This message was self-deleted by its author

[jorno67]

This message was self-deleted by its author (jorno67) on Sun May 20, 2012, 10:14 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[lumberjack_jeff]

1. Dude. You gotta play the ball where it lies.

This is where the ball is.

[jorno67]

3. fair enough...

[ZombieHorde]

2. I find that describing the behavior in detail to be more effective than name calling on DU.

So if you see a poster engaging in man hating, then clearly explain why the post is man hating. This will also help the jury --if they bother to look for context-- if someone other than you altered on the man-hating post.

In short: don't label, only describe.

Juries are always a gamble, but this should help you to avoid having your posts hidden.

[jorno67]

4. it's funny though...

I feel like they used my labeling choice to silence me rather than debate the issue. Clearly it was name calling, very weak, but still name calling. calling someone a "man hater" is the same as calling someone "sexist" - which doesn't seem to bother the people who alerted on me. but then again fair isn't enough.

[lumberjack_jeff]

6. Good observation.

The lesson is that the opportunity to debate the issue is lost because of the labeling choice.

I often don't like the traction provided by eggshells either, but all the surfaces between here and the destination are paved with them.

[Warren DeMontague]

10. Thats good advice.

Labeling of another member is counterproductive. Im down with that.

[opiate69]

5. I would also add

the actual word for that is misandry. Using it instead of "man hater" is probably less likely to get people's hackles up (albeit only very slightly less so)

[jorno67]

7. I actually used that "misandrist" in a post earlier in that thread

I guess I should've stuck with that. Thanks guys for your help and good advice. I was also a bit disgusted by the way they piled on after they knew I could no longer respond...gutless IMHO.

[opiate69]

8. yeah.. the piling on gets tiresome for sure.

[jorno67]

9. its like that group rides in packs

searching for keywords to be offended by...once the find what they want, they spring into action!

[Gore1FL]

11. I don't think all of them can be categorized in the same way.

There are one or more that seem to pick fights--at least in my opinion and experience. That makes the whole group look as you describe. It's not fair to the ones who do not readily fit that mold. It nonetheless leaves that impression.

[jorno67]

12. I see it as a group of 3

Last edited Sat May 19, 2012, 11:41 PM - Edit history (1)

There may be more...but for me, this trio is the worst thing on DU.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. Don't attack the messenger, attack the message.

Technically any attack on a poster here is hide-worthy. Also, technically, any attack on the message is not. Juries will frequently get that latter part wrong, but at least you would then be justified in moaning and groaning over in the knicker twist forum.

Man hater is a dog whistle that evokes the rightwing feminazi meme. Stay away from it. Sexist is gender neutral.

[jorno67]

14. Thanks Warren!

Yeah I should've stayed with "misandry" or just used the word "sexism". I messed up...

[Kaleva]

15. You could edit or delete your post #12

Everyone has opinions on others here at DU but I think it best that negative ones be kept to oneself.

[caseymoz]

16. It's a matter of process.

You made the judgment that somebody is a man hater. You made that by a set of standards that you had. In saying it, you presume two things:

1) Your standards are valid. They may be, but it's very hard to demonstrate to everyone's satisfaction. People are more likely to presume that you're just trying to insult. See below.

2) Whether valid or not, calling them man haters is either counterproductive, insulting or both. Let's say your standards are valid. You're either dealing with somebody who is consciously hateful. If the term "man hater" is supposed to shock them out of hating men, it won't work because they already know.

More than likely, however, you have somebody who's unconsciously hateful. By definition, the unconscious is something that a person cannot become conscious of, at least, not without years of therapy. You can't provide them with years of therapy in a board discussion. If you call them man haters, they will sincerely deny it. Even if you have overwhelming evidence, even if everybody else sees it. (Truth is, due to our unconscious, other people can see things about you that you can't see yourself. The unconscious gives you blind spots.) So, they could only see "man hater" only as an insult, and others are likely to side with them because they will likely give them the benefit of the doubt and believe alternate explanations in the face of such an extreme accusation. You don't have a chance to present your proof.

My advice: you shouldn't try to argue or even acknowledge people's unconscious motivations for anything. Instead, take apart the conscious arguments. This disarms the unconscious. You can't change it.

Save "man hater" as an insult to people who are deliberate and conscious of it, and keep in mind you won't run into many. Also expect it won't shock them. It won't be a revelation, and it definitely won't make them change.

[Politicub]

17. Is this a meeting of the He-Man Woman Haters Club?

Last time I heard something like men hater or women hater was watching reruns of the Little Rascals after school.

Sounds just as absurd now as it did then.

First time I've perused the Men's forum, and IMHO it should be called "A certain type of man Forum," based on the posts.