f1jim wrote:Again, I ask that any message that exhibits behavior you find offensive be reported. If you do not report it you cannot complain about it. Let's see the examples of offensive messages we are "hypothetically" discussing. If a message is truly offensive you do everyone harm by not reporting it.
We have two male moderators and two female moderators.
f1jim
First of all, there are two male moderators who frequently post (Jim/Jeff), one male moderator who occasionally posts (Dr M), and two female moderators (Heather McD who is new I think and Carole) who never post.
The moderator who seems to do most of the moderating, is you.
I personally think there should be room for disagreements and discussion. I have no problem with the idea of some people saying "Well, I don't think it's sexist to say x," and others to say, "well, I do think it's sexist." And everyone can give their points of view based on their opinions and life experiences. Also, someone can say "I find that line of reasonable objectionable," or "offensive," without actually finding the post objectionable or offensive. And I'm only going to report a post that is objectionable (though I probably won't do that either: see below). I'm fine with people taking part or all of my post and explaining how they disagree. What I'm not fine with is the idea that I am not entitled to that viewpoint, or that the fact that I have a particular viewpoint is evidence of some flaw or defect in my personality. Straw man arguments while not objectionable, certainly aren't helpful (for example, I never said anything implying that men and women aren't attracted to certain types -- I only talked about "dismemberment" being a classic example of objectification -- so posts about double wide trailers etc. are unrelated to my post).
I think that if there's some sort of fear of disagreement, then this becomes closer to a religious site than a site about a WOE. And this means actually "listening" to what people have to say. As far as I remember not one person here objected to the use of the word "fat" in general, yet there were all sorts of comments that we shouldn't be scared of the "f" word, "why do we avoid the f word,"etc.
If someone says, "all the people in the grocery store are fat, OMG, what pigs they are," and I say "I find that an offensive idea, because of ABC," then in my opinion I am certainly not attacking the poster personally, but I also want to highlight their post because I want to have a discussion about it. I am objecting to the post, not the postER. I have seen more than one instance here where the person saying, "I find that an offensive idea, because of ABC," is actually the one who is reprimanded by Jim and the thread is deleted.
There are numerous other times where a person is offended -- again, by an idea, or a way of thinking/talking, and the regulars AND moderator say basically that the objection is just a sign of how screwed up SAD eating makes us all. Or in some other way they make a personal attack on the offendee.
Dailycarbs started this thread saying:
Ok, if you now want to call me a fat shamer, tell me to mind my own business, etc, let me have it. I'm ready for the onslaught.
It sounded like he was looking for dialogue, including -- gasp -- disagreement.
Then the very first reply was from you, Jim, the moderator, saying:
Many fighting their weight issues for any length of time develop a thin skin about the issue and have a hair trigger about the issue.
In other words, if we have an objection, even within the parameters of dailycarbs' opening, then that is evidence of being thin skinned and having a hair trigger. So you, as moderator, are setting the tone. 1 -- you're telling us indirectly what you think, 2 -- you're saying that no one can legitimately disagree: those of us who might be offended are only offended because we are thin skinned.
(oh, and in case your own opinion wasn't clear you went on to say
I don't believe those trying to help are intentionally or even unintentionally "fat shaming" anyone in that process.
So, frankly, with all due respect, you can't seriously expect people to come to you with their concerns, if you've already said, before we get a chance to reply, that if we object, it's only because we have hair triggers. Perhaps for controversial topics you should remind us of the ground rules, and stay out of the discussion? (and not start a separate thread of everyone's great to make up for your silence).
And, what are those ground rules? Are we not allowed to say we are offended by something someone says? Again, that is different from saying "Dailycarbs, you're this and that," it's just saying that this type of language and viewpoint is offensive. That doesn't sound like a deletable offense, but it has been on some occasions. I thought it was the usual -- no personal attacks, swearing, etc. And also that this is a place for support following this WOE so not a place for people to argue Atkins was God or something.