or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Citizens On Patrol Thread...forum rules you would like to see
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Citizens On Patrol Thread...forum rules you would like to see - Page 7

post #91 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands View Post
There's an accepted level of racism that I'm not comfortable with, e.g. the Colin Powell jpg.

I validate that you feel this way but would like to point out there is an accepted level of about everything here that someone will not be comfortable with. I have my own sensitivities and take note when they are impinged on. However, I try and put it in perspective, both in who is saying it an in the overall weltanschauung of the entire board.
post #92 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt View Post
it's interesting to note that, in the 3 or 4 days since I started my sock rampage, and for all of the 'ban the socks' cries in this thread and around the board in general, I am still on exactly two reports...total....and they were for the same sock-suspect which turned out to be false.

I have never had the assumption that there were socks hiding under every rock. I know Pio thinks they are everywhere. I don't get it, or maybe I'm just too dumb to notice, or maybe I don't care all that much to keep track of who posts what. I don't think there are nearly as many of them as people think.
post #93 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stazy View Post
I think that if you want to "clean up the forum" then you need to get rid of the most obvious offenders. That is, if you want to limit misogyny then get rid of the soft porn threads. The lowest common denominator becomes the defacto standard so it's going to be tough to eliminate overtly sexual posts/threads if the forum maintains multiple threads dedicated to giving people boners.

This.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stazy View Post
This is the biggest problem with MC (and streetwear to a smaller extent). We already have such a large database of information that there really isn't much need for ANY new threads to be made in these forums. The reason senior members stop posting in them is because you can only answer interview attire questions so many times before it gets tiresome.

I don't think there is a solution to this problem.

This.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post
As is well known, I had my issues with FNB. But I think it is absurd to say that his departure in any way harmed MC. First, the main reason for MC's decline was that we were all "talked out" on the subject years before. All that predated FNB's banning by, literally, years. Second, his posts were mostly silly. You could break them down into a small number of categories. 1) Endless "essays" intended to be profound but that made no sense. 2) Stupid class-bass rantings (e.g., hopsack is for garbagemen) with no grounding in tradition or reality. 3) Passive-aggressive trolling. Yes, he stirred things up but not in a good way. He just posted a lot of stupid crap that was so evidently stupid, people couldn't help but pile on.

I suppose tastes have homogeonized somewhat on MC; actually, I am not sure that is even true. Look at WYWN, which seems to me to be all over map, moreso than ever. However, there is a cadre of styles/traits that a number of established members share which gets called "groupthink" by those who don't like it. Its influence is overstated though. If the "groupthink" were so widely accepted, WYWN would look a lot different than it does (better, IMO).

This.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post
Some of the most prolific new(er) members, such as kwilk and Pio, never talk about clothes at all.

Sup.

How hard is it to set up a forum?
post #94 of 357
I understand that you guys want to get rid of some of the misogyny, and the dumb-assness to boot, but that's really just part and parcel of having a bunch of guys together in one place. These aren't a bunch of British aristocrats you're dealing with here. Teenagers, married men, gay's, singles, and fruitcakes will inevitably produce conversation that strays out of bounds. You've just got to say "Hey, knock that off!" and move on with your life. Trying to ban that type of behavior is going to be nigh impossible.
post #95 of 357
racism is not about the words we use, but what we are trying to say with them.
post #96 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas View Post
I have never had the assumption that there were socks hiding under every rock. I know Pio thinks they are everywhere. I don't get it, or maybe I'm just too dumb to notice, or maybe I don't care all that much to keep track of who posts what. I don't think there are nearly as many of them as people think.

You are now under suspicion!

Seriously though, want someone I think is a sock? I'll PM it to Matt right after I post this. What gets my radar up is either someone with a four year old join date and suddenly goes batshit (hello Hey Man) or someone that uses his post #101 in the CE in a way that reflects they have obviously been reading the CE.

Also, I have had certain suddenly prolific posters PM me and try to get personal information out of me. I mean, a string of PMs not catching the drift that I don't plan to divulge personal info to them. I'd rather be that sorry.
post #97 of 357
i feel like this might be an appropriate place to drop the "white people" gif.
post #98 of 357
@Manton

I'm not implying that usage of the Powell.jpg is the exclusive domain of racists, and I'm on the record as saying that I believe the pic, in and of itself, is funny however; this is the interwebz. The anonymity of the medium affords people to opportunity to show their true colors under the guise of sarcasm or snark.

I assure you that most posters who have used the pic, wouldn't dream of uttering the word in my presence...and not because I'm an ITG, but because they know it's wrong. I don't think it's a stretch to say that, in America at least, few words in the English language are as impactful as nigger. No one here is that naive.
post #99 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambo View Post
I understand that you guys want to get rid of some of the misogyny, and the dumb-assness to boot, but that's really just part and parcel of having a bunch of guys together in one place. These aren't a bunch of British aristocrats you're dealing with here. Teenagers, married men, gay's, singles, and fruitcakes will inevitably produce conversation that strays out of bounds. You've just got to say "Hey, knock that off!" and move on with your life. Trying to ban that type of behavior is going to be nigh impossible.

It's one thing to have a post or two about it, but it's another when there are entire (very popular, I might add) threads talking about "fat anglo housewives." What do you think that would do to any even reasonably-minded woman browsing here?
post #100 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt View Post
it's interesting to note that, in the 3 or 4 days since I started my sock rampage, and for all of the 'ban the socks' cries in this thread and around the board in general, I am still on exactly two reports...total....and they were for the same sock-suspect which turned out to be false.
Can't you partially automate the process by doing something such as sorting the member list by IP address and noting duplicates? Identifying socks just by the nature of their posts is not always an easy thing.
post #101 of 357
I actually think the Alan Keyes one (at least I think it's Alan Keyes) is worse than the Colin Powell one. But damn if they don't both make me laugh, even if I feel a bit guilty using them.
post #102 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands View Post
I assure you that most posters who have used the pic, wouldn't dream of uttering the word in my presence.

I'm sure this is true. But the reason is maybe different than you assume.

I don't know if you lived through 1994 or what you were doing, but when Pulp Fiction came out the frequency of young whites n-wording went through the roof. 99.9% were not trying to be racist. They thought they were being ironic-hip-cool or whatever. The Powell pic strikes me as the same thing.
post #103 of 357
I'm probably in the minority on this, but one of the main problems is posters treating SF like a blog rather than a forum. It's one thing to post about your trip to Naples or your cooking class that's going to lead to some fruitful discussions of interest to the community. It's quite another to start a vanity thread whose only purpose is to call attention to yourself. It doesn't help that many of these threads are the most puerile as well. I don't think anything can be done about this trend other than ask members to be more judicious about starting threads.
post #104 of 357
I was in college, and I found it all quite unsettling. My take is that they found it empowering. A way of dealing with not having the same place in American society as their fathers. Whatever, I'll admit I read a lot into shit like this. My Southern parents raised me to be vigilant.
post #105 of 357
How about one with Bill Richardson that says "Yo, yo, yo, homie, I ain't readin' all that $#!+"?

You could also substitute "vato" for "homie" but I don't think I've heard "vato" since about 1982, and California is way more Mexican now than it was then.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Citizens On Patrol Thread...forum rules you would like to see