Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dead at 87

maxd

Complaints (PAB) Manager
Staff member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Location
Saltirelandia
It's interesting to note who has posted in this thread and didn't 'report' Ben. Food for thought as there are not that many prolific posters remaining who have not commented - if they found it so offensive, why have they not commented to explain themselves? :cool:

I for one wouldn't condemn them and I would stand my ground with anyone who did as I would have more respect for their transparency opposed to hiding behind a mod - community spirit, what a joke!
Of course you are free to ask and are welcome to your opinions on this but ...
no one who reported here or anywhere else should ever feel compelled to explain themselves to you or anyone else.

A Report is a private communication between the person and the forum management. If they want to discuss it later in public that's their business.

As to your disparaging comment on community spirit, well, it's obvious that you have contempt for many if not most here so I hope anyone reading your post and is feeling the slightest amount of pressure takes that into consideration before they proceed. Haters gonna hate, readers should take what they say/request/demand in context.
 

greylady

Behind every great man is a woman rolling her eyes
Joined
Jan 30, 2017
Location
Scotland
Of course you are free to ask and are welcome to your opinions on this but ...
no one who reported here or anywhere else should ever feel compelled to explain themselves to you or anyone else.

A Report is a private communication between the person and the forum management. If they want to discuss it later in public that's their business.

As to your disparaging comment on community spirit, well, it's obvious that you have contempt for many if not most here so I hope anyone reading your post and is feeling the slightest amount of pressure takes that into consideration before they proceed. Haters gonna hate, readers should take what they say/request/demand in context.
You assume a lot but know very little!
 

goatwack

Get dunked, big buns!
CAG
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Location
Londonia
I think with written text a lot can get confused. In this case, as a standalone word it's not wholly offensive, given what alternatives could have been used instead.

In fact it's just about the only polite way of phrasing that word bar 'vagina', so perhaps the shortened slang version is what looked crude to some?

I also believe that someone mistook the context of that comment as an affront to women/ or women getting into positions of power, rather than just the word, hence the outrage.

So clearly it matters little as to exact details of a word, the fact remains someone is looking to nail Playford to the mast at every opportunity given his chequered past on CM, so if it wasn't going to be this week it would have just been in a couple of days or a week or whatever. This is the situation he's found himself in, and to be honest, I'm not even sure he'd want to even carry on posting with that weighing over him.

Just to state he's his own man and can take account for his own actions, no one's his keeper. But the 'power' of expression now lies in the hands of anonymous reporters, and the whole thing has shifted towards that. Because any other given day, that comment would not be 'fine' as such, but would have been largely ignored, and readers would have moved swiftly on
 

vorcirion

Meister Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Location
Tampere
It's still not about that one single post. It would be ridiculous to think that.

I did report him for his post about sinking a refugee ship. Pretty sure none of you Ben's defenders said anything about it. Some of you thought it was funny even. You really love to remain silent when he says something that's actually offensive and now you're somehow victims of anonymous people who reported Ben. Maybe you're silent 'cause you actually think like Ben, but just don't want to say it. Maybe you want this forum to be only for white old men...I don't.

I'm pretty sure it went somehow like this: Ben gets tons of reports from some of his actually offensive posts ---> gets banned ---> gets back to forum and promises to not do those things again. Then that repeats couple more times. And now he probably got many reports from that refugee ship post. Probably not many reports from the last post but mods/CM just decided that they don't want to deal with the same situation over and over again. It's been proven that Ben won't change his behaviour. How many 2nd chances he should get? Endless?
 

goatwack

Get dunked, big buns!
CAG
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Location
Londonia
It's still not about that one single post. It would be ridiculous to think that.

I did report him for his post about sinking a refugee ship. Pretty sure none of you Ben's defenders said anything about it. Some of you thought it was funny even. You really love to remain silent when he says something that's actually offensive and now you're somehow victims of anonymous people who reported Ben. Maybe you're silent 'cause you actually think like Ben, but just don't want to say it. Maybe you want this forum to be only for white old men...I don't.

I'm pretty sure it went somehow like this: Ben gets tons of reports from some of his actually offensive posts ---> gets banned ---> gets back to forum and promises to not do those things again. Then that repeats couple more times. And now he probably got many reports from that refugee ship post. Probably not many reports from the last post but mods/CM just decided that they don't want to deal with the same situation over and over again. It's been proven that Ben won't change his behaviour. How many 2nd chances he should get? Endless?
You're doing that thing again where you claim to speak for everyone and paint everyone the same. This isn't the Trump thread

No one mentioned anything about white men, and if you bothered to take some time out and read, it's been stated he's his own man and accountable for his own actions? Giving a possible reason for something happening isn't being an automatic Playford fanboy

Wow :laugh:
 

dunover

Unofficial T&C's Editor
Staff member
webmeister
PABnonaccred
PABnononaccred
CAG
mm3
Joined
May 22, 2012
Location
the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
The word 'vag' is clearly a truncated version of 'vagina'. The word isn't an issue, judging by the reports, but rather what the inference is - that the woman in question (I admit, I never heard of her in my life until Dion's thread!) held her esteemed position not through personal achievement or ability, but via some kind of PC box-checking exercise. Then the suggestion that the same alleged positive bias could be used for the replacement appointment, i.e. another female or ethnic minority, or both, depending on whether Trump or his possible successor got to nominate the said judge.

The post did get a few reports, they were carefully examined and then passed to Bryan due to the extensive history involved here. Was the post itself ban-worthy? IMO, in isolation, no. The ban was done under a totting-up decision - think points on your driving license. There comes a point where a straw breaks the camel's back, or in this case Bryans.
 

dionysus

Contest Manager
Staff member
CAG
MM
Joined
Apr 27, 2009
Location
the land of snow and maple syrup
judging by the reports, but rather what the inference is - that the woman in question (I admit,I never heard of her in my life until Dion's thread!) held her esteemed position not through personal achievement or ability, but via some kind of PC box-checking exercise.
Actually, she held her position because she was quite accomplished and made HUGE strides for women's equality in the male-dominated US

ruth.jpg

edited for clarity - see further down
 
Last edited:

ternur

Destroying castles in the sky
webby
CAG
mm3
Joined
Nov 25, 2004
Location
Finland
This has escaleted beyond just being about Ben.

Yes, some of his comments have shown poor judgement. I've called him about to comments in the past myself.

But I don't think I've never reported a single post here (other than obvious newbie spammers). I believe it's better to discuss these kinds of things either in public or via private messages. Some may feel no need to do so, and rather use the report function (whatever their reasons for doing so may be).

Is the forum a better place now? That's up for a debate. If anything, this has shown a somewhat nastier side of the membership. And that's excluding Ben here.
 
Last edited:

Mr_Slot5

Experienced Member
Joined
May 6, 2019
Location
Cheshire
The word 'vag' is clearly a truncated version of 'vagina'. The word isn't an issue, judging by the reports, but rather what the inference is - that the woman in question (I admit, I never heard of her in my life until Dion's thread!) held her esteemed position not through personal achievement or ability, but via some kind of PC box-checking exercise. Then the suggestion that the same alleged positive bias could be used for the replacement appointment, i.e. another female or ethnic minority, or both, depending on whether Trump or his possible successor got to nominate the said judge.

The post did get a few reports, they were carefully examined and then passed to Bryan due to the extensive history involved here. Was the post itself ban-worthy? IMO, in isolation, no. The ban was done under a totting-up decision - think points on your driving license. There comes a point where a straw breaks the camel's back, or in this case Bryans.
I actually think he tried his best to tow the line. You could clearly see the effort he was making.

From PMs with him he clearly valued his membership here and I have to repeat, it was blatantly obvious he is a thoroughly decent guy.

I'm no 'fanboy' but I live my life trying to see the best in people rather than jumping to spurious assumptions about their character. This being said, some people are outright wronguns but Ben is not in that category.

I'm of the opinion that if you own a forum then you have a duty to accommodate personalities of all varieties...apart from ones that are there just to blatantly troll and cause mither (otherwise what's the point in even having the forum?). Again, I don't think this was Ben's intention.
 

mack341

Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2018
Location
south east england
I would say the reason to appoint ginsburg is in a way buried in time; no doubt she had the legal qualifications/standing but also was a hardcore liberal. But to realise that she cannot be replaced by a man regardless if he has a sharper legal mind, it will have to be a woman -due to the tick box pc culture that has slipped in over time- is a bit of a sad state of affairs [I could get egg on my face here but I'm sure it will be a woman who replaces ginsburg]

edit: I missed the boat there, but thought I'd explain how I viewed it when I posted my comment.
 

dionysus

Contest Manager
Staff member
CAG
MM
Joined
Apr 27, 2009
Location
the land of snow and maple syrup
I would say the reason to appoint ginsburg is in a way buried in time; no doubt she had the legal qualifications/standing but also was a hardcore liberal. But to realise that she cannot be replaced by a man regardless if he has a sharper legal mind, it will have to be a woman -due to the tick box pc culture that has slipped in over time- is a bit of a sad state of affairs [I could get egg on my face here but I'm sure it will be a woman who replaces ginsburg]
Almost certainly it will be a woman because it will serve politics either side of the divide.
 

dionysus

Contest Manager
Staff member
CAG
MM
Joined
Apr 27, 2009
Location
the land of snow and maple syrup
When you set the politics aside of right vs left (she was a liberal), Ginsburg was an American hero to many, not simply because of being a liberal, but for being able to hold and present a strong voice on behalf of an underepresented half of the population.

It's a shame her passing and accomplishments are all taking 2nd seat to a new political land-mine
 

slotplayer

Ueber Meister
webmeister
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Location
USA
I would say the reason to appoint ginsburg is in a way buried in time; no doubt she had the legal qualifications/standing but also was a hardcore liberal. But to realise that she cannot be replaced by a man regardless if he has a sharper legal mind, it will have to be a woman -due to the tick box pc culture that has slipped in over time- is a bit of a sad state of affairs [I could get egg on my face here but I'm sure it will be a woman who replaces ginsburg]

edit: I missed the boat there, but thought I'd explain how I viewed it when I posted my comment.
I don't see any issue with replacing a woman with a woman.
T has what they call a short list, they're all qualified. The announcement is Saturday.

The potential replacement, Amy Barrett, 7 kids, 2 adopted from Haiti, with one of the bio children special needs.
 

dunover

Unofficial T&C's Editor
Staff member
webmeister
PABnonaccred
PABnononaccred
CAG
mm3
Joined
May 22, 2012
Location
the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
Actually, she held her position because she was quite accomplished and made HUGE strides for women's equality in the male-dominated US

View attachment 142183
Er..I never said any different did I? You've cut out bits of my post you quoted and made it sound like I said the bolded part. Please read again - I clearly stated that the reports were referring to the inference that a woman in her position was the result of box-checking.

Here is the full context from my own post, just to make it clear to readers I was not in anyway personally doubting here worthiness for the job she held.

The word (vag) isn't an issue, judging by the reports, but rather what the inference is - that the woman in question (I admit, I never heard of her in my life until Dion's thread!) held her esteemed position not through personal achievement or ability, but via some kind of PC box-checking exercise.
 

dionysus

Contest Manager
Staff member
CAG
MM
Joined
Apr 27, 2009
Location
the land of snow and maple syrup
Er..I never said any different did I? You've cut out bits of my post you quoted and made it sound like I said the bolded part. Please read again - I clearly stated that the reports were referring to the inference that a woman in her position was the result of box-checking.

Here is the full context from my own post, just to make it clear to readers I was not in anyway personally doubting here worthiness for the job she held.

The word (vag) isn't an issue, judging by the reports, but rather what the inference is - that the woman in question (I admit, I never heard of her in my life until Dion's thread!) held her esteemed position not through personal achievement or ability, but via some kind of PC box-checking exercise.
I never said you said differently - it was snipped for simplicity as I wasnt addressing any element about Ben :)
I was bringing the post back on track.
I highlighted some points of her accomplishments because you said youd never heard of her :)
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top