Are the moderators here over-moderating?

[Angelle]

11 minutes ago, gaius said:

 

It seems like there's a very bitter and somewhat context lacking campaign going on right now to rid the board of someone who's contributed 50,000+ posts and held the place together for years. 

This isn't true at all. 

[Paul]

19 minutes ago, gaius said:

That's not the post that I remember. But even if my memory isn't perfect after a few years, which is possible, it's still very hard for me to not interpret that post as a passive aggressive swipe at moderation. And an off topic one at that. The thread wasn't about what moderation allowed and didn't allow on LS.

It is with absolute certainty the post attributed to @Taramere's permanent restriction on the community. Along with our audit trail, the moderator responsible posted immediately after with a public admonition to anyone else who dare test his patience in a post that has since been removed. That, again, was not okay. @Taramere did not show a pattern of breaking the rules time and time again. We reviewed months of posts prior to ensure that there had not been a pattern leading up to this post. At best, the post could have been edited or removed with no further restrictions.

22 minutes ago, gaius said:

back then the moderators frequently said they couldn't get in touch with you for months or years and would draw lines on rules based on what they thought you would want.

That I was unavailable was absolutely true. Other inferences were certainly not. In my absence, a number of outlandish and patently false speculations were made in my name that had no reflection on reality.

I apologize for being unable to devote time to the community during that period, and that my absence overlapped the absence of the other directors. I wish I could have been here, and I understand and am responsible for the outcome and very understandable frustrations faced. Quite unfortunately, as volunteers we all at times have outside obligations that can sometimes take priority from the time we're able to give.

Yet in the here and now, we're undoing those resulting wrongs. We are not assigning blame; simply fixing what broke.

27 minutes ago, gaius said:

One rule they spelled out clear as day was you didn't crap on moderation in public in any way shape or form and doing so would get you banned. And in that context the post was made.

We've had the applicable guideline in place for decades:

Quote

 Posts or threads that challenge moderators' decisions will be deleted. Such challenges shall be made via the "Contact Us" link located at the bottom of each page.

That does not say "banned in all perpetuity for all time the first time you raise what seemed to be a rather valid observation of the practices of the day." I can't speak for what led the decisions to be made then that were made, nor do I think we need to go down that path. I can state unequivocally that they were incorrect.

38 minutes ago, gaius said:

It seems like there's a very bitter and somewhat context lacking campaign going on right now to rid the board of someone who's contributed 50,000+ posts and held the place together for years. Albeit imperfectly. It was a tragedy that we lost so many contributing members to banning but let's not compound one tragedy with another. Nobody here has been perfect or been treated perfectly. He's not a mod anymore, we can't just all find a way to just move on?

This is not about any particular moderator, nor about assigning blame, nor suggesting that the contributions of any of the volunteers here should be held in anything but the highest of esteem. We have all made errors in judgment. Heck, I probably make two or three an hour, including that last cup of coffee.

This is about acknowledging that mistakes were made, that there appear to be patterns in those mistakes, that we are taking responsibilities for these mistakes as the current volunteers hosting the discussions here, and letting those who may be hiding in the shadows in the aftermath know that they are welcome to reach out and we'll do our best to make it right.

[GorillaTheater]

Paul, I don't come here as often as I used to. For various personal reasons I no longer feel qualified to give others advice about their relationship issues. But I absolutely want to commend you for the bridge-building and work towards rectifying past issues that you're doing here. Truly outstanding and my hat's off to you.

And for the record, I totally deserved the two or three dozen infractions I've received here over the years. If not for the particular post in question, then certainly for those I got away with.

Edited December 2, 2020 by GorillaTheater
For the sake of literacy.

[Caauug]

I started reading LS years ago looking for answers... I do thank Paul and the LS posters for the opportunity to learn. With gathering of crumbs of information I have found answers but they are not main stream ideas that can be expressed here.

I do not post on the political threads, I am not in the USA and do not really follow the politics closely there. I swing more to the right with my views, and am not afraid to call out someone when I see an unjust accusation, idea or action. This has lead to some of my posts disappearing. Maybe I have out grown LS?

I understand moderation is needed. I understand rules are needed. I understand my views are not everyone's. I understand this is not my forum. I understand I am not a paying member.

I have learned to just post and run, don't look back. Don't bite when others are fishing for an argument, I will never win when the mods are more left and side with those fishing. Life is not fair, build a bridge and get over it!!! Grow thicker skin and treat it like "Water off a duck's back" 

Thanks again to all posters, this is good entertainment. It is only entertainment for me now.....

Thanks @major_merrick for starting this thread.

[Zona]

A lot forums on the Internet become cesspools of hate and anger, so there are times when moderation is necessary, and on this forum it does keep things from getting ugly. There have been some big improvements too. Too many posts were moved or moderated for being off topic before . I notice more flexibility on what is "on topic" now.

There does seem to be some taboo subjects. Things that are not allowed to be questioned. Just about every post I've made about radical feminism, which is a pet peeve of mine, has been deleted. Criticizing radical feminists is not the same as denigrating women.

 

Edited December 3, 2020 by Zona

[Paul]

9 minutes ago, Zona said:

There does seem to be some taboo subjects. Things that are not allowed to be questioned. Just about every post I've made about radical feminism, which is a pet peeve of mine, has been deleted. Criticizing radical feminists is not the same as denigrating women.

Your posts are not being removed or edited because they "denigrate women" -- they are being removed or edited because they berate a group of people. In general, if you're labeling someone, that's probably not okay.

Using a phrase to direct criticism like radical <insert name of group here> is berating a group of people, irrespective of what group you use.

Presumably, you identify people that exhibit certain behaviors or actions or characteristics, etc. as "radical feminists." What someone else might interpret from that label may be entirely different from you, and anyone being labeled "a radical" might reasonably take offense to the term.

It would be just as improper to criticize radical cake bakers, radical mechanics, radical skydivers, and radical police officers.

The expectation here is that you will be critical of actions and not individuals (or groups of individuals).

As an example, it's not acceptable here to say:

I have a real problem with radical cake bakers. They're all the same, those miserable people.

Instead, we expect that you'll tell us what characteristic, action, belief, behavior, or creed you have an opinion about:

I have a real problem with people that sell cakes filled with slightly used ketchup packets. I'm concerned about the sanitary conditions involved in pre-licking the foil wrapping of each packet before it's inserted into the cake batter.

Our ask is that you approach the subject by directing your comments on the characteristics a person would hold that are the issue for you. There is no misunderstanding "the act of putting used ketchup packets in cake batter." We can all reasonably understand what you don't like and speak a common language about that. However, radical baker may mean ketchup packets to you, fondant made of asbestos to someone else, and refuses to washes their hands after using the restroom to me.

[Haydn]

I think things have improved massively since Paul showed up. 

Seems that some have axes to grind and past adventures. They need to gently let go now.....

[pepperbird2]

I think part of the issue some have is there's so many on here with all sorts of opinions. That can work well for a relationship site, but maybe it's not so great for a political one? Everyone on here has their own views, but who knows where they come from? Sometimes I've seen posters claim to be in whatever field, but how do you know they are telling the truth about that? It's just a bunch of anonymous strangers floating around in cyberspace.

I also think that there is often an understandable assumption among some posters  that most posters are american when a lot of us are not. This can make a difference in some topics, for example, health care. An american may look at Canada's health care system and think "whoo hoo!! Free!" which is actually not true. Discussing the issues in my country's health care system may get lost in the "at least you don't pay for it"  I've sometimes seen.
(I'm sorry, I probably didn't explain that very well...I hope people understand what I mean)

[Paul]

8 hours ago, Caauug said:

I swing more to the right with my views, and am not afraid to call out someone when I see an unjust accusation, idea or action. This has lead to some of my posts disappearing. Maybe I have out grown LS?

Perhaps it's just missing the purpose of this place, rather than outgrowing it.

This isn't a place to call out, or preach to others. This is a place to engage with others. To actively listen and share, with intention, and with the goal of connecting and learn from each other. This isn't a place where you're right and someone else is wrong when speak about subjective things that are open to our own personal interpretations and world views. Everyone's opinion, expressed in a civil and respectful manner, is welcome and valid here.

This is a place where you state the "right" leaning views you alluded to because you want to hear what other people's views are. Not because you want to call them out and point out flaws in their reasoning, but because you want reach a higher level of understanding for what fellow travelers on this planet think and feel. This is a place where you agree to disagree. This is a place where you find and celebrate commonalities. This is a place that is intentionally harder than most to communicate. Like physical exercise, it takes work and it can hurt, but in the end you emerge a healthier, stronger person.

That's the purpose of here.

That's not the purpose of most other places you'll go. And that's okay. Go there for the other thing. Come here for the above.

9 hours ago, Caauug said:

I will never win when the mods are more left and side with those fishing.

We're card carrying members of the "don't be rude, be respectful, and treat others how most would prefer to be treated" party. The moment you're seeking to "win," you position someone else to "lose," and you should consider that a strong indicator that you misunderstand or don't appreciate the point.

Is there an exception to all of the above? Yes, when making statements of fact. There are real world consequences for misstating an opinion as fact. As examples, making remarks that are not factual that might make someone take unnecessary risks with their body when it comes to physical or sexual health, or stating that important public health information during a global pandemic is a conspiracy brought about by individuals abusing their power. These are things that are simply not acceptable here for the common good.

They are acceptable in other places. Go to the other places if that's what you want to do.

[Paul]

20 minutes ago, pepperbird2 said:

That can work well for a relationship site, but maybe it's not so great for a political one?

In the event that it was not abundantly clear, this is a relationship community. This is not a community for the discussion of politics. We have a section for those who find enjoyment in discussing politics with each other, just as we have a section for those who enjoy discussing current events, and other miscellaneous things. These are all in the Off-Topic area of the community. We cater our decision making and practices to the on-topic areas of the community--the places that fit what we call our primary directive.

There are places out in the world that are just for the discussion of politics. Maybe they have an off-topic area for relationships. I don't know. Someone looking for a focus on that would probably be better served at a place that welcomes and invites people that like screaming their political position at others, criticizing the ignorance and stupidity of anyone who disagrees with their world view, and thinking that the people who are not themselves are the reason the world and civilization and democracy and society will end and be the worse for it.

If this describes anyone reading, go to those other places. Please. You'll find a place where you'll be happier.

Edited December 3, 2020 by Paul
Added link

[Zona]

18 minutes ago, pepperbird2 said:

I also think that there is often an understandable assumption among some posters  that most posters are american when a lot of us are not. 

...
(I'm sorry, I probably didn't explain that very well...I hope people understand what I mean)

I am probably guilty sometimes of assuming an American perspective, although I do make an effort not to, I just don't always succeed.

I understood what you meant BTW.

 

[Paul]

24 minutes ago, pepperbird2 said:

Sometimes I've seen posters claim to be in whatever field, but how do you know they are telling the truth about that?

This is not okay. Please flag posts like these. If someone says "I'm a doctor, so therefore what I'm saying is true," and offers no credible peer-reviewed source, such as a medical journal article to back up whatever the claim is, it is inappropriate for our community, and we'll remove it.

For exactly the question you state.

[Caauug]

7 hours ago, Zona said:

There does seem to be some taboo subjects. Things that are not allowed to be questioned. Just about every post I've made about radical feminism, which is a pet peeve of mine, has been deleted. Criticizing radical feminists is not the same as denigrating women.

^^^ Thanks^^^^ Please let me know if you feel I am taking your post away from the direction you intended.

6 hours ago, Paul said:

Presumably, you identify people that exhibit certain behaviors or actions or characteristics, etc. as "radical feminists." What someone else might interpret from that label may be entirely different from you, and anyone being labeled "a radical" might reasonably take offense to the term.

So... AWALT, MWALT are examples??? And totally taboo???

Now to stir the pot a little, how about "Female Nature"? The phrase is not saying "All" but is saying it is "Nature" or natural, or common. The same could be said about males also... and is in most threads bagging out the BF/Husband not pulling his own weight in the relationship. It is very seldom expressed as Male Nature, but there will be 20 or more "Me Too" posts all saying the same.... 

10 minutes ago, Paul said:

This isn't a place to call out, or preach to others. This is a place to engage with others. To actively listen and share, with intention, and with the goal of connecting and learn from each other. This isn't a place where you're right and someone else is wrong when speak about subjective things that are open to our own personal interpretations and world views. Everyone's opinion, expressed in a civil and respectful manner, is welcome and valid here.

I understand, I should not have called out that poster for saying the OP was raped when she was clearly not..... Yes, my fault. Please forgive me.      Like I said, I think I might have out grown this forum.

19 minutes ago, Paul said:

The moment you're seeking to "win," you position someone else to "lose,"

"Win" is for my post to stay up so intended person can read my reply, "Lose" is it is deleted.... It is me that is win or lose with LS mods.... No one else, sorry if you had another illusion.

 

[Happy Lemming]

8 hours ago, Zona said:

Just about every post I've made about radical feminism, which is a pet peeve of mine, has been deleted. Criticizing radical feminists is not the same as denigrating women.

And yet the "Toxic Masculinity" thread was allowed to continue ad nauseam. I guess its OK to call males toxic, but not OK to discuss radical feminism.

[Paul]

4 minutes ago, Caauug said:

So... AWALT, MWALT are examples??? And totally taboo???

Now to stir the pot a little, how about "Female Nature"? The phrase is not saying "All" but is saying it is "Nature" or natural, or common. The same could be said about males also... and is in most threads bagging out the BF/Husband not pulling his own weight in the relationship. It is very seldom expressed as Male Nature, but there will be 20 or more "Me Too" posts all saying the same.... 

No. None of these is okay. These are all labels. Don't use labels to address characteristics of groups of people. The measure is not "a significant number of people apply this label to themselves, so it's okay to use." I have no idea what any of these labels mean to you, nor which characteristics or traits you're talking about. The only person that knows that with any certainty is you. And, through this exercise, you might learn that the characteristics and traits you thought were implied by a given label you've been using may be a result of your being misinformed.

Human beings are complex, diverse, and fluid in every measure you could imagine. Twenty people might agree with you, yet with certainty someone will disagree. Discuss the ideas and characteristics themselves.

I personally can't stand it when MMMBOPs capitulate between RARFARKS and SNOPGLICKS, even though we all know it's perfectly natural for them to do so.

[Haydn]

I think what Paul is saying is pretty clear. My idea of  "Toxic Masculinity"  is keeping my socks on while making the beast with 2 backs....

Seems that some people just shouldn`t be here or should find more edgy sites where egos cannot get bruised....

[Paul]

2 minutes ago, Happy Lemming said:

And yet the "Toxic Masculinity" thread was allowed to continue ad nauseam. I guess its OK to call males toxic, but not OK to discuss radical feminism.

There's lots of posts and threads and not a lot of volunteers moderating. That something is visible and active, should not imply that it's sanctioned or acceptable. I often run across things weeks or months or years after they were posted that are completely inappropriate. We're discussing what we should aspire to be.

It's not okay to call <insert any group here> <any pejorative word here>. It is okay to discuss concepts we might see out in the world that may be pejorative. For example, "what's this thing called toxic masculinity I've been hearing about?" "I can't believe my child's teacher called my neurodiverse child disabled."

[Taramere]

35 minutes ago, Happy Lemming said:

And yet the "Toxic Masculinity" thread was allowed to continue ad nauseam. I guess its OK to call males toxic, but not OK to discuss radical feminism.

I don't like the term "toxic masculinity" either.  It's got an insulting ring about it, and it pushes people into defensive mode - which isn't a great place to learn and develop from.  I've long had an attachment to a theory known as "the drama triangle".  Anybody who knows me of old on this board will have seen me go on about it before.  The reason I like it is that it's a simple, basic premise that's easy to use as a reference point when you get into conflict.

I don't think conflict is necessarily a bad thing.  To a certain extent it's a natural part of human society, and it's often at the root of creativity and important social developments.  However, there's not always much emphasis on people learning to handle it well.  So on this board, you'll see people get into conflict and it's often geared towards winding another person up and making them look as bad as possible.  Which is kind of human nature, when people feel on the defensive...but it's made a lot worse when people really enjoy/can't resist the temptation to be drawn into one of the dramatic roles.  Which are victim, rescuer and persecutor.  Once a person gets into one of those roles in a conflict, the likelihood is that they'll start bouncing between the three roles.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/remyblumenfeld/2018/12/07/how-to-transform-your-relationships-by-getting-creative/?sh=2a2f772e7565

I've found that the trouble with talking about the drama triangle on here is that people often use it against their foes.  Like..."yeah, exactly.  X is constantly getting into victim mode and refusing to see their own persecutory tendencies."  But really, it's a theory which is at its most useful when we ask ourselves "what role do I feel a pull towards right now?" rather than focusing too much on what role the person we're having a conflict with seems to be locked into.  Ideally what you're aiming for is rational adult mode, but often people will try to sabotage you from getting there.  So maybe they'll drop hints to you that behaving like a rational adult will make you more boring, or too clinical or that it comes across to them as passive aggressive.  All of which is aimed at pulling you away from that rational adult mode and back into the drama they'd like you to participate in (because drama can be exciting, and feel like a lot of fun...which is fine if it's channeled into creative pursuits, but not so great if it's all just channeled into having vitriolic arguments with people).

So when people get an infraction here, it's often because they've either started some drama (out of boredom, anger, a need to spice things up or whatever) or they've let themselves be drawn into it in a more reactive sort of way.  It's like a reminder to shift out of whatever dramatic role you've moved into, and get back into rational adult mode.  I think people have far better, more productive discussions when they're in rational adult mode.  Humans do kind of need a certain amount of drama too.  It's often channeled into play.  It can be fun, it can spark a lot of creativity and humour...but it can easily and quickly morph into something more vitriolic if you throw a few people who are really looking for conflict into the equation.

So yeah, I don't like the term "toxic masculinity" either.   But I think in the spirit of what Paul is doing with LS, you could maybe have a thread along the lines of "does the term "toxic masculinity" achieve its goal?"  Which would open up scope for asking "what's the aim of coining a phrase like that?  What are its drawbacks?  Can we accomplish these goals without using phrases that seem tailor made to put people on the defensive?"

Personally I love the sound of what Paul wants LS to aim towards, but I like writing lengthy, analytical stuff.  A lot of people hate that sort of thing, and just think it's a waste of time.  I'm guessing that if the site continues taking this direction, it'll become less attractive to people who just want to drop in by with an opinion and more attractive to people who enjoy analytical discussions that encourage them to challenge themselves.  I can see why people are saying "well, you'll have less traffic as a result" but it sounds as though that's not an issue...and that the primary aim is to provide a site that is a bit different to the many other sites out there where people just post opinions or find fault with other people, but never seriously try to challenge themselves.

Edited December 3, 2020 by Taramere

[Caauug]

23 minutes ago, Zona said:

I am probably guilty sometimes of assuming an American perspective, although I do make an effort not to, I just don't always succeed.

We are use to it, it's not a drama, but we will rub it in when we can. We really hate to miss a good opportunity when you present it.... There is more to the world than the USA.... 

Watch on how much other posters cater to you.... As in stating metric and imperial.... The rest of the world is metric, and most of what comes out of the US is also.... But some of us want you to understand us.... So we convert for you.

57 minutes ago, pepperbird2 said:

I also think that there is often an understandable assumption among some posters  that most posters are american when a lot of us are not. This can make a difference in some topics, for example, health care. An american may look at Canada's health care system and think "whoo hoo!! Free!" which is actually not true. Discussing the issues in my country's health care system may get lost in the "at least you don't pay for it"

Yes Pepper I agree, likely the big one is the separation and divorce legal issue. This can and does change with different provinces and states and countries. And states in different countries. Or provinces in different countries.... Maybe it's Shires in the UK?

It's a big world out there, what is important to us today may not be tomorrow. What is important to me today you will never know and I will never know what is important to you today. 

Zona, It's all good Mate, with your Covid-19 numbers up/down there Pepper and I feel sorry for you. Stay safe Mate.

[Ellener]

On 12/3/2020 at 9:09 AM, Paul said:

Don't use labels to address characteristics of groups of people. The measure is not "a significant number of people apply this label to themselves, so it's okay to use." I have no idea what any of these labels mean to you, nor which characteristics or traits you're talking about. The only person that knows that with any certainty is you. And, through this exercise, you might learn that the characteristics and traits you thought were implied by a given label you've been using may be a result of your being misinformed.

This is the crux of the matter of discussion. 

Sometimes the very words and labels themselves are not only hurtful/harmful but they don't even make sense, a word or phrase has been re-defined as a popular insult within a certain cultural setting.

People can also 'moderate' themselves, I do it all the time lately, by apologising if I get over-emotional or incoherent and someone says they feel hurt or insulted or confused. Or by reconsidering a response and deciding it's not overall beneficial to respond. 

I was appalled when the film of murder of George Floyd in the US went viral by many of the initial obnoxious dismissive and racist comments yes, but more so by any lack of humanity displayed in being able to witness a human dying and not be emotionally affected and concerned at what is being seen.

That and the pandemic then the US presidential election seemed to pivot LoveShack into a wider arena of 'political' discussion than previously.

Relationships are complex in 2020, so much of our lives are not entirely 'real' with being on our 'phones or online. It's easy to lose sight of each other and be disparaging or rejecting. 

But it's important to not be afraid of concepts like support and love and encouragement. Little things mean a lot in this world.

On 12/3/2020 at 8:24 AM, Paul said:

This isn't a place to call out, or preach to others. This is a place to engage with others. To actively listen and share, with intention, and with the goal of connecting and learn from each other. This isn't a place where you're right and someone else is wrong when speak about subjective things that are open to our own personal interpretations and world views. Everyone's opinion, expressed in a civil and respectful manner, is welcome and valid here.

Of course that is a form of preaching in itself, but yes-until we all can listen and hear and change and learn, what good can be done.

We already know what bad can be done! 

If everyone was perfect in their human relationships and connections LoveShack would be unnecessary...and clearly it is necessary and beneficial to many people: I regularly check in for my 'support' and hope I have regularly supported a few others by my own regular check ins.

It's easy to feel like 'no one cares'. And lots of people do.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 6, 2020 by Ellener
spelling

[Emilie Jolie]

On 11/30/2020 at 10:32 PM, gaius said:

most of the established member base is used to being able to communicate in a more direct and honest fashion

I don't often agree with you gaius, but I agree with you on this. 

Too sanitised a discussion can very quickly seem a little inhumane, patronising and condescending - it's good to have a bit of real life in the conversation in between walls of highbrow wording and exchanging peer-reviewed research papers and highly accredited journalistic sources, I think. Nobody needs qualifications to use google scholar btw ( https://scholar.google.com/ just in case) so you can just as easily decide to be whoever you want to be, because even when quoting research, we're still all anonymous strangers floating in cyberspace. Someone can be the coldest, most ruthless, uncaring person behind closed doors and it will never show online; as long as you know how to say all the right things in public, stir the right feelings and use all the right sources, you have a seat at the table. 

I personally value kindness and emotional intelligence over research, yet I actually am one of those drs (I can show you proof by linking you a research paper of your chosen topic and make it clickable for your convenience, as per LS guidelines, if you'd like) and even I find the process to be a bit of a drag. 

But I do understand the direction LS wants to take in this 'new era'; it's good to be thorough - not to the point of elitism or public humiliation of people with differing views (that would be unkind), from what I understand; just thorough enough to allow two-way, civil discussions among people who can back what they say with credible, provable facts. That's literally all you need to do.

 

 

 

[Angelle]

I don't think that anything has been sanitized. The anti-feminism thread was offensive to me, but I didn't report anyone. That was the sort of thing I usually avoid, because it's in other areas of the forum, or it used to be. 

Edited December 7, 2020 by Angelle

[Emilie Jolie]

15 minutes ago, Angelle said:

I don't think that anything has been sanitized

I don't either (not all the time at least). Just saying there's a potential risk it can be viewed that way, that some people can find the process of looking for peer-reviewed research a little daunting and feel alienated or intimidated by this. Not everyone has a postgraduate degree or is a lawyer or whatever; it's good to be inclusive, I think 🙂

Edited December 7, 2020 by Emilie Jolie

[NuevoYorko]

On 12/3/2020 at 7:07 AM, Happy Lemming said:

And yet the "Toxic Masculinity" thread was allowed to continue ad nauseam. I guess its OK to call males toxic, but not OK to discuss radical feminism.

The terms "toxic masculinity" and "radical feminism" are not comparable at all, even though they contain forms of the words "masculine" and "feminine."  

Discussing the concept of "toxic masculinity" does not equate to "calling males toxic." 

I'm not a moderator - just a normal poster - but IMO it would be fine to discuss the concept of "radical feminism."  The thread you are referencing is actually not discussing "radical feminism" at all.  It devolved into using a word ("feminism") in a pejorative manner which is barely related to the actual meaning of the term.

This happens here a lot.  "Feminism"   "Leftists" "Marxism," "BLM,"  "Antifa" all have been used in these ways a great deal here.  

 

 

 

 

[elaine567]

25 minutes ago, NuevoYorko said:

Discussing the concept of "toxic masculinity" does not equate to "calling males toxic." 

Which was repeated ad infinitum both by knowledgeable posters and by the moderator who seemed to be in charge of the thread at the time, he even added an alert at the top, yet regularly along would come ignorant posters who would start spouting argumentative nonsense, showing they knew nothing of the subject being discussed.