Mod: There will be discussion here that may trigger some vulnerable people (as well as sexual comments). Please be aware.

As neil suggested, I'm making a thread to discuss clarifying commenting guidelines to be respectful towards LGBTI people (including fellow OzBargainers). I dislike that the onus has been placed on us to start this discussion but I'm biting the bullet to ensure it happens. I'm hoping moderators are pro-active in ensuring discussion remains civil.

My argument is that multiple comments in the EndingHiV bargain were found to be inappropriate, discriminatory or trolling and have now been unpublished for that reason. However there was significant lag time compared to clearer cut cases of rules violations (e.g. improper negative votes) which caused consternation for some commenters and suggests the guidelines could be improved.

There were multiple comments denigrating people who are trans, comparing them to identifying as animals or objects. There were jokes suggesting that ACON staff were diseased, queer people with HIV were to blame or were repulsive. Some of these comments are still visible and run counter to the aims of ACON. I am declining to quote or identify particular comments because that is besides the point of this thread. Furthermore, the mods have access to all the unpublished comments and I think it inappropriate for me to repost unpublished content.

I think the right idea would be for the mods to examine the unpublished comments which were found to be in violation of commenting guidelines and consider how the guidelines could be clarified to reduce confusion. Also, perhaps an emergency response (temporarily locking comments?) for future cases where there is a flood of inappropriate comments and controversy around the deal.

Mod:

OK, thanks for all the feedback. While this has been a difficult subject for some to discuss there have been some insightful comments. I don't think we're ever going to come to a consensus between what is inappropriate and what is not, however the key message is to be respectful in your comments.

What we will be doing:

  • For deals mentioned in the OP, which happens rarely but are problematic when moderators are not around on the weekend/middle of the night,

    • We will mark any comments that we are unsure of as "Removed pending investigation" or "Inappropriate pending investigation". So it may mean that many comments are removed from view until a moderator makes a decision or it is discussed and finalised.
    • In cases, that a moderator doesn't have time to do the above, we may hit the so called dumpster fire link. This will either just close comments or remove the deal. In the case of the deal mentioned, the OP ended getting quite upset at us and the community, the community was upset (both those in support of LBGTI, non support, + others), and the moderators were upset after receiving non-stop abuse. The charity, the one most affected by the deal, was actually quite OK and understanding.

  • Inappropriate comments served no warnings or bans and it seem there are a very small minority of users who continually make inappropriate comments. Warnings will now be given for the 1st 2 times, followed by bans.

  • Comments that will inflame a shitfest of comments will be removed as inflammatory.

So going forward as always, we ask that you be respectful in comments. We want a community that people can feel comfortable discussing deals or topics openly. And if you can't do that (and I'm referring to the 2 extreme opinions here), then maybe OzBargain is not for you.

Site Discussion

closed Comments

  • haboutnnah on 09/01/2018 - 13:05
    +5

    I agree wholeheartedly. I don't think locking comments is the best way to go (I don't think that many people are rude) but I could see it helping.

    Can we add a poll to this?

  • tsunamisurfer on 09/01/2018 - 13:07
    +8

    Easy.

    Ban any LGBTI discussions like Whirlpool bans IvP discussions.

    • realfancyman on 10/01/2018 - 03:00
      +5

      This sounds like a logical response, but eventually you will get to a point where there are so many discussion points that are censored that it is hard to have any type of meaningfull conversion.

      • Atazoth616 on 10/01/2018 - 11:25
        +1

        But is that not a slippery slope fallacy and illogical itself?

    • MessyG on 10/01/2018 - 11:43

      I would like to hear what an LGBTI person feels about that proposal. I don't feel comfortable with just burying discussion completely.

    • GetOffMyUnicorn on 10/01/2018 - 14:54
      +14

      Considering the whole alphabet crew only make up around 2% of the population this post is just another case of pandering to the minority.

      • Blottski on 10/01/2018 - 15:35
        +1

        bout time someone said this.

        If people are that lifestyle, i'm cool with it but we shouldn't have to constantly walk on egg shells to accommodate it either.

        • saine on 10/01/2018 - 18:30
          +2

          The kind of things mentioned by the OP aren't about being 'politically correct' or 'walking on eggshells'. Comparing LGBTI to animals is just wrong. I also wonder if these kind of things could also raise legal issues for OzBargain, including vilification laws.

        • Moderatorhamza23 on 10/01/2018 - 19:07

          @saine:

          You are right that is inappropriate.

          I just wanted to clarify that this example from the OP was already discussed in the thread, see here. That was down to a misinterpretation of another members comments and retracted as an example; certainly moderators would have removed it and taken the appropriate action otherwise.

      • MadMaxBargainRoad on 10/01/2018 - 18:13

        Political correctness over practical issues everyday no? /s

        I hate to see we are going the yank's way.

    • nikey2k27 on 10/01/2018 - 18:35

      No we should never ban talking about anythink #asgayman

  • Moderatorneil on 09/01/2018 - 13:07

    Thanks for posting.

    The short of it is there is a grey area between inappropriate comments, jokes, banter in LIFE and on OzBargain and is a subjective area. It's a balancing act between having free open discussion and inappropriate discussions. I can tell you half of the reports were this comment should be removed and other why is my comment removed.

    So I'm marking this thread NSFW (with a trigger warning) and we should give examples that are still published on that thread or any other you find and give opinions. If someone doesn't start I will.

    Please be respectful in comments in this thread.

    • BlazinPast on 09/01/2018 - 13:21
      +9

      I'll wager around 10 accounts will be put in the penalty box by the time this thread is closed

      • Moderatorneil on 09/01/2018 - 13:24

        OK, so people can feel free to comment without fear, no one in this thread will be Penalty Boxed (from comments made in this thread).

        However, if comments from certain user(s) go over the top, the comments will be removed and/or the commenter won't be able to further comment in this thread.

        • Slippery Fish on 09/01/2018 - 19:46

          I promise to be good :(

          Though this isn't the kinda thing I get penilty boxed for lol.

        • Krizy on 10/01/2018 - 04:36

          OK, so people can feel free to comment without fear, no one in this thread will be Penalty Boxed (from comments made in this thread).

          There are a lot of red-pill types on Ozbargain that think any semblance of civility is fraudulent and that they deserve the freedom to attack, both physically and verbally, people in the LGBTQI community for being — as they see it — weak and worthless. This kind of backtracking comment tells me, and probably them too, that the thread is their safe space. God forbid they lose their wider commenting privileges.

    • gannon on 09/01/2018 - 13:23
      +42

      Hi Neill. Before I comment below with some specific examples of what I find troubling, I just want to mention that yes, there is a grey and subjective area with jokes / banter in real life - and that far too often, the people who make that decision about what is / isn't are the people who are the least affected by the jokes / banter. It is no coincidence that the less marginalised in society - white, heterosexual, male-identifying men - are more like to say "take a joke" when sexist, racist, trans/homophobic comments are made, when people who are on the receiving end of that joke are the marginalised group themselves who are told to "take it on the chin" if they bring it to their attention. It creates a cycle of a marginalised group trying to say, "hey, this isn't funny to us and demeans us", and the powerful group saying in response, "but it's banter!". It's not banter if it hurts, and many feel compelled to be silent, or complicit, to not want to draw further attention to themselves or create a scene.

      Without going into egregious detail, the #MeToo movement, and the speaking up of sexual assault allegations recently has emerged from a marginalised group - in this case, mostly women working with higher-profile co-stars or producers - saying enough is enough. The kind of behaviour many of them describe are things that have historically been described as "harmless joking around", "locker room culture" and "men being men" (some of the responses of Craig McLachlan / Geoffrey Rush are still using lines like these - they were in character, apparently!), albeit taken to physical extremes. The way we speak and joke about marginalised groups is precursor to this. If our language in the public sphere demeans them, belittles them, and we sign it off with "just take a joke!", that contributes to a culture of not taking complaints seriously. As people have already mentioned in the ACON thread, gay / trans people - especially youth - are disproportionately represented in suicide, mental health and substance abuse issues. When we aren't careful with how we use language, and listen to those affected rather than the majority, we are at risk of worsening the problem.

      I appreciate yours and the other mods taking this issue seriously. I hope this sets up some of the reasons why it's important that while jokes and banter happen in real life as well as on here, that doesn't mean they aren't contributing to bigger picture problems, and that we shouldn't take responsibility for them.

      • QW3RTY on 09/01/2018 - 13:27
        +6

        While your passion is clearly evident on this issue, what could be better than the posting guidelines around "personal attacks" being as general and open to all groups, as they already are?

        • gannon on 09/01/2018 - 13:33
          +10

          I really have no objection to the current guidelines, but would love to see them reinforced with some specific mentions to gender, race, sexual orientation, ability etc. and to reaffirm that OzBargain should be a safe and inclusive space for everyone. And that we will all work proactively, not just responsively, towards this - that it shouldn't up to a queer person, or a non-white person, to find every single upsetting comment and report it. That we take collective responsibility to look out for this stuff, for everyone's benefit.

        • QW3RTY on 09/01/2018 - 13:35
          +23

          @gannon:

          to reaffirm that OzBargain should be a safe and inclusive space for everyone

          But the guidelines already state "Abuse, name calling and malicious comments directed at a person or a group of people are unacceptable."

          What could be more inclusive than all people?

        • payton on 09/01/2018 - 13:37
          -5

          @gannon:

          that it shouldn't up to a queer person, or a non-white person, to find every single upsetting comment and report it

          Why did you leave out whites from your list? It reveals your agenda and bias.

          Do you think that whites either:

          • never report any racism or malicious comments?
          • whites never ever experience racism and discrimination?

          Racism towards whites is NOT OK

        • gannon on 09/01/2018 - 13:39
          +3

          Actually being specific, and framing it in the positive, not just "this will not be tolerated" but naming the kind of respect and inclusiveness that OzBargain believes in.

        • nonbeliever93 on 09/01/2018 - 13:41

          @QW3RTY:

          It's a working document for both commenters and mods. As the litany of unpublished comments in that deal show, it might be useful for mods and commenters to clarify what that means.

        • QW3RTY on 09/01/2018 - 13:49
          +3

          @gannon:

          Well, I agree — but the addition of "this will not be tolerated" is effectively comparable to "this is not acceptable". But I believe that the current rules intended to protect any person or any group from abuse or malicious content speaks very clearly about OzBargain's stance on inclusiveness.

          @nonbeliever93:

          If comments containing abuse, name calling and malicious content were all unpublished, aren't the posting guidelines sufficient? Is there really a need for specific examples?

          Whatever the mods write in the rules sections, there will always be users who don't obey — which is why we have the reporting function. I don't mean to be difficult, but with the rules around personal attacks being so inclusive and broad at the moment, I'm of the opinion that there's no need to specify.

        • Slippery Fish on 09/01/2018 - 19:54
          -1

          @payton: I was half expecting you to end with WHITE POWER! #whitelivesmatter #nonwhiteagenda #whiteout&about lol…

          I'm so glad that was not the case.

          Slippery Fish on 09/01/2018 - 19:54 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
        • [Deactivated] on 10/01/2018 - 14:22
          +7

          @gannon:
          I respect and appreciate your concern for the marginalized. I know it is out of care and sympathy.

          I do not believe that reporting everything that is inferred as offensive to be a solution. This is simply not enforceable and frankly quite disturbing.

          It doesn't take offensive intent for someone to take offense to an opinion, much less fact. If I refer to a trans girl as a he, am I being offensive? I'm guessing the subject would be offended but I in no way intended the offence and my pronoun is technically factual.

          More over, how do we classify marginalized? Do we institutionalize race, religion, gender, etc. in an attempt to define a marginalized group? As far as I'm concerned, an objective and non-prejudicial definition can only include financial standing.

          If we start defining marginalized based on arbitrary and self defined notions of discrimination, we will inadvertantly discriminate against marginalized groups further. Example - I identify as marginalized because I am a standing desk person and I take all jokes about posture, weight, height and illnesses very offensively. Everyone in their right mind should reject that notion but now I feel like my identity as marginalized is marginalized further.

          There is no solution to people taking offense when none should be taken, and there is no need for people who feel offended about particular subjects to read nor accept the opinions of others. To suggest everyone should be responsible for others taking offence is unrealistic and frankly infringes on freedom of expression.

          TLDR - if someone takes offence to a given content, it does not automatically mean the content is offensive. Defining marginalized groups based on how loud they cry discrimination is a disaster.

        • gannon on 10/01/2018 - 14:47
          -1

          @tshow:

          Hi tshow.

          Firstly, in the example you give about trans identity, you have no idea whether your pronoun is 'technically' factual. If you mean 'legally' factual, you do not know whether somebody has had their sex as assigned at birth changed on their birth certificate, and they do not have to tell you. And I'm sure if you were to use the incorrect pronoun in good faith - just as you might accidentally call someone a 'Mrs', and they'd ask to be called 'Ms' instead - they would correct you, and you'd do so, out of politeness and respect (also many trans people would encourage you to ask what pronoun to use). That's not the way trans was spoken about in the 'deal' in question.

          Secondly, in relation to the category of marginalised, looking at groups that anti-discirmination legislation protect is a pretty good list. It's the one that I've referred to. It's not arbitrary. It is a legal reality of our day-to-day lives that we protect people on the basis of their gender / sex identity, their sexual orientation, their ability, their race, their religion and so forth. Many of these protections have been encoded under Australian law for more than 40 years. Acknowledging this on OzBargain shouldn't be seen as some radical agenda. It's life.

          The defence of "no offence was intended" is not adequate under law, and neither should it be in a respectful, egalitarian Australia. I don't believe this is about 'crying loud', it's about listening, learning, and understanding why things cause offence even when you don't intend them. And don't forget, the reason we are having this discussion is that a significant number of comments were intended to cause harm, were intended to provoke and troll, and were designed to belittle and demean the at-risk groups this 'deal' was focused on.

        • [Deactivated] on 10/01/2018 - 17:23
          +1

          @gannon:
          It is true that we cannot identify gender as much as we cannot identify marital status accurately. I do not know if you're a man or a woman, and respectfully, I don't and shouldn't care. The example of marriage is a human construct, gender and sex isn't.

          If I mistakenly identify someone as male or female, I'd apologize out of courtesy and correct myself. I wouldn't apologize if a trans person disagrees with the pronoun of their biological construct. In my mind, a man is still a man, and a woman a woman. It is technically correct as every forensic evidence points that way.

          With regards to anti discrimination - a marginalized group does not necessarily mean a discriminated group. You will not be able to name a single institutionalized discrimination save "positive discrimination" in favor of aboriginals and Islanders. Every Australian (save aboriginal and Torres straight Islanders) are afforded equal opportunity. What social justice proponents are now suggesting is that if one identifies as a marginalized group, the same way they are suggesting that you can be whatever combination of genders/sex/sexual orientation, one is afforded protection from arbitrarily defined offensive content that extends to removing another's right to free speech or even facial expression.

          If someone is verbally obnoxious, walk away or be obnoxious back. If someone has inflicted physical violence, report the crime. Every decent Australian will stand behind them. Similarly, if one's neighbour is unpleasant, wall off their own property not the neighbours'.

          Lastly, we can all acknowledge that there are trolls and intellectually limited individuals in this (and every other) forum. You mentioned intent isn't regulated under law but how do you propose to regulate intent? Legalities have to be black and white and if we make a distinction between speech and hate speech, what should that distinction be? Intent cannot be measured so that leaves the outcome of the speech but outcome is subjective. As you clearly suggest, the so called "marginalized" community should have a say on these subjective matters. So censorship should now be controlled by a shifting demographic.

          So far, the only suggestion that has gained any traction is the concept of censorship. In fact, this whole conversation is prefaced with the intent to censor. It begins with a suggestion to block all comments on "controversial" posts. Again, no definition of controversial beyond a vocabulary definition.

          I sympathize as any decent human being sympathizes with people being bullied. To slap everyone across the board as a response would be an additional offence and serves only to further aggravate intolerance.

      • airal3rt on 09/01/2018 - 13:37
        -6

        far too often, the people who make that decision about what is / isn't are the people who are the least affected by the jokes / banter.

        Oh, so on the basis that I'm a Caucasian male I should have a lesser say in what jokes are acceptable in the new safespace snowflake society? Hmmm, sure seems kind of sexist and racist and possibly reverse-transphobic.

        the speaking up of sexual assault allegations recently has emerged from a marginalised group - in this case, mostly women working with higher-profile co-stars or producers - saying enough is enough. The kind of behaviour many of them describe are things that have historically been described as "harmless joking around", "locker room culture" and "men being men" (some of the responses of Craig McLachlan / Geoffrey Rush are still using lines like these - they were in character, apparently!), albeit taken to physical extremes.

        Stop conflating two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS. Molesting/raping someone is not in the same category as telling someone they are attractive, no matter how much you try to draw parallels between the two to make it seem as if the latter is somehow problematic. For the last time, if I look in your direction with my oppressive patriarchal sexist male gaze, that's not assaulting you.

        The way we speak and joke about marginalised groups is precursor to this.

        Garbage, garbage argument. If I'm joking around with my buddies and say one of them would make a more convincing drag-queen than most of them, that is in no way creating an environment that leads to transexual people getting bashed.

        • gannon on 09/01/2018 - 14:08
          +30

          Hi airal3rt.

          Thanks for replying. I can say that you're using words like 'snowflake' and 'safespace' and other dismissive comments in a way that suggests you mightn't be interested in engaging, but I'll give you my two cents, and hopefully there's enough in there so you can see my perspective.

          In response to your questions:

          1) Yes, I do think you should have a lesser say in jokes where you are not the target, especially when people who are the target - as we've seen on OzBargain recently - say it's not OK. There are so many ways to be funny and relate to your mates across a range of shared interests, observations, where you actually have claim / understanding. Why do you feel the need to joke about someone who is different, and who is marginalised in society instead? What's funny about saying your mate would make a more convincing drag queen? If the joke isn't that being a drag queen is lesser and undesirable, then it's not a joke, it's a compliment or an observation instead?

          2) If you look at the behaviour of the men identified throughout the #MeToo campaign, rarely is physical abuse not accompanied with demeaning language and verbal harassment. Research around family violence suggests that respectful language - and the way in which gender and sexuality are framed by parents / social structures / schools / workplaces - impacts attitudes towards women, and can shape future conduct. Words do matter, in both small interactions and bigger picture, and we need to take responsibility for them not existing in a vacuum. You can believe you have a right to say whatever you want on the Internet, for example, but that doesn't mean it has no impact others (especially the marginalised), irrespective of whether you intended it or not. Especially in a public forum designed to find bargains, like this website.

          I'm happy to do my best to respond to your concerns, if you're interested in having a respectful discussion about this.

        • MessyG on 10/01/2018 - 11:45
          +2

          airal3rt if you're making jokes that one of your mates would make a convincing drag queen, I need to ask you, why is that funny exactly?

        • [Deactivated] on 10/01/2018 - 14:30
          +6

          @MissG:
          Why should his/her and the aforementioned group have to rationalize and defend their sense of humour?

          Every joke that anyone finds humourous is based on individual perception of humour. His/her perception is as valid as any of ours, and if we don't think so, then politically we are fascist or he/she is clinically deranged. I'd hate to think we have to create such an impass at every joke we find not funny.

        • MessyG on 10/01/2018 - 15:22

          @tshow: It's a valid question.

      • Slippery Fish on 09/01/2018 - 19:48
        +9

        It's not banter if it hurts

        —
        results do not determine initial intentions

    • Toons on 10/01/2018 - 00:35
      +3

      Neil,

      Is OzB a dedicated adult site, or has it been forgotten that kids read some of this too looking for bargains how do you explain to a parent who has told there kid to look at this website to see if any bargains are listed for what they want, instead they find the kid reading about some of the gutter crap below.

      Maybe a bit of thought could have gone into this i'm afraid your way off the mark here.

      Some of the name and shames are pathetic and you can say this was not intended to create a divide or sides but it's done just that.

      This like the thread that started it should have been actively responded to with some thought shut down and referenced the rules for everyone.

      I recommend this site quite a lot to people but with the last few i'm embarrassed it's sunk so low.

      • peco on 10/01/2018 - 00:51
        +9

        Maybe the kid's parents should be supervising their internet use if they're at an age where they can't tell what's acceptable and what's not. What's stopping the kid from seeing a message before it's deleted? If you're going to get your kid to go to an online site where anyone can post something without it being approved first, then that's on you.

        • Toons on 10/01/2018 - 01:04
          -1

          Not my kids and thats just another closed eyes view (because my life and personal details aren't here for the world to share).

          Your also making my point for me the site used to be about bargains.

          You seriously can't be that naive.

      • Moderatorneil on 10/01/2018 - 01:08

        Is OzB a dedicated adult site, or has it been forgotten that kids read some of this too looking for bargains how do you explain to a parent who has told there kid to look at this website to see if any bargains are listed for what they want…

        The thread is marked [NSFW] and there is a message on the first line:

        Mod: There will be discussion here that may trigger some vulnerable people (as well as sexual comments). Please be aware.

        I recommend this site quite a lot to people but with the last few i'm embarrassed it's sunk so low.
        referenced the rules for everyone.

        This is a discussion about our guidelines which were all created through community feedback. As mentioned, our commenting guidelines referring to inappropriate comments in regards to LGBTI were a topic that needed to be discussed. We've already banned freebie charity posts based on the feedback in the other post.

        Sorry, this is an open and transparent community where people are free to discuss things in the forums, find deals and enter competitions.

        • Toons on 10/01/2018 - 01:15

          Sorry, this is an open and transparent community where people are free to discuss things in the forums, find deals and enter competitions.

          Exactly my point. Early intervention by the moderators should have shut it down and referrred to the rules for everyone.

          What i've read through here is far from it

          There is not one single reason that a group should be treated any differently to anyone else no matter the topic.

          NSFW explain that to someone who doesn't have a job because they are still in school

        • Moderatorneil on 10/01/2018 - 01:21

          @Toons:

          Early intervention by the moderators should have shut it down and referrred to the rules for everyone.

          That's the point. Where we're going there are no roads rules… for inappropriate comments / freebie deals. We moderate based on guidelines so every moderator can action items in the same way. Picking and choosing creates inconsistent moderation and is not best practice.

        • Toons on 10/01/2018 - 01:24
          +1

          @neil: you still don't get it you are creating a sub group of rules. the forum should be rules for everyone if you don't belive you cover it well enough.

        • Moderatorneil on 10/01/2018 - 01:31

          @Toons:

          We are facilitating discussion between opposing points of view to come to a middle ground. I agree rules are for everyone which is why we need to determine what is inappropriate for LBGTI and down the track race (albeit easier however the Sudanese gang discussion is a hot spot), religion, etc in order to create UNIVERSAL RULES. It's not a pleasant thing to discuss but at the end we'll hopefully come out better. It's an issue all social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Reddit are dealing with at the moment.

        • Toons on 10/01/2018 - 01:48
          -1

          @neil: Unless people need to flag their orientation there is no need. opposing points of view are all well and good but remove the labels.

          All rules should be the same for everyone period.

          If someone takes offence due to a delicate nature then perhaps you should prioritise your reporting system and deal with them on a rule set and a set of metrics based on your ability to respond not create more work for every classification known to the world.

          it's not unpleasant to discuss either because we shouldn't be putting people in boxes and i know that my friends in the alphabet will back me on that they don't want to be treated any different to anyone else thats what some of them have fought for since they were 13 years old.

        • Toons on 10/01/2018 - 16:37

          @neil: Another thing negative voting should be either made open if this is the route you want to take.

          A large part of this is misunderstanding Hiding behind a neg vote doesn't resolve anything! especially in a topic like this.

        • Moderatorneil on 10/01/2018 - 16:43

          @Toons:

          We won't be showing negative comment voters. It was trialed a few years ago and resulted in an increase of fights between users.

        • Toons on 10/01/2018 - 16:58

          @neil: So move up 3 and tell me why?

          The only possible reason is someone wants that demarkation card.

          This is the reason that we as a community end up in this mess everyone has at least 1 neg and perfectly valid some have just had the courage to agree

  • judgeg on 09/01/2018 - 13:08

    nonbeliever93 - good post. I hope something comes from it. LGBTI people seem to be fare game on Ozbargain so it would be good to see some pro-active rule changes.

  • whooah1979 on 09/01/2018 - 13:09
    +4

    This thread won't end well.

  • QW3RTY on 09/01/2018 - 13:11
    +19

    From the commenting guidelines:

    Personal Attacks
    Abuse, name calling and malicious comments directed at a person or a group of people are unacceptable.

    I don't see this as particularly confusing. You will always have plonkers that write whatever they want, irrespective of how "clarified" rules and guidelines are — and it is for those people we have mods.

    If you feel that something is breaching posting rules, hit "report".

    • papachris on 10/01/2018 - 01:36

      Well said.

      The more specifically "clarified" rules become, the more people will actually be left out of being protected.

      What about mental health sufferers, those on various government pensions and those with strong religious beliefs? I have seen all suffer from disparaging comments and down votes on this site without apparent sanction…

  • airal3rt on 09/01/2018 - 13:14
    +31

    What? Why are we making a big deal out of one minority groups feelings? Can we have updated rules and clarifications on any discussion involving immigration and African gang violence? Can we have updated rules and clarifications on all discussion involving ANY political ideas that don't perfectly align with my own narrow world-view and I find objectionable, because really I feel like OzBargain could do a better job of providing a better safe space for my snowflake friends and I. Mod: Removed pointless and dumb part of comment

    • QW3RTY on 09/01/2018 - 13:21
      +27

      It shouldn't be about "one group's feelings", it should be able being respectful to people and/or groups of people.

      The commenting guidelines make this abundantly clear already. Adding certain caveats to different groups achieves nothing.

    • airal3rt on 09/01/2018 - 13:22
      +14

      don't accurately reflect the level of protection my intersectionally-oppressed minority deserves?

      Objectively personal attacks = comment deleted.
      Subjectively hurt feelings because my political opinion doesn't precisely match your narrow world-wiew = comment stays.

      Not that hard.

    • MessyG on 10/01/2018 - 11:51
      -4

      airal3rt you're confusing politics with sexuality. Sexuality may have recently been politicised but people who are gay or transgender are at the mercy of ignorant hatred, they have been persecuted for a very long time. They were thrown in jail for a long time, excluded from healthcare, bashed and vilified, and continue to be - all because their biology is unique and is becoming increasingly understood by the medical sciences.

      You seem so angry and upset about having to discuss this group respectfully, and I hope you are okay.

  • Archi on 09/01/2018 - 13:16
    +2

    isn't labelling or calling someone LGBTI itself discriminatory?

    • MessyG on 10/01/2018 - 11:53
      +4

      Is it? Since when is referring to a lesbian as a lesbian, or a transgender person as a transgender person, or an intersex person etc discriminatory?

      Discriminatory would be all the perjorative terms for the above - the LGBTI community has identified the terms they wish to be referred to as, they're right there in that acronym.

  • EightImmortals on 09/01/2018 - 13:23
    -1

    Offence can never be given, it can only be taken.

    • MessyG on 10/01/2018 - 11:51
      +5

      The problem with one-size fits all platitudes is that they are rarely true.

      • EightImmortals on 10/01/2018 - 11:58
        -1

        The negs kinda supported my observation though. :)

        • MessyG on 10/01/2018 - 12:00
          +1

          Yeah not with an N=4.

  • AlienC on 09/01/2018 - 13:24
    +7

    Can someone TL;DR this for me I still don't get it.

    I always assume everything said here is not meant to be taken seriously and is mostly just banter or are we becoming Reddit now?

    • QW3RTY on 09/01/2018 - 13:32

      OP seeks out mods to make further clarification of posting guidelines, and potentially implement more stringent controls on speech in comment sections in order to protect vulnerable users and punish rule-breakers. Example cited from recent thread which hosted a wide spectrum of differing opinions and the odd troll.

      • pyramid on 09/01/2018 - 13:45
        +1

        how do we find or define vulnerable?

        • airal3rt on 09/01/2018 - 13:48
          +6

          Ahhh that's a rookie mistake my friend, once you've entered the Oppression Olympics™ you can't go trying to apply logic to any of this. You want to accurately define something? I hope your "definition" is mighty flexible based upon emotions and/or the new political flavour of the month.

        • pyramid on 09/01/2018 - 13:54
          +25

          @airal3rt: Again i also failed to understand why LGBTI or OP needs special rules or guidelines. We are all humans with different interest/taste/race/color/likings. All guidelines on OZbaragain are applicable regardless race/religion/color/likings. Thread should be closed now.

        • Toons on 09/01/2018 - 18:10
          +4

          @pyramid:

          I agree in a mostly anon community, sure some debates get out of hand, however as well intentioned as this may be for someone WHY?

          Leave the moderating to the moderators and be done with it, I have no idea about vast amount of people's gender or orientation it's not a required field to input and certainly has nothing to do with the price of eneloops

          With the amount acronyms being thrown about you may as well start with

          ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ and be done with it.

          Which is also the reason why it's moved again to LGBTQIA+ yes it was recognised that there were too many to feeling exclude so they added the + to the end as a token gesture.

          I won't condone bullying or discrimination and never will but you have to ask why this is required.

          The only way past is to treat each other as equals, this is forcing a separation issue which quite frankly doesn't need to be on here.

  • payton on 09/01/2018 - 13:31
    +3

    Why is this labelled NSFW??

    • QW3RTY on 09/01/2018 - 13:39
      +8

      If you squint your eyes to blur your vision slightly, the capital letter "B" kinda looks like sideways boobies.

      QW3RTY on 09/01/2018 - 13:39 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
      • AlienC on 09/01/2018 - 14:13
        +7

        Reported for offensive language.. am I doing this right?

      • D C on 09/01/2018 - 23:31
        +2

        The true meaning of Boobs:

        B - represents under-boob
        oo - front view
        b - side-boob
        s - plural, as they mostly come in pairs.

    • Kparky on 10/01/2018 - 19:09

      Because you might be a Google employee

  • Topdog on 09/01/2018 - 13:46
    +24

    If you are a white single straight atheist male. Do not comment. You are not entitled to an opinion. Fact

    • D C on 10/01/2018 - 00:51
      +3

      I'm left-handed. Ha ha I'm special so I'm better than you. Yay.

      D C on 10/01/2018 - 00:51 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
      • papachris on 10/01/2018 - 01:45

        I'm left-handed with scissors, archery and guns, "cack-handed" for tying shoelaces, and right-handed for most other things. I dis-respect myself on a regular basis…

    • pegaxs on 10/01/2018 - 07:18
      +18

      That’s what I want to know. Why don’t we have a blanket rule, not just a feelgood rule for” minority groups.” Where is my protection from being attacked and invalidated just because of being a white privileged CIS heterosexual male?

      Why can’t the rules be, don’t be a (profanity)/offensive troll to other humans. Why has there got to be special rules for people of different genders or sexual orientation?

      It’s shit like this that divides communities, not embraces them. When it’s ok to call me a white CIS male patriarchal scumbag, or simply lump me into that group and plug on about some metoo movement that all men are the same, these people are widening that divide.

      Everyone should be treated the same, there should be no special rules for any groups, race, gender, sexuality, whatever. Just treat everyone with respect, because singling out certain sections for protection only makes them a bigger target.

        • pegaxs on 10/01/2018 - 08:54
          +17

          What protection? So, you're assuming I am protected because of my colour, gender and sexual orientation?

          My point proved. My opinion invalidated based on the assumption that I have some imaginary protection.

          I am for human rights, not for segregated minority rights. You didn't read what you wanted to, so dismissed all of it based on that. Way to go! Fight discrimination with more discrimination.

          What we need is to find a ground where everyone is included, not for minority groups to get special treatment based solely on the fact that they are part of a minority group.

        • [Deactivated] on 10/01/2018 - 11:19
          -4

          @pegaxs: no one invalidated your opinion. Your not willing to look outside your own narrow opinion that because minorities are protected, that they must be receiving special treatment. They get support so they can be brought up to where the rest of us are, not raised above us, and that's what you want right? Everyone to be equal?

        • pegaxs on 10/01/2018 - 18:00
          +1

          @mnermner: and again you try to invalidate my opinion based on stereotypical fallacies and assumptions.

          I look beyond any opinion. I want everyone to be treated equal. I don't see colour, race, gender or whatever the trendy bandwagon to jump on is at the moment.

          And it's ironic that you are treating my comments the same way you accused me of treating others.

      • Moderatorneil on 10/01/2018 - 09:54

        Of course, we want everyone to be respectful. Of course, guidelines should apply to everyone. Neither of those are the question at hand.

        The question at hand is what comments in the example thread are deemed to be inappropriate and which aren't in terms of LGBTI comments.

        • pegaxs on 10/01/2018 - 10:05
          +4

          My question is, if everyone wants to be equal, then why treat any other group "more" equally?

          Comments that are aimed at any group of people that is offensive should not be tolerated. I am asking, why should the lbgtiqpf community get special conditions? Why can't there be a set of guidelines that encompass everyone as equal? Isn't that what everyone is seeking?

          When I was growing up, my parents taught me civility and respect. If I can't say something nice, don't say it. It should not matter where I put my genitals, respect/dignity is a basic human right.

          I am not saying that minority groups aren't doing it tough, they are, but nanny state rules only drive further wedges into everyone being treated equal.

          In summary, ANY hateful comment should be treated with equal weight, regardless of what gender, colour or sexual orientation the recipient is. Either apply the rule to all groups or none at all.

        • Moderatorneil on 10/01/2018 - 10:19

          @pegaxs:

          Comments that are aimed at any group of people that is offensive should not be tolerated.

          Yes and one of those groups is LBGTI which is why we are asking what is deemed inappropriate with actual examples. Saying respect everyone, don't troll, don't personal attack is what the current guidelines are and they work as intended. The question is guidelines on inappropriate comments (a removal reason for the past 6+ years) in terms with this group.

        • pegaxs on 10/01/2018 - 16:44

          @neil:

          we are asking what is deemed inappropriate with actual examples.

          Our rule of thumb when we were growing up was… If you wouldn't say it to your mum or in front of her, then chances are, it shouldn't be said.

          I don't want to make examples, as I don't think that any groups should have their own rules. ie: I can say this to person X but not to Z. If it's offensive to Z, it should be offensive to X.

          At the end if the day, offence it taken, not given. I can only offend someone if they take issue with it. But in that same note, this is a bargain website, not a platform for political correctness. The issue if sexuality should have nothing to do with what deal is posted, and if it is, then it needs to be in context and unoffending regardless. But what we don't need is a set of rules for some other subset of society. If they want equality, then treat every offending comment with the same rules.

      • [Deactivated] on 10/01/2018 - 13:48

        Can you give an example of when you were attacked and invalidated just because of being a white privileged CIS heterosexual male?

        • pegaxs on 10/01/2018 - 16:26
          +4

          I am a white, hetro male that is the only male volunteer at my daughter's school. Where do you want me to start? The amount if rules I have to follow compared to female volunteers is absurd. I need a chaperone if I go anywhere, I have to wear an ID tag when none of the females do. Based on my gender, I am automatically treated as a sex predator. I endure slurs against me on social media raging from "why" to "that's disgusting" to "has anyone told the police/education department."

          I endure disgusting looks from female parents and snide comments to back stabbing and gossip. None of the people that comment about me are volunteering to replace me.

          The thing that blows my mind is that the same parents complain that there are not enough males working at the school.

          I keep going back because I don't give a rats ringbit what these dumbarses think. I do it for the kids. I want to make a difference and show them that being a man in a female dominated area, we can all be the same and that they should not let their gender hinder them from doing something they love doing.

          As for invalidated, look above. One commenter dismissed everything I tried to put across simply because of who I am. I get talked down too at P&C meetings. My nomination for president was laughed off as not being serious. I work in an office full of women. You think anything I try and improve in that office is taken seriously?

          So, I know it's impossible for any women's rights activist to get their head around, but discrimination flows both ways, just men don't make a big issue of it and just get to doing what needs to be done…

    • MementoMori on 10/01/2018 - 12:08
      +2

      I would imagine you can add Christian to that list. Being a Christian is 'dumb', right (think Ned Flanders), and it's the only religion you're allowed to mock being 'they deserve it'.

      • pegaxs on 10/01/2018 - 16:30

        I'm the worst of the worst. I'm white, male, CIS gendered, hetrosexual AND Atheist.

        I like to think that I am an equal opportunity discriminator…

        I just hate everyone! Equally!! :D

  • EightImmortals on 09/01/2018 - 13:53
    +19

    "If you are a white straight male. Do not comment. You are not entitled to an opinion. Fact"

    FIFY

    • Slippery Fish on 09/01/2018 - 20:16
      +1

      https://youtu.be/BnmeACwyg4A

      I just couldn't resist, people are going to be upset with me and there isn't a whole lot I can do about that. I feel the essence of almost all humor is pointing out things outside normals or that create shock, it's the essence of humor.

      Alot of people have been up in arms about the offensiveness of people's jokes, and most of the time I feel this is wrong. There is a huge difference between humor and attacking people, if I said black people smell like poo, that is NOT funny or acceptable even though it's shocking.

      If I say "did you see Mary at lunch, her fly was down and she had a shirt Willey" this isn't offensive. On a second note more often then not it's the reader projecting their prejudice onto what is said. This is a forum, we are not professional writers who studied how to make our point clear, I think we all need to just be more mindful of that and try not reading it with our own ideas but analysing it for what it actually is then reply.

      Honestly alot of what's said in this thread will just be regurgitated rubbish and people patting each other on the back for it. I implore people to think on the issue, decide what they can contribute then speak.

    • MessyG on 10/01/2018 - 11:55
      -4

      That's not a fact dude that's your opinion.

  • Moderatorneil on 09/01/2018 - 13:54

    So again this is a thread to determine how to be respectful to the LBGTI community. Examples and analysis is what I would like to see however there are non-subsetive rhetoric being thrown around. For the purposes of this thread only, these comments will be tossed and not permitted to discuss further in this thread.

    • pyramid on 09/01/2018 - 13:56
      +21

      i failed to understand why LGBTI or OP needs special rules or guidelines. We are all humans with different interest/taste/race/color/likings. All guidelines on OZbaragain are applicable regardless of race/religion/color/likings of members/posters.

      • Moderatorneil on 09/01/2018 - 13:58

        Sure, we need to be respectful to everyone. However, as before, there is a grey area in public discussion between acceptable conversation and non-acceptable conversation when it comes to certain topics.

      • MessyG on 10/01/2018 - 11:56
        -3

        Well clearly based on the thread the mod mentioned, we do.

        • dogboy on 10/01/2018 - 13:22

          That is not fact, just your opinion.

        • MessyG on 10/01/2018 - 15:24
          -1

          @dogboy: I never characterised it as fact.

    • payton on 09/01/2018 - 13:57
      +4

      Its important also that Moderators hear from both sides of the argument too and not just keep deleting arguments from one side?

      • Moderatorneil on 09/01/2018 - 14:00

        We aren't deleting comments from a side. I'm hoping someone will say this x comment here is acceptable and why. Whereas someone else will say, that's not acceptable because….

      • Quantumcat on 09/01/2018 - 14:05
        +8

        What other side is there? That the people doing the abusing want to right to abuse?

      • Moderatorhamza23 on 09/01/2018 - 14:06

        This isn't a political debate, nor are there sides (so please don't try and make them). If this doesn't apply to you then there is no need to comment here. Neil has already explained the goal and purpose above.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join