Slashdot Mirror
News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban
An anonymous reader writes The news aggregator Fark is ancient in dot com terms. Users submit news links to the privately run site and tear it — and each other — to pieces in the discussion threads. (Sound familiar?) While the site isn't as popular as during the early 2000s, the privately run discussion forum has continued and has its champions. site operator Drew Curtis announced today that Gifs, references, jokes and comments involving sexism will be deleted. "Adam Savage once described to me the problem this way: if the Internet was a dude, we'd all agree that dude has a serious problem with women. We've actually been tightening up moderation style along these lines for awhile now, but as of today, the FArQ will be updated with new rules reminding you all that we don't want to be the He Man Woman Hater's Club. This represents enough of a departure from pretty much how every other large internet community operates that I figure an announcement is necessary."
Given how bare-knuckled Fark can be, is it time? Overdue?
Given how bare-knuckled Fark can be, is it time? Overdue?
Well, you can put lipstick on a pig, not sure it makes it a princess, though.
Guess I have to go to 4chan now to read gay hating misanthropic posts.
Silence is a state of mime.
Given that 95% of the comments on Fark reference sharp knees, I'm guessing there won't be much content left after Drew's purge.
Hopefully they make some kind of machine that detects when men have mysognist thoguts so we cant have these kinds of thoughts in our heads too...
I don't get why people want to lock themselve in an echo chamber. That seems silly to me.
This is long overdue.Thank god for the censorship which will shape our future.
...but I'm getting really annoyed by this "anti misogynist" theater. It feels like a hostile takeover. A lot of good things have been sidetracked and derailed and are now reduced to political correctness banter. All the people who want to get shit done leave when the oppressed women show up. And I mean "show up". They're not women who were there and now feel like they need to change their own environment.
I'm just wondering if it will be moderated on 'totalfark'. Totalfark is the paid side of Fark. I could see this as just revenue generation.
It could be worse, it could be Monday.
Basically, like just about every other "ism" out there, we'll see mission creep. Or people abusing a badly defined policy to censor legitimate and non-infringing dialogs.
I'm not saying the sentiment isn't noble. But they just don't have an apparatus in place to make sure it gets applied in a fair, even-handed manner.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Troll bait?
When I was on Fark, you could make all sorts of rape, incest, murder and violence jokes, but I just mocked the delusions of 3D printer nutters and it got me banned.
Drew is a bit of a douche.
From what I remember of FARK, this will not end well.
At least they editorialize on the submissions, Slashdot just copypastas the first paragraph or two.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
has left the building
Fark isn't, and hasn't been, relevant in nearly a decade. This is just Drew, the whiny owner of Fark, bending over backwards to please advertisers. This is a PR move, based on money, nothing more.
Fark turned into a left wing blog a long time ago. This is just pandering to their sponsors in an election year.
A lot of things run counter to typical internet culture on Fark. You can't even curse on that site. It has moved away from porn. People actually pay for membership. They do IRL meetups almost every week somewhere in the world. They've been pretty successful at banning memes in the past.
I find it more witty than harsh.
Textbooks and Open Educational Resources
Drew is cowtowing to someone. What's the full story. Not a place for me at any rate. Not going to use the site no matter what they do there .Be interesting just what he really is making the change for his rep is beyond fixing IMO.
Jack of all trades,master of none
Great! Cause all those male hater bitches that fault the respect on males constantly on the internet just to cause harm to men are nothing but annoying. They are so stupid that actually blame us for not wanting anything with them when obviously no male with self respect will take them in consideration for a single second.
Basically Fark has one particular mod, of a gender I don't need to mention, who gets upset every time she greenlights another trashy Jezebel link and the Fark regulars (rightly) rip it to shreds. Admittedly, some posters cross the lines of good taste in doing so, but most just point out that Jezebel itself does more to advance misogyny than any forum trolls could ever do.
The official announcement thread for the new policy pretty much says it all. Fark regulars openly mocked this new policy, much like anti-beta posts here... All while shown prominent links to Foobies (along with plenty of other not exactly "wymyn friendly" advertisements) in the sidebar. This policy will last a whole week, unless Drew goes nuclear and literally bans half the userbase. But hey, we need another MetaFilter since Google has starved off the original, right?
For those seriously debating the "need" for websites to take actions like this, look at Slashdot as a role-model. Put bluntly, sites that feel the need to censor their comments simply have inadequate moderation systems. As much as Slashdot's doesn't always work to bring the best to the top, it does do an amazing job of pushing the complete garbage to the bottom. Browse at -1, and Slashdot looks much like Gorgor-era Fark; browse at 2+, and threads look like a coherent discussion of the issues broached in TFA.
I don't condone mysogyny, but I sure as fuck don't condone censorship.
I used to be a prolific Fark user, until one day I decided to post about this great local restaurant run by some indian couple. They shadow banned me without warning, (which I noticed immediately because I would enter their photoshop contests and always got lots of votes) and then shadowbanned subsequent accounts I created as well. Emails to Drew himself were ignored.
I hope this latest decision destroys Fark. I used to love the site, but I haven't been back in years. I hope it dies.
Go check out the main page thread where this was discussed. Basically, it was all the women saying thank you, some of the men saying that's great, and just the mention of "well, what about misandry" getting said poster curb stomped. It's still perfectly fine to call a man a "fedora wearing neckbeard" or a "men's rights actvist (MRA)" as derogatory terms, but if you make even the slightest negative remark about anything "feminism" and you'll get you comment either deleted, get a "time out", or even so far as get banned.
One of the moderators is a very outspoken feminist. And while she is actually a very bright young woman, she has no clue just how much damage she actually does to her own cause with some of the crap she spews there (think Jezebel level man hating). I'm betting she had a strong hand in these changes.
(posted as AC because my screen names here and there are almost identical, and the way the "popular kids" are acting now, if someone knew I posted this it might bring the banhammer down on my head)
Easy answer, if you don't want to be offended don't read any bloody comments.. I am regularly offended by comments here and on Fark. I still come back for more every day.
No, for the same reason why a news article that talks about a white supremacist assaulting a African-American isn't automatically racist. Or one about Westboro Baptist Church picketing a funeral of someone who was gay doesn't make it automatically homophobic. The context of the whole article is what makes it misogynistic (or racist, or homophobic, or ...)
Now if that Reuters article had that same line, but then followed it with that the woman shouldn't have been out of the kitchen. Or she just needed to fix a sandwich. Or any other misogynistic ideas according to modern society then yes, it would be banned.
Silly submitter, "sexism" is just fine. It's just misogyny that's not allowed. When did the concept of "subset" fall so far from general understanding?
Ah well. Fark has been as relevant to me as Jezebel or Stormfront since about the turn of the century, so I'll just go on not giving a fuck.
Yeah, define those 2 terms. All i can observe is that they have lost their meaning and have been re-interpreted and re-defined so many times with so many idiotic subjective interpretations (so they can fit into whatever subjective dislike "feminists" have),
that i am surprised Tumblr and other crazy places aren't calling nature "sexist" and "misogynist" for making some people look sexier than others naturally or by making trees sticking out of ground (or rivers flowing into a canyon or cave) look like "nature's own rape culture". Or maybe they already have, i wouldn't be surprised.
This is damn stupid and it is going to be a big blowback. You can interpret anything as "sexism", ANYTHING, if you go about the pseudo-intellectual philosophical way most social justice warriors do.
If you think video game characters being sexualized is sexism, then you are either mentally kaput in some way and incapable of treating the imaginary and the reality as 2 different worlds (whereby you identify with imaginary characters to the point where your project it onto the real world), are sexually insecure, or a weird mix of both aforementioned.
Frankly i don't see how treating game characters as objects which they are, leads to the same in real life in some weird twisted slippery slope argument, unless you have mental issues or are one of those who also think video game violence leads to real world killing frenzies more than having a car leads to making driveby's with it, robberies and street carnage. As such i can say the same for many other examples.
I mean, censoring jokes now, really? Are they also going to ban all reference to 50 Shades of Grey too? Because that has over 50 million women reading it and by sex negative feminism it is a Bible of "sexism" in their interpretations.
They will need to check their own web store as well. Considering when I went and viewed the announcement, on the right in the "Fark Shop" Ad was the Boob Signal T-shirt.
I'm struck by how often politically correct people use the words "woman" or "women", yet feel uncomfortable referring to "men", often saying "guys" (as in guys and gals) instead. And now "dude". Isn't the correlate of a dude a "chick"?
How about if people just drop the adolescent P.C. posturing and try to act like adults? Then the sexism issue -- on the part of both genders -- will take care of itself and we won't need to feel inadequate or somehow "aggressive" in referring to men without using a diminutive term.
What I want to know is exactly what they think constitutes sexism, and whether it goes both ways. Most people think of it only as misogyny, but there is plenty of hatred the other way around as well. For instance, a few weeks ago, Vice had a rather intriguing article about a person calling themselves "The Femitheist", a 22-year-old college student infamous for posting a lengthy rant in which she claimed that the world would be better off if men were treated like animals - forcibly castrated in a public "ceremony" and used as breeding and/or labor slaves, with the penalty for refusing to accept that being an immediate execution. The scary part about this is that as bugfuck insane as it is (she claimed in the Vice article that it was a "joke" after people got understandably pissed at her) there were feminists and tumblr SJW cheering her on.
Now, I'm not a feminist or a tumblrite, but I'm sure if I posted the same thing word for word (except with females as the sub-human class) I would have an army of angry feminists calling for my head - and I'm sure if I told them it was "a joke", they'd only get more riled up. I'm certainly not saying this "Femitheist" person shouldn't have the right to say what they want, but it's ridiculous that a double-standard exists.
While I can understand the statement from Fark and the justification behind it, it's quite the large assumption that people will understand the true difference between someone asking them to play nice vs. someone trying to censor them.
Ignorance will likely assume the latter is at play, and people will be offended by this request.
As others have pointed out, it's also quite difficult to define sexism these days with a hard line acceptable by all.
I'd take that seriously if it weren't posted on slashdot.
I history has taught us anything, then that it's impossible to change a made up mind through the use of force.
- Nigel Tufnel
I like microcars
That kind of sexist bullshit is why we are having this discussion in the first place!
Towing is NOT just for bulls! Cows have exact same right to tow if they feel like towing! It's in the constitution!
If the cow's constitution allows her to tow without hurting herself or others nobody - NOBODY, has the right to tell her she can't tow if she wants or needs to tow!
Cows have live in the shadow of fear what's right and what's wrong for them for to long!
Cows are no longer afraid to speak up against their oppressors! Cows are NOT cowards!
COWS R NOT COWARDS! COWS R NOT COWARDS! COWS R NOT COWARDS!
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Why is it that sexism is only banned in one direction? Women are allowed to shit all over men, and men are just supposed to "man up and take it." Equality my ass...
Naturally over the years as Fark's membership has declined from the roaring highs, the owner has needed to look at ways of maximizing revenues. So, the boobies links got removed and put into a separate site etc. The core ethos of the site remained: be funny no matter how offensive you are.
This has been chipped away. Thus the core offering of Fark has been reduced.
It hasn't helped that the moderation has been inconstant, secret and users get banned or worse, shadow banned. This is the expensive way of moderating a web site because ideally you want to nudge the users so that they police themselves. One of the rules of Fark is that discussing moderation is cause for being banned. It hasn't helped that there's been no investment in the backend serving up Fark. No new features have been added, um, ever. I'd not be surprised to learn that they were using their original launch DB.
There has clearly been more of an effort to shape the conversation in Fark in recent years. The result is that the place is less interesting AND there are fewer page views. Discussions used to rocket to infinity twice a week. Discussions nearly never reach four digits these days. I understand why this was done. Many of the women posters on Fark appear to appreciate the intent. I understand. However, as a business offering, the result is that there's a smaller population mix in Fark these days making for a more uniform set of opinions. Thus, shorter discussion threads that are less likely to go to infinity and beyond.
The recent glut of MRAs blighting Fark has also been on Slashdot. I think this is a wave that will burn itself out in a year or so and turn into something else.
---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
" if the Internet was a dude, we'd all agree that dude has a serious problem with women. "
And? So what? Adam Savage's simple minded statement obviously assumes that no man ever could or should have a problem with the behavior of some women. And yet the feminists keep shrieking that ALL men are pigs, that ALL men are rapists or rape apologists, ALL men are oppressors.
Perhaps Adam Savage and his ilk should try meeting an actual woman once in their lives. Otherwise, his attitude reeks of naïve white knighting based on worn out codes of chivalry themselves based on nothing but a caricature of the human female as imagined by other white knights.
Furthermore, by it's own actions, Fark implicitly admits that women are weaker (and therefore unequal), needing the special protection of da menz (thereby perpetuating patriarchy) to protect their delicate eyes from seeing or reading something that might offend their delicate nature. And yet, one of these selfsame delicate creatures went to prison for killing her baby by putting it in a microwave.
... the relevance of Fark *should* trigger some sort of singularity.
fban
If the article (which I did not read) explicitly approves or promotes the activity described in your quote, then yes.
If not, then no.
Usually it's easy to tell the difference between reporting an atrocity and cheerleading for the perpetrators. Usually.
I don't get why people want to lock themselve in an echo chamber. That seems silly to me.
--- and a bizarre question to be asking here.
You can see the posters here circling the wagons when topics like gender equality come up on Slashdot.
I think more websites would be better places to visit if the jerks were removed. There are several mailign lists and tech forums where I will not post to help people anymore because the members (and often moderators) are so abusive. It's one thing to have an honest and frank discussion, those are fine. However, too many people equate being an asshole with "just being honest". Those two things are separate and one does not at all imply (or require) the other. Communities which enable anger, discrimination, sexism or abuse become poorer for it, both in the quality of their discussions and the shrinking size of the community as helpful/intelligent people are pushed away.
Slashdot is a haven for rational thought
Stop it, please. You're killing me.
You might want to check Fark's own headline before criticizing.
I quit reading it when foobies.com was split off into a separate site.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I think you've hit the nail on the head.
The other problem is that sites like fark (believe me, I know) generate a lot of clique-like behavior. Moderators can and will read a comment like "shut you you trollop" as misogyny when it comes from someone they don't like and consider it funny it other contexts.
I don't really know what the answer is but I'm pretty opposed to drawing rules that aren't clear and unambiguous.
Criticizing feminists and feminism is not misogyny. Unfortunately, white knighting fools get this wrong quite a bit. Calling people 'haters' or their positions as hateful are not arguments either.
I'm sure he won't also allow equivalent criticism of men, right? Oh wait, who am I kidding? Anti-male feminist vitriol is perfectly ok. People who actually take so much offense to free expression that they insist on censorship are really the ones who need help. If these were baptists, no one would give them any mercy, but when feminists and/or women are the target, suddenly 'equality' gets thrown out the window by knee jerking white knight mangina useful idiots swooping in to 'save' them. This 'fark dude' is one of them apparently.
I also like how he claims his site "represents enough of a departure from pretty much every other internet community that [he figures] an announcement is necessary", totally ignoring the fact that lots of sites are doing this, now, out of a relatively new culture of PC corporate sterility and/or morbid fear of losing clicks. This new 'social justice' bandwagon of appealing to the feelings of the easily offended makes for a 'perfect' excuse. What happened to round-filing complaints for unpopular criticism and calling whiners out for the losers they are?
The Age of Queers!
While surely this could have been worded differently for clarity and to lighten the offense, I don't believe its flamebait (just a bit misguided).
I disagree with the post in that it's not just liberals that want to control people's mind, it's an establishment problem that relates to people in office/power and not just liberals. Half of waking up is to notice the corruption, the other half is to start broadening your view to ensure you are getting the full picture.
When the News is manipulated to give you a specific opinion, that is mind control. For example, everyone in the US is under the belief that Iran is evil, hell bent on destroying Israel, and bent on world domination. They have a larger military than most countries in the region, yet have not invaded anyone in over 200 years. Assad from Syria is painted as a horrible dictator today, yet prior to the revolt in Libya, US media repeatedly claimed that Syria was the most progressive country in the Middle East. You won't hear about the Saudi Arabian police killing people for speaking out against the government, or putting a women in jail for driving in US media. Ignore the slave labor problems in Dubai and UAE. Those guys are our friends, so we have TV specials showing you how great they are and fire journalists that cover a story that is not favorable.
You will also hear intentionally manipulated "news" to ensure that you have a biased opinion and reaction. Zimmerman/Martin is an easy example, and on the surface the Ferguson MO is another. OWS was just a bunch of bums, they were not demanding accountability for criminal acts by executives. And when protesters are too big of a nuisance, send in agent provocateurs. I'm sure you remember that during the Oakland OWS protests which turned violent the majority of protestors arrested for violent confrontation were not from California. (Interesting that similar reports are coming from Ferguson IMHO.)
People may want to (falsely) believe that the only kind of mind control is like the Manchurian candidate, because someone shaped their reality to have that belief. Just like most people associate the word "conspiracy" with insanity and impossible. Not rational when you look at it, we all know conspiracies happen. I'm sure you remember the TV show "Survivor" which was full of people conspiring to win. Yet if I told you that a winner was in a conspiracy you may have difficulty agreeing. People will argue that they plotted or planned and manipulated, very rarely will they agree with the term conspiracy.
Shaping thought is not new, not novel, and not unique. We like to think it only happens to those other guys, but it has been happening here for generations. Further, US Media has been working at demoralizing the USA for a long time (has nothing to do with homophobia or sexism, ask for clarity if you are lost). You don't have to like it, and you can surely ignore that portion of reality, but you can't deny the facts. There is plenty of material to study if you so desire.
Last point so that I'm not writing a novel, is that there is more than one reason for the people in power to do this. If the people in power can keep us arguing with each other about our differences they get to stay in power and gain more power. The Hegelian dialectic is exactly this. Own both sides of the argument so that people line up in the center. Provide a problem so that you can implement a solution you want towards a resolution that you want. Hegel was not the first person to understand this social control method, he was just the first person we know of that wrote down the process.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Don't worry everyone, I just checked and Foobies is safe. I was worried that the porn arm of Fark might be considered sexist but it's not. Dodged a bullet on that one!
Hansel? Is that you?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Please take a minute and 45 seconds to absorb the following (quite funny) video:
http://www.boreme.com/posting....
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Any body part with nerve endings and/or usable contact surfaces can be brought into play in sexual relations under the right circumstances. This has nothing do do with the gender of the party or parties involved. The fact that you don't know these things speaks very poorly about your competence and experience in the sexual arena.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I'm not sure which is worse: Fark being bitches or the douchebag's name-dropping.
That's precisely the kind of thinking that led to child labor in factories and mines; it is also why we have to subsidize low paying jobs through our taxes so people can survive at a (somewhat) more reasonable level. It is what led to "whites only" and "separate bathrooms"; It is why the male/female employment ratios are so skewed; it is why older engineers are replaced by younger ones who know far less and don't have families to support; it is why the EPA, or something like it, really needs to exist. And so on.
Business, large and small, incorporated or not, as entities, resemble people only to the degree that most of them, left unregulated, exhibit sociopathy and/or psychopathy. History has shown this explicitly, time and time again. No one is guessing about this: the facts have been in for a long time, and new facts consistent with the old continue to arrive with distressing regularity.
The idea that business, left to its own discretions, will do the right thing is nothing more than a fantasy. Unregulated business is a very bad idea, and further, the premise that bad businesses will automatically fail because customers will do the right thing is equally bankrupt, and for many of the same reasons. Large numbers of people are both selfish and disinterested in the welfare of others.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Which is not surprising, considering sites like Jezebel routinely use disparaging remarks against men in the headlines and content of their articles, like calling someone who wants equality for men a "jackass" and a "shitnugget." http://jezebel.com/jackass-sui...
I'm not saying that they are in any way responsible for people posting porn GIFs, or posting misogynistic comments. Two wrongs don't make a right. I *am* saying that Jezebel needs to take a very close look in the mirror and lead by example. No civil rights effort has ever succeeded by villainizing the other side, and equality should mean equality, not superiority or an attempt to collectively punish a group of people based on a few bad actors.
I'll admit that men have many advantages over women in America. We are not a minority -- we are, in fact, a majority, and thus can exert more political influence. Under 30, we are better educated, earn more, have more health benefits, options, and social programs. We live longer. We're excluded from compulsory military service. We are more likely to pass along our genes. We get courted by women who try to impress us, please us, and pamper us. If we're not impressed, we can obtain the genetic material of a more suitable mate for a nominal fee without having to deal with that whole "relationship" thing. We prevail in custody cases under a presumption that we're better parents. We are but 30% of the homeless population. We are sentenced more leniently for the same crimes, and more likely to receive warnings for speeding. When we make bad decisions, it's an accident -- everyone knows we have good intentions. We are almost never charged with sexual assault, let alone convicted, and we receive more support when we're the victims. We can use our sexuality to our advantage. Women are often our fiercest advocates, and protect us unfailingly against external threats. Women provide for us.
Imagine the outcry if any of that were true.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
No, you were banned because you are a troll, and everybody was sick of your crap. Just as nobody likes your crap here. At least on Fark, everyone could add you to the ignore list.
Then again, to call you a troll is to give you too much credit. Going into random threads and typing "Go 3D print yourself a warp rocket space nutter, rofl lol1!11one" was minimum trolling at best and closer to childish pestering for attention. Why don't you go troll 4chan and discover what real trolling is.
I consider some matters "settled" and don't want to frequently spend time reconsidering them. It sounds really open-minded to be re-evaluating everything you believe every day, but in practice every "God hates fags" post I read takes time away from something more interesting.
My partner and I have been together for almost 13 years. We have one of those very good relationships where we talk about problems instead of getting to the point of yelling, etc. She has a very audacious sense of humor and feels comfortable joking about spousal abuse (amongst other things) because she knows that spousal abuse is such a foreign concept in our relationship. ("I know I said I would cook tonight, but I'm ordering pizza. Please don't beat me...") I say the same back.
If someone didn't understand the context and overheard us joking in this way, they might think there was an actual issue with violence in our household. And I think this is the impetus with the new censorship rule on Fark. If you're not a frequenter of Fark discussions and stumble across one of many memes without the historical context, you'll think everyone there is a rape-shrugging, gay-bashing, general hater. And you would be wrong.
----------------------
Let's talk about a couple of the memes:
40 lbs. Box of Rape (http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2Z7SafOiCXM/hqdefault.jpg) - If you simply read someone threaten to "send a 40 lbs. box of rape" to another person, you'd think that was a horrible concept. Boxed rape!? The idea alone is atrocious. That is until you figure out that someone took a photo of a box of rapeseed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapeseed), considered the homonym audaciously humorous, and put it online. The internet went wild with the hilariously outlandish concept of "boxed rape" (the action, not the seed) and it has since been part of tongue-in-cheek, context-driven discussion.
Blazing Saddles references - The Mel Brooks movie 'Blazing Saddles' is synonymous with audacious humor and if any one work of artistic endeavor was to embody the spirit of Fark, it would be this movie. It addresses rape, penis size, stereotypes (beneficial and detrimental), racism, homophobia-- nothing is so sacred that it cannot be laughed at. But consider the actual context-- Mel Brooks projects absurdity upon each of these ideas by making their offenders look absolutely ridiculous. And for the most part, Fark feels and acts within the same vein.
Glenn Beck's mythical crime in 1990 - Fark is one of the grand purveyors of the myth that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990. They publicized the hoax not as a means of directly implicating Glenn Beck in a crime that never happened, but to demonstrate the effectiveness of the political messaging system that was/is constantly making extreme accusations in the form of inquiry. So Fark (amongst others) shot back. "Why hasn't Glenn Beck denied...?"
'Legitimate' Rape - A couple years back, a conservative politician stated that abortions do not need to be available to women because in the case of 'legitimate rape', the female body has a means of preventing any impregnation at all. This, of course, is absolutely absurd... which is why Fark latched onto it. It's demonstrative of really, really stupid politician commenting on thing about which he knows little and Fark thrives on such snafus. So when a story comes up regarding rape, you're likely to see the idea of "legitimate rape" be brought up-- not because they're suggesting a distinction, but because they're restating the absurdity of this concept.
-------------------
If you are under the impression that Fark users tell jokes that promote rape, sexism, racism, or discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation, then you don't know Fark. Farkers celebrate every gain in the realm of gay rights and attack heinous acts with derision.
If you don't understand that Fark's use of rape, sexism, and homosexuality in their humor comes from a Mel Brooks-style commentary on the absurdity various ideals and actions, then you don't understand Fark. It's disappointing that this kind of humor will no longer be tolerated as it pertains to these specific topics because it's a cathartic outlet for audacious humor in a good direction.
No, for the same reason why a news article that talks about a white supremacist assaulting a African-American isn't automatically racist. Or one about Westboro Baptist Church picketing a funeral of someone who was gay doesn't make it automatically homophobic. The context of the whole article is what makes it misogynistic (or racist, or homophobic, or ...)
But isn't is supposed to work both ways? A news article about a black man beating a white man isn't automatically racist or discriminatory, either. Nor is an article about a gay person beating up a straight person.
The problem here is that the policy is apparently all about "misogyny", which makes it inherently discriminatory. The policy should be about sexism. Misandry is sexism, too. And there has been a lot of that around, too.
These are the soft port d-bags of foobies fame. NOW they object to misogyny?
What is this world coming to if men can't pursue their favorite passtime, complaining about women?
It gets image macros from 4chan and still can't decide on what the irony tag is for. Fark has long become a shadow of its former self. The left leaning political correct mob has been in control for many years now -- even being a consistent critic of public officials on both sides of the political aisle gets you into trouble because in those times when you do write anything critical of a left leaning politician, you get 10 replies of people knocking down strawmen and breathlessly posting whataboutisms.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
For example, the name: Fark. They don't let you curse on Fark even though a tenth of the greelits are news articles about someone cursing. Also you can't talk about black people at Fark either. Gay rape though is very popular. In the politics tab, they won't greelight you unless you're a little to the left of Ralph Nader. And of course as is required by liberals;, Jews are fucking eeeeeevul.
But the thing that Fark does more than any other moderation or banning is the Shadow Ban. Fark modmins LOVE to shadow bin hundreds or even thousands of people. That's where they set your profile so that you are the only person who sees your comment. This is so Alcoholic Drew the Will Weaton Wannabe can get viewers to click ad-revenue without dirtying up Drew's world with unpleasant things. BTW, Salon.com does this too, in case you need a benchmark of Drew's "bravery".
Wow, another PC flamebait story on Slashdot. Shocker. At least this is somewhat tech-related, but still, it's a stretch to try and shoehorn a political discussion topic into tech.
The worst issue and the real root cause of the rule change is the 'new' association with DERP.
Fark, unlike Slashdot claims ownership of all comments and other postings and has now agreed to allow the Derp group to harvest and share all postings in whatever manner they see fit. Derp http://derp.institute/
It will likely have a measurable cooling effect on the postings at Fark.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
The ban isn't necessarily on news, it's on comments that people make.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
While I understand what you are saying, I disagree in the intent of the policy. Sexism is offensive, misogyny is hatred. Being offensive isn't prohibited for if it was, the internet would cease to exist. Being outright hateful is though.
If I say "that awful parking job had to be by a woman", I'm sexist. If I say "that bitch deserves to be raped for that parking job", I'm misogynistic. It's the later trolling they don't want.
Let's take a moment to dissect what's wrong with that Adam Savage quote: "Adam Savage once described to me the problem this way: if the Internet was a dude, we'd all agree that dude has a serious problem with women." The internet is made-up of a billion people. If you describe the internet as doing anything, as if it were a single human being, it's going to come-off as bizarre. First of all, if the internet was a person, first and foremost, it would be schizophrenic - because so many different opinions coming out of one mouth would necessarily be contradictory. Second of all, you can find any extreme opinion you want on the internet. This means that "we'd all agree that the internet has a serious problem with [fill in the blank]." is probably true because there's no consensus about anything on the internet, therefore, in order to say the internet thinks [fill in the blank], you have to pick-out some minority who believes one thing and then represent it as if it was "the internet".
Time to revoke his membership card in the society of men.
So, will they also ban all sexist comments against men? Things like: "you can't get laid", "I bet your d*ck is small", "you're shallow", "this guy is pathetic", "what a loser", etc etc?
Sad to see a site like FArQ go the route of bowing to the will of Politically Correct Nazism because "someone's feelings were hurt". They don't like it, they shouldn't be there.
Sexism is offensive, misogyny is hatred.
Misandry is hatred, too, then. Well, they're both just offensive to some people's sensibilities. Labeling it "hatred" and then pretending it's 100% different really makes no difference.
Or one about Westboro Baptist Church picketing a funeral of someone who was gay doesn't make it automatically homophobic.
You'll have to explain that one to me. The Westboro Baptist Church is an openly homophobic organization. You don't have to picket for them to be labeled homophobic, just being a member is more than sufficient - and perfectly justified by their own admissions. So what exactly is the point you are trying to make?
While I understand what you are saying, I disagree in the intent of the policy. Sexism is offensive, misogyny is hatred.
You've missed the GP's point. If the policy bans misogyny, it should ban misandry as well. To do otherwise is sexism; depending on the intent, it may be misandry and hatred as well.
There's nasty court cases like that every day in the courts with the current system. That's no reason to NOT change things.
If it were a bizarre question to be asking here, your post would have been deleted, automatically or by the admins.
There's a difference between an echo chamber, and sufficient majority actually voicing a certain opinion that it drowns out everything else without the need for censorship.
At dinner one evening, a husband took his wife's hand and said, "Beth, we've been married thirty years and I simply must know: in all these years, have you ever been unfaithful?" Beth replied, "Well, Charles, to be honest: yes, I have been unfaithful to you. Three times. But always for a good reason." Charles was hurt. "What 'good reasons'?" "The first time was soon after we married when we couldn't pay the mortgage. Remember that evening when I went to see the banker? And the next day he agreed to extend our loan?" Charles nodded. "I can forgive you for that; you saved our home! But what about the others?" "Remember we didn't have the money to pay for that heart surgery you needed? Well, I called on your doctor and he did the surgery for free." "Yes. You saved my life! Of course I forgive you. But what was the third time?" Beth sighed. "Remember when you wanted to be president of your golf club and you only needed 93 more votes?"
It is just a simple act of deduplication.
I think they need to add a misandrist one as well. I'm sick of the male bashing and men being a joke in the media. Fair's fair!
No, for the same reason why a news article that talks about a white supremacist assaulting a African-American isn't automatically racist. Or one about Westboro Baptist Church picketing a funeral of someone who was gay doesn't make it automatically homophobic. The context of the whole article is what makes it misogynistic (or racist, or homophobic, or ...)
This, discussing the issue of crime or alcoholism in Aboriginal communities is very different to saying "all them fucking boongs are drunks and thieves".
Intent is everything and intent is often only determined by context.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Perhaps it was poorly stated on my part. What I was meaning was an article about WBC picketing a funeral does not make the article homophobic just because the subject the article about is.
The original comment was would Fark prohibit a legitimate news article that reported on a (horribly understated) misogynistic action. And I was saying no, because it wasn't the news article that was necessarily misogynistic, rather it was the action being reported on. If someone came along and said that the victim got what she deserved, then that would be prohibited.
Sure it is. However, I don't recall it ever being a problem on Fark.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
misandry (which I noticed is not in the firefox dictionary) is still allowed and encouraged?
The great scourge of rape jokes is only the rationalization of a larger movement to install speech censors and enforce ideological conformity.
The classic film "HARD TIMES":
Gandle: "Mr. Cheney, It's been a real pleasure watching you work..."
* :)
That occurs right near the film's termination, after Cheney (a 'hero' of mine, of sorts) beats the fighter "Street"... see it sometime, *IF* you haven't - it's a classic.
(Anyhow/anways - I've been reading many of your posts as of late as they're often highly rated, and rightfully so imo - you've got a real gift for cutting thru the crap society *tries* to manipulate the masses with, & of course, you're RIGHT as rain...)
APK
P.S.=> Thanks for your insights: You've made my "GENERIC PROOFS" section of my favorites in fact on this one + I titled it "Hegelian Dialectic defined for mind control of the masses by S. Petry" (Yes - No 'big honor', I know, however, it's only truth - for what it's worth is all).
... apk
So what if there is misogyny on a website? Shouldn't we let all voices, even those we hate, be heard? I mean, seriously, are you so weak that you can't take a mean comment on the internet? Are women that weak? I'm a fat fuck with weird sexual appetites, and I get mean shit said about me all the time. Should I demand censorship just to spare my feelings? Of course not! What I have done is grow thicker skin and engage with those people. If you want to shut down the He-Man-Woman-Haters-Club, the best way to do it is simply to engage with it and demonstrate to it how full of shit it is. Blocking it, deleting it, and trying to silence it does no good. What is needed is a free and open debate. If our ideas of gender equality are really so great, then surely they can stand up to challenges from misogynists, right?
All you do when you ban speech about something is admit that you can't defend your positions from attack. To censor is really a way to admit defeat. It's an admission that your ideals aren't strong enough, and that you can't debate. The censor works as a way to summarily declare victory against "bad people" (misogynists in this case) while also betraying your own mental, emotional, and ideological weakness. That's why feminists insist on it.
TFA? What's that?
If I say "that awful parking job had to be by a woman", I'm sexist. If I say "that bitch deserves to be raped for that parking job", I'm misogynistic. It's the later trolling they don't want.
^^^ Either way you're still an ass.
Some of the stuff on Jezebel might cross that line occasionally.
I bet Drew is selling the place. Who owns /. these days?
While I understand what you are saying, I disagree in the intent of the policy. Sexism is offensive, misogyny is hatred.
Are you certain? Let us not forget that there is a really wide range of opinion about what is and what is not misogynistic.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-po... Adria Richards got two guys fired for making dongle and forking jokes. She apparently thoght they were misogynists.
Enough outrage at these guys that she took a photo and shamed them on Twitter and complained to the organizers of the event.. And got one of them fired.
And yet,Adria managed to post this on her twitter account earlier
https://twitter.com/adriaricha...
"you should put something in your pants next time...like a bunch of socks inside one...large...sock. TSA agent faint"
Which was obvoiusly a story about smuggling socks.
Fact is this is a world where we now have two different standards. And men can lose their jobs if a woman overhears them and might be in a bad mood, or had too much coffee
As a Co-worker once told me - sexual harassment "depends on the mood I'm in."
And the discretion of the reviewer, too. I severely doubt that the men who were fired hate women. It was a joke, yet getting fired for making it shows exactly how it is interpreted as misogyny.
And in the end, her likely bad mood cost her her job, as she went outside channels to publicly shame these guys. Which no doubt some think was a misogynistic firing. And despite your assertions, check this out: http://colorlines.com/archives...
Not only misogyny, but racist bigots too!
Fortunately only men are this way, so at least half of us are innocent.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Misandry is sexism, too. And there has been a lot of that around, too.
Score: 5, Funny.
That's because M.R.A. is bullshit. Fedora wearing neckbeard is used against women too - it's basically a "hipster" or atheist insult.
Also, Jezebel brings up great points that are uncountered except by rape jokes or "wat abouT KRATOS!!" posts. The internet has a tendency to be a cesspool of idiots.
Thank her and someone related to Kassie Washington for the dhimmitude:
A link
Another
Thankfully Slashdot isn't getting the SJW treatment. But if this gets downmodded, you can probably tell who modbombed me.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
The quality of your memory is not the subject of this discussion.
It's a word way of saying [citation needed].
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
wordy
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});