I don't know if you guys are familliar with a thread in NVG about a potential female scammer. Apparently she is indeed a scammer but that doesn't matter at all. I'm just giving you guys some context. I posted this in the thread: ''she's ugly as f**k'' and got an infraction as a result:

Dear ShoeMakerLevy9,

You have received an infraction at Two Plus Two Poker Forums.

Reason: personal attack / misogynistic
-------
Please keep that stuff out of NVG.
-------

This infraction is worth 20 point(s). Reaching a total of 100 points will result in a ban from the forums. Serious infractions may never expire.

Original Post:
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...8#post58040318
Quote:
She's ugly as **** really
Two Plus Two Poker Forums

''Reason: personal attack / misogynistic''. How on earth an assessment about someone's beauty can even be close to a personal attack let alone misogyny? I just stated that I find her really ugly and used a swearword not to attack her but to emphasize the adjetive used before. I wouldn't have posted this thread here had the mod avoided the word ''misogynistic''. Such word implies nefarious deeds took place and shouldn't be used lightly. I'd be totally okay had the infraction only contained the word ''personal attack'', but mysogynistic is clearly not what any sane person would interpret from my post. It goes without saying that my post in NVG isn't my smartest contribution, if I have any.
The purpose of this thread is to hopefully engage in debate with those who think there's nothing wrong with using such a grim word carelessly.
I want to clarify that I hold my stance if:
A) It was a personal attack (nothing indicates the potential personal attack involved misogyny)
B) She's innocent (completely irrelevant whether true or not regarding the use of the word misogynistic)

If you think that starting a thread in this forum to relitigate the mod decision is a good idea, then I like your odds of eventually getting to the magic 100 points.

I clearly stated the purpose of this thread: ''engage in debate with those who think there's nothing wrong with using such a grim word carelessly''. I have nothing against the mod nor do I want to get the 20 points infraction removed; I just want to have an honest discussion regarding what's seen as normal, because I have many reasons to think the way the mod thinks could be the way many people think. Who knows, maybe after a few posts I come to the conclussion that I was wrong. Having received this infraction made me realize my worldview could be at odds with most people's. I want to make it clear that this is not about me, but discussing the issue involving me could be enriching from a sociological point of view.

How ugly are we talking here? Gonna need to see some photographic evidence.

I am proud of your will to go down fighting and proving your bad decision making is limitless.

Context matters. I think it's fair on the mod's part to take such a statement as misogynistic.

1) Her looks are irrelevant. This is a form of body shaming more often targeted at women.
2) The people who make these kinds of comments when the appearance is not relevant are more often then not misogynists.
3) This thread's going to get locked.

Yeah basically this.

I can understand why OP wants to defend himself against the misogyny accusation-- and obviously females are certainly capable of calling males ugly too-- but it's definitely going to tend to be misogynistic.

And obviously it's a personal attack that part is without question-- even if she is as ugly as you say. That is irrelevant. Personal attacks can still be true statements.

Woke insanity does not seem to be the optimal defense strategy.

Amusing though.

you are very pedantic.

Social media, the internet...everything has sort of melted together in a way that everything someone finds funny is not funny and innocuous is something that leads to suicide and/or harrowing tragedy...

I think that's kind of the point in why you were told what you did is misogynistic. Because what you said has indeed led to suicide elsewhere

It's kind of a push pull thing where if nobody stands up to it, then it emboldens the next person who to be malicious with those same hurtful words. If people stand up to it, then perhaps we can slow down the increase in suicide rates, particularly in the young, obviously deeply affected and influenced by social media and this new world we live in...

It's not like people don't look at others and stopped thinking "ugly" or "(insert inappropriate comment here)" it's that keeping that **** to yourself is super respectful and makes everyone's day way less unpleasant. Certainly the person you directly commented to. Enough people openly speak with a callous indifference, in person or online, and it's simple numbers to understand how an outcome of suicide arrives...regardless if your intent to hurt was 0% or 100.

Every mod is different, but I've often given infractions with a "/" that I intend to mean and/or. For example, I've given infractions for derailing/trolling, inappropriate/racist language, that sort of thing. Usually it's because I know the poster is guilty of the first thing, and they might be guilty of the second one as well, but I can't say for certain because it implies intent. I mention it so the poster knows how their post has been perceived and hopefully avoids it in the future. Your post was an obvious personal attack, and may or may not have been misogynistic, and it's useful to put you on warning that when you pop into a thread and drop a completely off-topic comment that "''she's ugly as f**k'', that will be perceived as misogynistic by some because it's quite common to unfairly and needlessly judge women by their appearance.

I find it amusing that you're complaining about the phrasing of your infraction in a thread you've titled "First personal encounter with woke insanity". I could easily have seen myself giving this very infraction to someone 5 or 10 years ago; being "woke" has nothing to do with it. A small infraction for a personal attack that may or may not have been misogynistic, in no way, shape, or form resembles "woke insanity". It might be more accurate to deem the creation of this thread to be anti-woke insanity, but I don't think that's entirely fair either.

No debate it's a personal attack. Personally I can see how the comment could be taken as both a personal attack and misogynistic. Even if not meant that way.
I also don't know if it's worth 20 points on a scale that tops out at 100 before a ban happens(kinda another debate). In my opinion it'd be worth about 5-10 points but hey my opinion is pretty meaningless so and how many points it's worth likely depends on the mod and admins so....*shrugs* .

With that said being a mod/admins of a forum is dam thankless job/task I've been apart of a forum mod/admins team you couldn't pay me enough now days to do the job they're likely doing for free. Also think in my short time here the mods do a pretty solid good job so no complaints here.


Cheers!!!

You are wasting everyone's time with this thread about a measly 20 infraction points that you thoroughly deserve?

Next time when you consider posting garbage like that, consider clicking the Back button instead of the Post Reply button and everyone, including you, will be better off.

Op seems lkto be a true karen

Problem has probably arose because we haven't had a Miss OOT for a number of years where this sort of language can be channelled

... well, enjoy the ban hammer, I guess?

I still struggle to see how making a comment about someone's appearance in that precise context could make someone wonder if there was misogyny involved. I don't care about the 20 points infraction; I just want to find out why most of the posters here think my post could be of misogynistic nature; it's clear as day you don't think someone could be misogynistic unless evidence is overwhelming. It's just divorced from reality; give some thought to this: would someone receive an infraction in the same section of the forum for making exactly the same comment about a man? I accept the consensus that it was a personal attack but I hope next time someone posts something along the lines of ''x poker player is ugly as f**k'' receives an infraction containing the word ''misandry'' in it.
I understand Bobo's point but even if that were the case then your parameters and mine in regards to hate speech differ to an enormous extent. Had I said that a trans person was ''ugly as f**k'' that would've been ''transphobia'' I guess. By following the logic of the previous sentence we're actually treating them differently and thus discriminating them.
Someone's going to say ''misandry'' is way less common than misogyny, something I won't dispute; but even taking that asymmetry as a fact reacting in such a way that you're paranoid about misogyny being ubiquitous is far from ideal.
And yes, I understand the slash symbol means almost certainly ''possible'' and not ''crystal clear misogyny''. My point is I don't see how saying a female is ugly in the way I did could make you guys think there's a chance there's hate speech involved, and misogyny falls without a doubt in that category.
In hindsight I would've definitely given another title to the thread. That doesn't change my view on this issue.

OP be like

I have an idea, next time you think someone is ugly as ****, keep it to yourself and we all win.

You got infracted for the personal attack. The other thing was just me adding some flavor. Are we good now?

I've never had anything against you, mad. I created this thread out of bewilderment to see whether people thought my post could be perceived as misogynistic or not. Plus I got some pretty cool English practice. Love you all.

pedant.

Feel free to link to any of your previous posts where you've called a man "ugly as ****" and I, for one, as a random poster with no power will be happy to clear you of misogyny.

Muses to self: Does the initial post in this thread count as circumvention of the profanity filter? I would truly hate for OP to accumulate more points.

OP's phrase was not nice but it wasn't demonstrably misogynistic

To demonstrate that it was you'd have to a) find a much larger sample size of him calling various other women ugly, when some of them he says are ugly are clearly not,
and b) back that up with evidence that he doesn't also call a lot of men ugly who aren't in fact ugly.

The definition of misogyny is:

Strongly prejudiced against women.

So you need to prove that this is what he is. Him calling one woman ugly who in his opinion is ugly doesn't prove it.

So the OP is probably right, that the word misogynist is being bandied around too much in this woke era that we are in,
with people reaching a conclusion or an opinion too quickly and without establishing the facts first and without having concrete evidence.

The facts here are that we don't know whether he is a misogynist or not, all we know is that he called one woman ugly.
Maybe the next five women he describes he will call beautiful.

Being overly woke is the politics of the stupid and people who are, are either of quite low intelligence, or if they are of higher or high intelligence have poor critical thinking skills.
Having poor critical thinking skills also makes someone more prone to be brainwashed. Another factor that has allowed being overly woke to flourish, is that those who question
its validity tend to get attacked, which puts most people off questioning it, even when they can see and know that a lot of overly woke stuff is total BS.

This stems from a basic misunderstanding of a certain kind of misogyny. In a thread about whether a particular woman was a cheating scammer, OP chimed in to opine, not upon her guilt or innocence, but upon her appearance. Whether OP thinks of themselves as sexist is not the issue. The point is that societally, women are 1) held to higher standards of appearance 2) much more likely to be negatively judged for their appearance and 3) often reinforced that their worthiness as a person is tied to their appearance far more often than men are.

OP can call the next twenty women beautiful--it doesn't change that what OP chose to call out about this woman or those hypothetical future women was their appearance. Something that women have historically gotten crap for and something that they can not readily control or change. (Obviously there ARE some aspects of our appearances we can change, but they generally require significant investments of time and/or money.)

If there were a thread about whether a male poker player were cheating, and I dropped in with nothing to say except "Well, he's certainly a tiny little shrimp of a guy," you could make a case for misandry by me--calling him out for something that men have historically gotten crap for, and something that they can not readily control or change.

In either case it's certainly a personal attack. The sexism is inferred. That's why I asked OP to show me a time when he felt called upon to call a man "ugly as ****," since that would support his assertion that it's not sexism. Failing that, it's a poker site. People here can certainly estimate the percentage that if something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it's not a pigeon.