Half the people in question don't know what they are talking about.

The tree is in front of them and they haven't noticed it. And then some of them think it's their belief of whether the tree exists or not that defines whether it does.

*edit*

No-one decides what's a correct definition of sexism. Like any logical meaning, it's defined in itself. There is nothing subjective about these meanings. In addressing sexism, we are describing something that's happening in society, not only cheerleading for someone's subjective viewpoint.

All our experiences are "subjective perceptions" in the sense that are means of knowing about a truth or things is only our experience. This doesn't make the states and truths we know any less objective. It just means (objective) truths and states are known in experiences.

*edit*

what sort of definition of 'consensus' is that? Who has an objective understanding of the issue here - how is this not a matter of he said versus she said? Why is it the person crying sexism has been given the upper hand in such proceedings? Have you ever heard of tyranny of the majority? Or tyranny of the minority? — Dogar

The tyranny of majority/minority just isn't relevant. Sexism is a logical expression which is given regardless of whether anyone agrees or disagrees and whether it's considered acceptable or not.

In terms of who gets the upper hand, the objector to sexism does because our ethics considers sexism unacceptable. Sexism is described, and since that's an ethical problem, the sexist if shamed and/or punished. (One is, of course, free to argue a different ethic, that sexism isn't ethically objectionable, but take issue with the normative significance of sexism, rather than whether sexism is there).

The OP is a thinly guised attack by Agustino on Mongrel. He today asks that a rule be formalized that decrees Mongrel's past behavior an official transgression. In sum, he asks for childish, petty vindication, and again wastes our space here on non- philosophical matters. I thank those who tried to divert the topic to worthy matters, and I ask all others to control their urge to engage anyone who attempts to hijack this site for their own personal vendettas.

I think accusing Agustino of sexism when such isn't conclusive to be an attack on his character. Perhaps you're fine with members treating each other like that.

And here you admit to what Agustino denies, which is this thread is about Mongrel. As since it obviously is, it doesn't belong on this site. This is a philosophy forum.

Sexism=prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

It was conclusive. He made some sexist remarks i.e. the ones that I noted were sexist and got no convincing dissent about.

Stereotyping women is sexist. He did that. It's not up for argument any more. Sexist comments like those by anyone will be deleted in future and those making them will receive a warning. Hope that's clear.

Finally, expect this discussion to be closed soon.

And here you admit to what Agustino denies, which is this thread is about Mongrel. As since it obviously is, it doesn't belong on this site. This is a philosophy forum. — Hanover

He didn't just mention Mongrel, nor was his end query about her, but about slander guidelines.

I understand, but I hope you realize that I, and probably several others, will be on the look out for anything that even comes close to sexism. I just hope it gets deleted and shut down. I don't know why Agustino's posts weren't if they were so clearly and obviously thought to be sexist in the first place.

Have a kangaroo court section of tpf?

Is that what you want Agustino?

I don't know why Agustino's posts weren't if they were so clearly and obviously thought to be sexist in the first place. — Buxtebuddha

We were too permissive. We're trying to rectify that.

What @Agustino wants is written in the title of the OP. It's called "ATTENTION!". What @Agustino should do is go back to presenting his arguments and idoleology in a reasonable way, which he's perfectly capable of doing.

That whole thread is a dumpster fire from several members, honestly. I made the point before, but threads like that bring out speculative opinions to start with, so it's best those threads don't get going first then nobody runs the risk of making a wrong move.

I think you're right on that point.

Finally, expect this discussion to be closed soon. — Baden

I'd better hurry I guess, Baden raised his axe 8 minutes ago, as of this moment.

No, I don't think we should have any rules about slander. First, as far as I can tell, everyone here is operating behind the front of a 'user name' and beyond that, very little information is known. There are no reputations at stake here, I don't see how any of us could actually be materially harmed (in the real world) by anything said here. One could certainly be offended, annoyed, hurt, angered, etc., but that's different than ruining someone's reputation.

Second, the thin-skin disease seems to be spreading. It's not epidemic yet, but there are now two or three cases, and that's enough to start a wider infection. Please apply skin thickener to your sore spots, everyone.

Third, (just my opinion) everyone here has been, is, or will be guilty of writing something that somebody else considered rude, inappropriate, disgusting, stupid, etc. Except me and thee, of course, and even thee has been slightly irritating lately.

The object of any rule of behavior (in this forum) is to prevent productive discussion from becoming impossible owing to too much sturm and drang. Rules don't require that anyone adopt opinions they really don't believe in; it does require everyone to exercise some degree of skill in expressing opinions which would, if expressed too baldly, cause a firestorm.

Now, Agustino--just to pick a fine fellow at random as an example--is a skilled writer with very strong opinions--all to the good for a forum like this. (I've strenuously disagreed with him on lots of topics. I may even have called him a crypto fascist, or something -- I can't quite remember) and I am quite sure that it is well within his operational capabilities to express unpopular opinions in a graceful way that won't result in firestorms. That goes for just about everybody here. There are only a few who seem to lack the capacity to be at least somewhat slippery when it comes to saying the unspeakable.

And, you know, sometimes the unspeakable needs to be said, even though the speaker will get burnt at the stake for saying it.

In matters that might be labeled "sexist", I would propose that the tone, manner, and attitude have as much as an effect- if not more- than any particular statements of potentially questionable nature. Of course in debate, objecting to an argument because of "tone" is an ad hominem fallacy. But matters like this seem to be beyond that particular debate definition. If someone has a very macho and brash style of writing or speaking, fairly or not, it could possibly strike some people as a sexist or chauvinist attitude, irregardless of any definite sexist statements. No one likes the "tone police", but tone will have an effect on the message written, and may color it very strongly.

In general (not picking on any particular person here): bossiness, argumentiveness, name-calling and labeling, swearing, nay-saying, pedantic comments, lecturing, going off-topic, self-righteousness, demanding others answer one's questions, etc. are "alpha male" type traits that wear out one's welcome. If the conversation were in person, things like shouting and being physically intimidating would fit this pattern. It absolutely doesn't NOT matter what the gender is of the person committing these errors. A woman could commit these behaviors just the same as men. Thankfully, no one person embodies all of these extreme, pushy, over-ripe qualities. I know i have erred similarly in my life, though I try to avoid that on this forum. But anyone is apt to be mistaken in judgment or in knowledge from time to time.
(From another thread. I'm posting this again because I think it bears repeating).

Please apply skin thickener to your sore spots, everyone. — Bitter Crank

Nope. Baden says sexist comments will be deleted.

Both of you are very valued posters and make good points. On the sexism issue specifically, Mongrel is correct. The policy has been clarified and we're moving on. On the slander issue, I agree with Bitter, we don't need specific rules above and beyond the guidelines. It would be covered under flaming, basically.

Post deleted in proactive self defense.