ziper1221 [none/use name,comrade/them]
Right, I don’t want want to talk about vocal fry either, as I mentioned in my initial post.
I will work harder at providing a bit more info on my reasonings
Thank you for this. However it doesn’t really answer the question of if removing Quinn’s post was justified. A more specific reason doesn’t solve that. I find it hard to understand the impetus for those that reported Quinn’s posts and for you to agree with them. His thoughts seemed reasonably well thought out and stated (unlike nintindude, who seems to have deserved it)
I’m sorry, I don’t follow. They PMed you to delete the posts and then put a vague reply acting surprised that you deleted them? Why didn’t they just delete them themselves?
criticizing a podcast because the vocal range of the women who run it doesnt please you is misogyny.
This seems rather questionable. Is criticizing a male podcast because the voices are grating misandry and grounds for post removal? Is saying the audio equipment is cheap and audio quality poor classist and grounds for post removal? Is saying someone’s accent makes them hard to understand prejudiced and grounds for post removal?
How is discussing the listening experience of a podcast inappropriate for a discussion thread about the podcast? It would be one thing if they said the hosts were ugly and they don’t want to listen to them (or whatever) but the audio is an inseparable part of the media!
except the time when someone did provide arguments against his point and were ignored.
But they didn’t! The only time arguments were actually given saying that vocal fry is misogyny was within the top couple comments. As soon as redarmor and others replied to those top level comments, those saying that vocal fry is misogyny stopped actually replying to the content of their posts. They just posted saying they already answered that despite not addressing the issues the replyers brought up.
I think the core of the issue here is that you don’t think this is misogynistic
Pure projection. I’m not some sort of speech prescriptivist. In the very first post I made on the topic I acknowledged misogynistic background regarding vocal fry, and made some polite questions. Chamomile said that she had already answered them elsewhere, but I found no post of hers that addressed the points I made.
The only reason I am even invested in this is because of her glib replies. I had the benefit of there already being some post history to see that it was foolish to pursue any further. Redarmor did not, and I sympathize with him getting insulted and derided for making valid points that were ignored. No, I’m not saying his posts were perfect, but it is hard not to lapse into some toxicity when you see what kind of post replies he was getting.
he said shit like “this should be a copypasta”
Did you read the comment thread this came from? Seriously, read this and tell me redarmor acted inappropriately and self acted appropriately.
you said I mischaracterized someone because they didn’t say exactly the phrase I used but communicated that message with their repeated actions.
Is this talk about what you said in the first half of your comment? Are you trying to say that I was engaging in bad faith there? Because I was earnest, and still am.
Two days of people telling him in a variety of ways that he did a thing and him saying it didn’t happen or was okay,
But those people were just repeatedly calling him a reactionary or a misogynist! They never actually provided any criticism to his points besides just telling him to do some self crit! Red’s position wasn’t (as far as I could tell) that vocal fry had no misogynistic elements, or that it was OK to make fun of women with vocal fry, but merely that it was possible to have discussion about vocal fry from a non-sexist point of view. Chamomile and others did not engage at all with redarmor (or my) objections, just continuing with bad-jacketing.
