Should men be banned from posting in the "Feminism" forum?
Thu, 2012-06-28 15:07
#1
Should men be banned from posting in the "Feminism" forum?
Thu, 2012-06-28 15:10
#2
It's weird that a male Babbler is the one to start this thread...and it might be even stranger if men were actually to join in this discussion. I'm not sure. I'm really not.
But it does seem to be the case that my gender, shamefully, is continuing to monopolize the threads in the "Feminism" forum. A strong case could be made that, in doing so, we are making women unwelcome in the one place on Babble they should be more at home in than any other(not that they shouldn't be at home in ALL the forums on Babble, but still...)
Just seemed to be time, after the thread on equal pay for female athletes from last night, that this discussion needs to happen.
So, let's go there.
Thu, 2012-06-28 15:17
#3
I find it's automatic in my case. Make a grand total of three posts in feminism all year, and there I was, gone. I've learnt my lesson and will never again post in the feminism forum.
Thu, 2012-06-28 15:19
#4
Boom Boom
I hope the Mods shut this thread down and just lay down the law regarding the Feminist Forum.
Thu, 2012-06-28 15:24
#5
Why do you want this thread shut down? How would that be better than having an open discussion about this? I suspect you'd pretty much have consensus on making the feminism forum women(including trans-women, of course)-only.
Thu, 2012-06-28 15:28
#6
One issue is that this is an anonymous discussion board. Most of us don't know each other in real life and have no idea who is behind the screen name. So it would be kind of hard to police a "women only" policy or any other such policy where you can't confirm who anybody is.
Thu, 2012-06-28 15:28
#7
I don't see why not. I used to post on a messageboard (strapon.org, a queer/trans messageboard) where the People of Colour forum was eventually made POC-only. This was done at long last because most of the posts were "naively well-meaning" oblivious stuff by white people and it was making it a psychologically unsafe space for discussion.
Thu, 2012-06-28 15:29
#8
One issue is that this is an anonymous discussion board. Most of us don't know each other in real life and have no idea who is behind the screen name. So it would be kind of hard to police a "women only" policy or any other such policy where you can't confirm who anybody is.
When I've seen it done in the past, it's on the honour system. Sure, you could lie about it, but if you were eventually found out you would be discredited. And you can still be banned for posting offensive stuff.
Thu, 2012-06-28 15:53
#9
bagkitty
Getting down to practical matters - it would help greatly if the system could correctly identify who was not, in fact, a woman -- if that were possible, I think it would be a great idea if the originator of the thread had the option of deciding if it were to be women only thread or not - some simple trigger that could go along with the Original Post, and the system itself would not accept messages from "not women". I think this would be preferable to "locking" the forum itself.
In my experience, honour systems don't work terribly well, pleas to have a thread "women only" in the original post are either simply not read or actively flouted, and it is burdensome to ask the "mods... to just lay down the law". My only caveat is, this should be something only implementable in the original post. I don't think it would be entirely appropriate to have such a feature kick in when a thread has already taken on a life of its own.
Okay, where do I submit my two (soon to be obsolete) pennies?
Thu, 2012-06-28 15:55
#10
Most posters list their gender in their profiles, don't they?
Thu, 2012-06-28 16:13
#11
just talk feminism in other channels it figures prominently in many of the them anyways, that way everyone can have nice uncluttered discussions
that'd be one less avenue for derailment
Thu, 2012-06-28 17:19
#12
I think fair warnings before suspensions are worth considering. The Stalinist purge technique without forewarning makes little sense to me. If an alleged faux pas is not worth pointing out beforehand, then it's probably not worth suspending someone over. The basic show trial is relatively inexpensive. Cutting corners is so gauche.
Thu, 2012-06-28 17:33
#13
I say no for a couple of reasons. First of all, it'd be impossible to enforce, and secondly, a ban would attract trolls who would see if they could fake out the mods.
Discussion boards are messy. You start a thread asking what people think of Ford F-150 trucks, and you get twenty posts of, "I don't know anything about the F-150."
Thu, 2012-06-28 17:44
#14
I don't think there is necessarily a technical answer to this, in terms of making certain threads "Women only". Even if were on the honour system it would spare us the disgrace of seeing well-regarded longtime male posters on this messageboard posting offensive stuff in the feminism forum.
I think fair warnings before suspensions are worth considering. The Stalinist purge technique without forewarning makes little sense to me. If an alleged faux pas is not worth pointing out beforehand, then it's probably not worth suspending someone over. The basic show trial is relatively inexpensive. Cutting corners is so gauche.
Perhaps in the forum in general, but I don't think that works in a case like this. There will always be an endless number of men stumbling into a women's only forum and posting nonsense. It's enough to ruin the safe space to have to give out warnings in every thread. I've seen it on other message boards..
Thu, 2012-06-28 18:22
#15
Even if were on the honour system it would spare us the disgrace of seeing well-regarded longtime male posters on this messageboard posting offensive stuff in the feminism forum.
I agree, but I'd add that it's not even limited to stuff that's inherently offensive. As illustrated by the thread that provoked this discussion, when you can go 20 or so consecutive posts without any female voices, all while pulling the thread in all sorts of strange directions, I see the feminism forum as colonized (cyber)territory.
other message boards.
Have you checked-in on the ghost of p.o. lately? 
Thu, 2012-06-28 20:53
#16
I don't think there is necessarily a technical answer to this, in terms of making certain threads "Women only". Even if were on the honour system it would spare us the disgrace of seeing well-regarded longtime male posters on this messageboard posting offensive stuff in the feminism forum.
I think fair warnings before suspensions are worth considering. The Stalinist purge technique without forewarning makes little sense to me. If an alleged faux pas is not worth pointing out beforehand, then it's probably not worth suspending someone over. The basic show trial is relatively inexpensive. Cutting corners is so gauche.
Perhaps in the forum in general, but I don't think that works in a case like this. There will always be an endless number of men stumbling into a women's only forum and posting nonsense. It's enough to ruin the safe space to have to give out warnings in every thread. I've seen it on other message boards..
Alright-alright I can understand that. I have noticed the tendency for male domination of those threads as well. I think it's a give them a millimetre and they take a metre type of deal. I just don't like it when I am the one dragged by my heels and thrown through the glass window to the pavement outside because of the misbehaviour of others. I rarely ever venture into those threads. We'll see how many males are actually suspended from posting in feminism forums from this point on. I doubt it will be many. I think they make special exception for your's truly. And for that reason I have no reason to post in this one, either. I'm out, again! ;-
Thu, 2012-06-28 21:37
#17
I don't have an opinion, but I do think a policy would be useful. The general policy is that rabble.ca embraces a pro-feminist stance, and sexist and other oppressive language that degrades marginalized communities is not acceptable, in any forum. If the feminist forum is to be special, it makes sense to have an additional rule.
I seldom post in the feminist forum, unless I spot an electoral reform discussion or something of the sort. But I would be quite happy to quote such a post, with my reply, and post it into a different forum. Just tell me if that's what I should do.
Thu, 2012-06-28 23:48
#18
You start a thread asking what people think of Ford F-150 trucks, and you get twenty posts of, "I don't know anything about the F-150."
oooowh, f150 trucks.... now your talking!
i have no problems with a female only space on rabble, though it is not my call.
Thu, 2012-06-28 23:54
#19
Boom Boom
Ford trucks used to be garbage, but they're now the top selling vehicle in both countries, so I guess the quality has improved. Still overpriced though - I read in Car And Driver a while back that Ford makes more pure profit on the F150 than any other vehicle they sell.
Thu, 2012-06-28 23:56
#20
Strange that the actual poster that successfully derailed the thread that is referenced by the OP hasn't weighed in yet. Up to that point, the discussion was reasonable, however I would add my vote to locking the feminist forum to self identified women/trans only.
There was no issue until the bickering started between Sven and Boom Boom and then Sven and everyone else. Sven, Sven, Sven. Why does that name come up so frequently when babblers are at each others throats?
Fidel, I have been reading Babble since 2004 and I gotta say you are one of a handful of posters who make up the bedrock, if you will, of this community. Your posts are consistently informative and entertaining and no matter how long some of them are, lol, I read them all with relish. I would like to thank you for the E-Learning thread as through it I discovered who Shelley Kagan is and just drank up the lectures he had available for streaming.
That is why it saddens my heart to hear the bitterness in many of your recent posts that contain references to past suspensions or accusations against you that have been justice denied. Please shake this off.
Thu, 2012-06-28 23:59
#21
Boom Boom
I've been driving the same Mazda B3000 truck since new in 2004 - made by Ford (it's a re-badged Ranger) and it's had some really stupid problems, like having to replace the electronic dashboard display (really nothing more than a video display hooked up to the engine, but expensive) last year, and the rear mudflaps keep falling off. Otherwise it's okay. It's my second Ford in 62 years.
Fri, 2012-06-29 00:04
#22
Boom Boom
There was no issue until the bickering started between Sven and Boom Boom and then Sven and everyone else. Sven, Sven, Sven. Why does that name come up so frequently when babblers are at each others throats?
As far as I am concerned Sven's only purpose here is to derail threads. He got warned not to post in that thread again by a Mod - which I thought was a good call.
Fri, 2012-06-29 00:47
#23
Fidel, I have been reading Babble since 2004 and I gotta say /.../ Your posts are consistently informative and entertaining and no matter how long some of them are, lol, I read them all with relish. I would like to thank you for the E-Learning thread as through it I discovered who Shelley Kagan is and just drank up the lectures he had available for streaming.That is why it saddens my heart to hear the bitterness in many of your recent posts that contain references to past suspensions or accusations against you that have been justice denied. Please shake this off.
Sorry for torturing you with my long winded posts. I am not a good writer and admit it.
And, will do. I realize I must strive harder to be less petulant and petty in future. It's difficult for me. Maybe I need to travel to TO and meet some babblers. Perhaps then I might have more respect for people. For now them seem to be virtual people, even though I know they are real human beans with feelings and ideas of their own. Everyone deserves to be treated with respect and dignity, for sure, for sure. And thanks for reminding me of these self evident truths.
Fri, 2012-06-29 02:51
#24
Sorry for torturing you with my long winded posts. I am not a good writer and admit it.
And, will do. I realize I must strive harder to be less petulant and petty in future. It's difficult for me. Maybe I need to travel to TO and meet some babblers. Perhaps then I might have more respect for people. For now them seem to be virtual people, even though I know they are real human beans with feelings and ideas of their own. Everyone deserves to be treated with respect and dignity, for sure, for sure. And thanks for reminding me of these self evident truths.
I think Babble should have a grievance commitee. A locked, hidden forum, where babblers with issues against other babblers or even moderators, could be protected by privacy, the results would be public, the commitee members would be elected in public. Ten members sounds about right. The commitee would be all volunteer. Commitee members would not be pseudo moderators. As a matter of fact, commitee members would assume alternate aliases when deciding a grievance.
If the grievance is against a moderator, and that moderator is part of the commitee, the moderator will recuse. Judgements could include supensions or expulsion, in the case of a judgement against a moderator, a crucifixion. The crucifixion would be publically televised.
Fri, 2012-06-29 07:01
#25
The F-150s get much better gas mileage then they used to - we rented one last summer for our vacay and I was pleasantly surprised at the pumps.
My dad always drove Mazda trucks when he was renovating, and he loaned one to me when my car was stolen and vandalized in 1992. It was peppier than I expected, though a bit of a nightmare to park in downtown Toronto. Though the people driving the cute expensive little sports cars would give the truck a wide berth in traffic.
IMO modern light trucks handle much more like cars than the light trucks of 20-30 years ago. (Especially now that they put power steering in them.)
Fri, 2012-06-29 07:35
#26
There was no issue until the bickering started between Sven and Boom Boom and then Sven and everyone else. Sven, Sven, Sven. Why does that name come up so frequently when babblers are at each others throats?
As far as I am concerned Sven's only purpose here is to derail threads. He got warned not to post in that thread again by a Mod - which I thought was a good call.
Totally disagree. Sven is a convenient whipping boy. He hasn't weighed in on this thread but we know he would be slaughtered if he did.
Poster who asked where he is is just stirring shit.
I don't think men should be banned from FF in general. But certain threads, sure.
Fri, 2012-06-29 07:46
#27
Is there a reason why this serious discussion has spawned truck drift? Is this a take on the old recipe game?
Fri, 2012-06-29 07:52
#28
I think bebblers are telling you how seriously they take the issue. Thread drift is hard to police. But apparently talking about trucks in a thread asking a serious question about the FF is ok, but taking the question of male-female salary parity to the larger question of equalizing athelete's salaries generally, is not.
Fri, 2012-06-29 10:27
#29
Kindly drift back to the topic please folks.
My answer would be no, for a couple of reasons: impossible to enforce and, more importantly, what incentive would there be for those who need to dominate threads to change their behavior? If a man posts on babble, he'll find almost every forum and every thread within it dominated by users who identify themselves as male.
What is so hard about having one forum where that doesn't happen? Rhetorical question, unfortunately.
Fri, 2012-06-29 11:30
#30
Why not a clearly marked and pinned thread entitled: "The Rules", Las Reglas, etc?
Fri, 2012-06-29 11:31
#31
Boom Boom
First, in post #3 here I asked that this thread be shut down because for me the simple answer is the Mods already have the authority to take action where warranted ( if men who clearly have no interest in discussing a subject from a feminist point of view are posting in the Feminist Forum, the Mods can give a warning, a suspension, or an outright ban), and thus further discussion here isn't needed. Secondly, this thread is Babble Reactions, not the Feminist Forum, so when the F150 subject was posted - hey, I reacted to it! 
ETA: oops, forgot to respond to Moderator Rebecca West: okay, so the subject of banning men from the Feminist Forum is settled - ain't gonna happen. All I can suggest in reply, then, is that all of us be vigilant if reading the Feminist Forum to flag offensive posts right away.
Fri, 2012-06-29 12:24
#32
Why not a clearly marked and pinned thread entitled: "The Rules", Las Reglas, etc?
"Discuss issues from a feminist perspective." If you don't know what a feminist perspective is you can either do some reading and ask questions of women participants without being aggressive, domineering or argumentative when answers are provided, or you can choose not to participate.
I don't think it can be any clearer than that.
Fri, 2012-06-29 13:22
#33
Sven
As far as I am concerned Sven's only purpose here is to derail threads. He got warned not to post in that thread again by a Mod - which I thought was a good call.
Totally disagree. Sven is a convenient whipping boy. He hasn't weighed in on this thread but we know he would be slaughtered if he did.
...apparently talking about trucks in a thread asking a serious question about the FF is ok, but taking the question of male-female salary parity to the larger question of equalizing athelete's salaries generally, is not.
Well, maybe I will get slaughtered.
The proposition was: [b][i][color=blue]Male and female athletes should be paid the same.[/b][/i][/color] On the surface, that seems reasonable. But, the [u]logical extension[/u] of that argument is: [b][i][color=blue]All athletes should be paid the same[/b][/i][/color], whether it's LeBron James or a professional bowler.
But, too often, it appears, many people would rather not hear or think about any practical questions regarding broadly stated propositions - and when those questions [i]are[/i] raised, they are simply met with: "You're anti-feminist." End of conversation.
If someone wants to move from a theoretical discussion (a babble conversation) to actually [i]doing something[/i] and putting such a proposition into effect in the real world, then this type of question would have to be addressed anyway.
Perhaps some people are satisfied with simply making table-pounding proclamations and have no interest in ever seeing them implemented. C'est la vie.
Fri, 2012-06-29 14:23
#34
Am I the only person finding it ironic that this very discussion has been dominated by men? I think it would be appropriate to have the perspective of the women of babble on this matter.
Fri, 2012-06-29 15:19
#35
Why not a clearly marked and pinned thread entitled: "The Rules", Las Reglas, etc?
"Discuss issues from a feminist perspective." If you don't know what a feminist perspective is you can either do some reading and ask questions of women participants without being aggressive, domineering or argumentative when answers are provided, or you can choose not to participate.
I don't think it can be any clearer than that.
I think I will just avoid participating in feminism threads from now on.
Fri, 2012-06-29 15:30
#36
Sven
Am I the only person finding it ironic that this very discussion has been dominated by men?
Posting is not "dominating" a conversation.
I think it would be appropriate to have the perspective of the women of babble on this matter.
Anyone can post here.
I'm sorry, but I refuse to think of women as being so timid and fragile that, even if they want to say something, they're afraid to open their mouths because the atmosphere isn't "safe". Women can be asked pointed questions and they are perfectly capable of debating an issue logically. If someone, whether it's a man or woman, chooses not to engage in a conversation in that manner, then it's their choice.
Fri, 2012-06-29 15:46
#37
Sven
Why not a clearly marked and pinned thread entitled: "The Rules", Las Reglas, etc?
"Discuss issues from a feminist perspective." If you don't know what a feminist perspective is you can either do some reading and ask questions of women participants without being aggressive, domineering or argumentative when answers are provided, or you can choose not to participate.
I don't think it can be any clearer than that.
That bold text is really something, Rebecca. If a woman says something that doesn't make sense to me (either because I think it's wrong or because I don't understand it), is asking direct, pointed questions of her being "aggressive, domineering or argumentative"?
Now, I can imagine you thinking right now that I'm being "aggressive, domineering or argumentative" in even asking these questions of you. But, I'd say the same thing if you were a man. Why should women be treated as though they will fall apart if challenged on something they say?? Frankly, in your case specifically, I have more respect for you than to treat you differently than I would a man.
Fri, 2012-06-29 16:07
#38
Anyone can post here.
I'm sorry, but I refuse to think of women as being so timid and fragile that, even if they want to say something, they're afraid to open their mouths because the atmosphere isn't "safe". Women can be asked pointed questions and they are perfectly capable of debating an issue logically. If someone, whether it's a man or woman, chooses not to engage in a conversation in that manner, then it's their choice.
I think if they want to make the feminism forum women only, make it women only. But I don't think you can say it's open to everyone and then condemn men for dominating the discussion when everyone is free to post. You can't really have it both ways. I'm also not sure (but am open to being corrected) why the presence of men's voices make the space unsafe for women.
Fri, 2012-06-29 17:21
#39
If they feel they will be attacked, derided, condescended to, dismissed or talked down to while they relate fears, experiences, anger etc then yes it makes it unsafe for them. This definition also goes for aboringinal forums, POC forums, LBGT forums, etc.
Fri, 2012-06-29 17:23
#40
With respect to posting in feminism forums, is it wrong to post info published by sources based in countries run by absolute monarchies? ie. feminism + imperialist-friendly points of view?
Fri, 2012-06-29 17:26
#41
If they feel they will be attacked, derided, condescended to, dismissed or talked down to while they relate fears, experiences, anger etc then yes it makes it unsafe for them. This definition also goes for aboringinal forums, POC forums, LBGT forums, etc.
Abusive behaviour is abusive behaviour regardless of the gender of the iniatator or the target and regardless of the forum in which it takes place. There are already policies against such behaviour.
Speaking as a POC (as well as an immigrant, member of a religious minority group and various other identities), I can say that I don't feel "unsafe" by the presence of people who are not like me in a discussion. I would also not want a designated POC only forum. I find that condescending and belittling and think it could reinforce a perception taht I'm incapable of participating in or holding my own in discussions and debates with people different than I am.
Fri, 2012-06-29 20:17
#42
Why not a clearly marked and pinned thread entitled: "The Rules", Las Reglas, etc?
"Discuss issues from a feminist perspective." If you don't know what a feminist perspective is you can either do some reading and ask questions of women participants without being aggressive, domineering or argumentative when answers are provided, or you can choose not to participate.
I don't think it can be any clearer than that.
That bold text is really something, Rebecca. If a woman says something that doesn't make sense to me (either because I think it's wrong or because I don't understand it), is asking direct, pointed questions of her being "aggressive, domineering or argumentative"?
Now, I can imagine you thinking right now that I'm being "aggressive, domineering or argumentative" in even asking these questions of you. But, I'd say the same thing if you were a man. Why should women be treated as though they will fall apart if challenged on something they say?? Frankly, in your case specifically, I have more respect for you than to treat you differently than I would a man.
Sorry Sven, but that's probably the most comprehensive pile of self-serving bullshit I've seen here recently.
The "be treated like a man" statement is most offensive. I'm not a man. Nor is any other woman here. Being male is not the standard. Would you go into a forum for people of colour and defend your behavior as treating people like they're as white as you are, because that's the standard of fairness? Sorry, but that's deeply fucked up.
Once again, I'm pondering why you're here Sven. You aren't progressive. You're not even a liberal by US standards. I'm thinking your only purpose here is to be a provocateur - for what, I have no idea.
But I don't think you can say it's open to everyone and then condemn men for dominating the discussion when everyone is free to post. You can't really have it both ways. I'm also not sure (but am open to being corrected) why the presence of men's voices make the space unsafe for women.
Still not getting it, are you. You may, yourself, buy into the fantasy that because the FF is in a public space that it can be a free for all for anyone about anything, but you would be wrong. You are also pointedly confusing the issue with the craptastic point that men's voices aren't welcome in the FF. They are, but they have to recognize that this is our space, and the rules are clearly defined. Break them, and you'll be asked to leave the discussion. Continue on, despite the warning, and you'll be suspended.
ETA: I'll ask the same question of you that I asked Sven: why are you here? You aren't progressive, you dive into discussions where you'll disrupt and derail the thread in the worst way. I challenge you to give me an answer that won't get your sorry ass banned.
Fri, 2012-06-29 20:57
#43
ETA: I'll ask the same question of you that I asked Sven: why are you here? You aren't progressive, you dive into discussions where you'll disrupt and derail the thread in the worst way. I challenge you to give me an answer that won't get your sorry ass banned.
With all due respect, Rebecca, I don't acknowledge you as the supreme decisor of who is and who isn't "progressive"...a term which comprises a pretty broad and not specifically-defined spectrum of beliefs and perspectives to begin with. How am I NOT "progressive"? I'm not a left-wing extremist and I'm certainly to the right of some people on this board but I'd say I'm to the left of the vast majority of the Canadian population. So just how left wing does one have to to fit YOUR definition of "progressive"? I vote for, volunteer for and contribute financially to the NDP. My political heroes are FDR and Bobby Kennedy. I'm a cycling activist in Toronto and serve on the board of a cycling advocacy group. I've made great strides (along with my family) to live as "green" as possible. I organize and lead free dental clinics for the disadvantaged. On pretty much any issue you'd care to name (be it abortion, same sex marriage, capital punishment, the war on drugs), I think most would describe my position as "progressive". So where's the line? Is that not sufficient to pass your purity test? It seems the times I get attacked on this board as somehow not "progressive" is that I don't drip with sufficient vitriol and hatred towards Israel.
I suppose if you want to make Babble an exlusive little club of those whose views are so far left and whose purity is so sufficient as to exclude 99.9% of the population, that's your perogative. If you want to actually engage a somewhat broad and mainstream audience and actually help build coalitions and bridges with people who you agree with on most issues, maybe stop with the judgmentalism and accusatory attacks that turn well-meaning people away.
Fri, 2012-06-29 21:07
#44
Would you go into a forum for people of colour and defend your behavior as treating people like they're as white as you are, because that's the standard of fairness? Sorry, but that's deeply fucked up.
I'll answer that since I'm capable of speaking for myself. Yes, I expect Sven (or anyone else) to treat me the same way he would a white person. No better. No worse. No different. I'm a human being like everyone else. Not some special variety of it. I don't need to be treated with kid gloves as if I'm somehow on a different level.
Fri, 2012-06-29 21:48
#45
Actually, Mr. Tea, the posts you're responding to there were directed towards Sven, not you.
Fri, 2012-06-29 22:16
#46
Actually, Ken, Rebecca specifically attacked me, asked me why I was here and stated that I wasn't progressive. But I don't like the attacks on Sven, either who, in my very limited dealings, seems like a decent guy who becomes a convenient target of attack
Fri, 2012-06-29 22:25
#47
Perhaps I misunderstood who those posts were directed to. If so, my apologies.
While we're normally not supposed to discuss other posters, everybody seems to be doing so here with regards to Sven, so I'll say this about him:
He's actually curiously interesting as a poster at times, in that he often looks to have trollish intent, yet somehow always seems to know how to post in such a way as to work towards such intent without actually managing to get banned. Whether or not you agree with him(and I almost never do) he represents a somewhat intriguing study in how to use rhetoric for a particular purpose that would normally result in in serious consequences without ever quite having to face those consequences. It's a weirdly delicate balance he maintains in his choices of words.
Fri, 2012-06-29 22:28
#48
Yes, I'd tend to agree with all of that. And, on that note, am done for the evening and bid you a goodnight!
Fri, 2012-06-29 22:37
#49
IMO Sven is not a troll. if he was that bad he would have been banned long ago. Certainly there are enough people here who hate his guts. I often think that the only reason he is not banned is so that people will have someone to argue with.
Mr. Tea rapidly is assuming the same position. He will start a thread or ask a question, and get a hostile response SOLELY because of who he is.
Just an observation from a female POC.
Fri, 2012-06-29 22:43
#50
Magoo was like that. Everyone circled like sharks waiting for something banworthy even when he was right. And he was a progressive pro union, pro feminist guy though painfully conservative fiscally
Sat, 2012-06-30 02:06
#51
We should re-name the whole thing to just bananabble. Sign on and get suspended. We could have a javascript to automate random suspensions except, of course, it would never be truly random. A google group should suffice before long.