What improvements would you like to see in this discussion forum?

[guyser]

And yet she's begging for a lifeline from the same moderator 2 pages later after getting confused by irrational responses she posed to her opponent about his age and then trying to recover with insult.

Seems there's plenty of baiting, sarcasm and insult to go around, no doubt the result of basing the foundation of one's arguement on emotional reaction rather than the object of the debate.

I cannot disagree.

[guyser]

Is anyone else having a problem with notifications of responses?

Usually the red flag disappears when I look at the notifications, but lately it stays on and is just accumulating higher numbers instead of resetting.

Or not showing any at all .

[poochy]

Gee and why wouldn't they jump at the opportunity to discuss issues with the company of people like you and the others here who show a blatant disregard for women's issues. It's really unfathomable.

O of course, tell us more about the moral high ground that you beleive you stand on. Of course if someone doesn't agree with a woman, or disagrees with some aspect of what you would characterize as a "women's issue" then it is you who gets to decide that we are anti women. The pool from which you draw your arguments is terribly shallow, i dont care how many women join, the idea that they need to be induced to join is nonsense, and in fact, goes against what im sure you beleive is their absolute equality to men in every aspect of life. We are equal, not the same, it is patronizing to women to think that we need to induce them to do certain things when they already have equal freedom of choice and ability to do those things.

[jacee]

Or not showing any at all .

Ah ... it's not just me.

Yoo hoo! Moderator!?

.

[cybercoma]

O of course, tell us more about the moral high ground that you beleive you stand on. Of course if someone doesn't agree with a woman, or disagrees with some aspect of what you would characterize as a "women's issue" then it is you who gets to decide that we are anti women. The pool from which you draw your arguments is terribly shallow, i dont care how many women join, the idea that they need to be induced to join is nonsense, and in fact, goes against what im sure you beleive is their absolute equality to men in every aspect of life. We are equal, not the same, it is patronizing to women to think that we need to induce them to do certain things when they already have equal freedom of choice and ability to do those things.

You're so obviously all about equality. Goooood for you. You're quite the progressive.

[poochy]

You're so obviously all about equality. Goooood for you. You're quite the progressive.

That's right, you just go on speaking for everyone else, tell all of us what's inside of our heads. it couldn't be say that you and a few others here simply can't understand the conversation at the same level as the rest of us? No, of course not, you're just better than we are, how simple it is to cover for any of your own short comings when you can always look down your nose at everyone yelling down from your social justice mountain claiming that we aren't very good people every time the conversation passes you by. Or, maybe it's true that every time a woman cries inequality she must be correct, and she shall not be questioned, and the situation must be rectified, and while equal, she shouldn't be expected to provide a credible answer to the rabble.

O and btw, im very much for equality, not that i need answer to you on that subject, (heaven forbid i should mention i have or had a gay friend so you can trot out that other well used and ridiculously weak debating tactic that you also recently used) but actual real, accountable equality, not the patronizing nonsense you subscribe to, which means chivalry is dead, and if a woman can come to the forum she can expect no more or less from all of us than anyone else would.

Edited March 31, 2015 by poochy

[On Guard for Thee]

That's right, you just go on speaking for everyone else, tell all of us what's inside of our heads. it couldn't be say that you and a few others here simply can't understand the conversation at the same level as the rest of us? No, of course not, you're just better than we are, how simple it is to cover for any of your own short comings when you can always look down your nose at everyone yelling down from your social justice mountain claiming that we aren't very good people every time the conversation passes you by. Or, maybe it's true that every time a woman cries inequality she must be correct, and she shall not be questioned, and the situation must be rectified, and while equal, she shouldn't be expected to provide a credible answer to the rabble.

O and btw, im very much for equality, not that i need answer to you on that subject, (heaven forbid i should mention i have or had a gay friend so you can trot out that other well used and ridiculously weak debating tactic that you also recently used) but actual real, accountable equality, not the patronizing nonsense you subscribe to, which means chivalry is dead, and if a woman can come to the forum she can expect no more or less from all of us than anyone else would.

Somehow I doubt you actually had a gay friend.

[Smallc]

Somehow I doubt you actually had a gay friend.

He never said he did. That was me. This was him:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/secrets-and-shame-158288995.html

[On Guard for Thee]

He never said he did. That was me. This was him:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/secrets-and-shame-158288995.html

Oh maybe I missed something. I find his rants not worth following so thats probably how.

[Big Guy]

We are all anonymous on this board. No one knows with any certainty who is male or female or their sexual orientation or age or colour or location or ...

How can we have a gender directed structural change and evaluate the success or failure of the process?

[Boges]

The Gender Subforum only has one thread so far.

SEXISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited April 1, 2015 by Boges

[poochy]

O hey, i didnt realize that thread was in a new sub forum, there isn't any point in responding to it, if you don't carry the only allowable opinions not only are you wrong, you are also a sexist. So there isn't much to debate.

[Michael Hardner]

if you don't carry the only allowable opinions not only are you wrong, you are also a sexist.

I'm really not getting this pervasive fear of women that some have, for whatever reason.

[poochy]

I'm really not getting this pervasive fear of women that some have, for whatever reason.

No, there seems to be a lot that you don't get. Some women, like some men, you can actually discuss things with, some women, like the one who brought all of this on, are impossible to speak with about these issues, simply because she is not a reasonable PERSON, which has nothing to do with her gender. The subject matter obviously does, she is not a reasonable person, and will inexorably accuse you of sexism or bigotry if you dare to question the paradigm she subscribes to making any argument to the contrary an absolute waste of time. Perhaps you also subscribe to belief that because she is a woman any question of her beliefs on what might be considered womens issues is offside. Rabble has a feminsit forum, the rules are, thou shalt not question any of the founding ideals of feminism, as if they were handed down to us from Gaia, making the entire thing a redundant echo chamber, this person would be happier there im sure. But perhaps you think,

"I need to call you out on your pedistal white man espousing on women's rights."

Is a reasonable way to respond, she wants to preach, not discuss.

Edited April 2, 2015 by poochy

[Big Guy]

It is a sad statement about our society (and the posters here) that when given the chance to discuss and disagree anonymously that we resort to negativity. I know this is not the fault of the site but it does give one the opportunity to elicit opinions from people who we will never meet. Instead of taking the opportunity to learn from others the default position is to argue, demean, insult, degrade and basically create discomfort for those who disagree.

Any attempt to share a point of disagreement in a civil manner is read as a weakness. Aggression, intimidation and insults are perceived to be a strength.

It seems that it is the same people saying the same things to the same other people, time after time after time.

I find it an interesting study in human nature that someone would spend their valuable time for tens of thousands of posts to try to inflict discomfort in another person - an anonymous individual about whom you know nothing. There has to be a better way to spend your free time.

If your intent is not to learn new things from this process or at least enjoy the interaction with others then why would you do it?

What pleasure can one take from insulting someone you do not know? Why would anyone of sound mind take pleasure from attempting to hurt others?

[Michael Hardner]

Rabble has a feminsit forum, the rules are, thou shalt not question any of the founding ideals of feminism, as if they were handed down to us from Gaia, making the entire thing a redundant echo chamber, this person would be happier there im sure. But perhaps you think,

"I need to call you out on your pedistal white man espousing on women's rights."

Is a reasonable way to respond, she wants to preach, not discuss.

Then why not just respond ? If you're too sensitive to be called out then you shouldn't be on MLW. There's no protection for your opinions, just protection for decorum. This especially goes if you want to question the founding ideals of feminism, namely equal rights for all genders. If you are like the governor of Indiana, you may be offended to find out how far on the fringe your views are.

[Argus]

I'm really not getting this pervasive fear of women that some have, for whatever reason.

I'm really not seeing this pervasive fear of women that some imagine they are seeing for whatever reason...

[bush_cheney2004]

Cynically, I think more women would join up if we had topic areas for beauty, anti-aging, and dieting !

Maybe get Lululemon to sponsor for CanCon.

Edited April 2, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[poochy]

Then why not just respond ? If you're too sensitive to be called out then you shouldn't be on MLW. There's no protection for your opinions, just protection for decorum. This especially goes if you want to question the founding ideals of feminism, namely equal rights for all genders. If you are like the governor of Indiana, you may be offended to find out how far on the fringe your views are.

Of course, if I don't agree with all aspects of someones feminist or other progressive ideals it's clear that I am against equality, not only that, i am now for discrimination of homosexuals. Golly gee, i mean, no one has ever made that ridiculous argument before, so is this the best you have to offer? I guess ill flag you baseless accusations...lol, hey, maybe it's you who don't belong here.

Edited April 3, 2015 by poochy

[Michael Hardner]

Of course, if I don't agree with all aspects of someones feminist or other progressive ideals it's clear that I am against equality, not only that, i am now for discrimination of homosexuals. Golly gee, i mean, no one has ever made that ridiculous argument before, so is this the best you have to offer? I guess ill flag you baseless accusations...lol, hey, maybe it's you who don't belong here.

I didn't accuse you of anything. You don't like being "called out", that much is clear. You also stood up for questioning the "founding ideals" of feminism, the most elementary of which is equality.

Now you're changing it to 'all aspects' and mocking the idea that you're against equality. You're just shadow boxing here. I'm not sure what your complaint is, actually.

[WWWTT]

The Gender Subforum only has one thread so far.

SEXISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Guess again!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

We are all anonymous on this board. No one knows with any certainty who is male or female or their sexual orientation or age or colour or location or ...

How can we have a gender directed structural change and evaluate the success or failure of the process?

Sex thread alert!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Hats off to the moderators for finally taking my advise!

Sex subject heading is the way to go.

Looks like my prediction about this forum going belly up by 2016 was off!

Never thought the moderators here would ever do it

WWWTT

[poochy]

. If you are like the governor of Indiana, you may be offended to find out how far on the fringe your views are.

Unhuh, but this wasn't a back door way of equating me with someone who has been condemned by almost everyone for his anti homosexual law?

Right, sure it isn't, either you knew exactly what you were doing, or you're a little slow, and btw, my comment concerning my lack of interest in participating on subjects where any dissent has you called a bigot has nothing to do with me wanting to be protected, or with forum decorum,

If I can't call you an idiot for making things up i don't want to be called a bigot for disagreeing with any aspect of someones interpretation of feminism. That quote she made wasn't even to me btw. But over and over people here are called racists, bigots, you name it, and it seems perfectly acceptable. You made the accusations, I simply said why i had no interest in posting there, which had nothing to do with you, or the governor of Indiana, but that didn't stop you.

So facilitator, go back, parse my posts, and find any serous post I've made that is anti gay, good luck, or maybe you could just apologize for making that connection, as you knew damn well what you were doing.

[Je suis Omar]

Is this the "support" thread ?!?!