/tg/Station 13

Discord account: niku.somepan

Ban/note type (Check what applies):
(x) - Discord Ban

Ban/note length: Permanent
Ban/note reason: defending the marginalization of victims of childhood sexual abuse with fbi crime stats
Time ban was placed:19:43 utc+2 26/06/2024

Why are you making this appeal?(Check what applies):
(x) - The ban was unjustifiably harsh

Why should this appeal be accepted?:

MSO banned me because i wrote following a 1 hour ban i wrote :

"Also to address you banning people from bringing up stats:

Bringing up demographics are overrepresented in stats isn't inherently bigoted, black people are overrepresented in crimes, yes, but bringing it up isn't bigoted until your imply that they're inherently more criminal.
In truth black people are just overrepresented in poorer communities as a consequence of slavery and segregation and are in consequence, doing more crime, cus poor people do more crime.
Those neighbourghoods are also overpoliced because they are seen as the source of crimes, so more crime gets caught there.

This is also true for crime stats for men, men aren't inherently more capable of killing or beating others people, but some societal factors are definitly impact that. And ignoring that because it's an uneasy reality is dumb."
In response to this he posted this ultimatum"


I'd like to point out that at 7 i had my first sexual experience with a teenaged woman who was 6 years older than me.


Raping someone is always wrong, touching a kid is always wrong, that was not the discussion, MSO was saying a specific meme (made by a lolicon, by the way( https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/anatomy-of-a-gamer) portrayed men as pedophile, when the meme was made overwhelmingly (including the creator) by men, portraying kids as their gf/bf.
Omega then stated that this was a reflection of the communities making those memes, and not stereotypes about men.
Soreyew posts stats about men being overwhelmingly present in pedophilic crimes perpetrator, not victims.
MSO saw this, and muted soreyew for this.
Arguing that the overwhelming majority of these memes portray men with child bf/gf because of stereotypes or because the people who make them are men changes nothing to the fact that it's a reflection of reality.

Categorizing what you underwent as rape is hard, it always is, regardless of the perpetrator, it takes a lot of work on the self to realize that your consent at the time may have been clouded, be it by alcohol, or being 7 years old.
And it's always hard to be a minority, not recognizing yourself in the stories of SA told by others because your aggressor was a woman is tough. But the solution isn't categorically banning all mentions of men being majoritarian perpetrators of SA.

Ultimatly this is an issue of representation, earlier this week you made a joke about the lack of representation of black people video essay because i was memeing about become yet another white trans woman video essayist. This is the same.

I think you'd agree that if you want to seek spaces in which you want your story to be represented, and you're part of the minority, you will not get this in spaces where everyone is included, no one is stopping you from making a safe space for people who are victims of women who commited SA, polcon already is it, as you mentionned a lot of people in polcon have suffered from shit like this, and sharing stories of people being abused by women helps people to come out and admit that they were raped, even if it was by a woman.

In comparison you achieve nothing, you mute people because you disagree with what they say. there is little to not benefit from you muting soreyew here, no one who would refuse to see their SA experience as valid because the perpetrator is a woman would change their mind because the stats aren't posted, because there's still a societal notion that men overwhelmingly perpetrate those crimes.


No one here has argued that your experience of SA is less valid because the perpetrator is a woman, just that it's less likely for the perpetrator to be a man.
You banned me not because i was discounting the experience of people SAd by women, but because you saw what soreyew posted as sexist towards men, that is the only way your ban makes sense.

Stats do matter, and muting people for posting them because it conflicts with your reality and your experience is anti-intelectual and self centered behavior. You shouldn't feel threatened by stats that show your experience is less likely than another.


And i doubt anyone has considered their experience as Not Rape because their perpetrators are women, because it's less likely, but rather because people say women can't be rapists, which no one has done here.
I invite you to avoid locking this and telling me to post the next on in 24h, i don't want to delay the issue for days, for no reason.

I would like to add, as i just re read yesterday's appeal, that you seem to put a lot of emphasis on me interupting victims of SA talking,
Have you asked if my whole of text bothered them ?
Have you considered that maybe i was too ?
Have you considered that the disagreement we're having is not some kind of disagreement on the """"""value"""""" of people getting SAd, but rather on your practises as the host of TG ?

MSO was saying a specific meme (made by a lolicon, by the way( https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/anatomy-of-a-gamer) portrayed men as pedophile, when the meme was made overwhelmingly (including the creator) by men, portraying kids as their gf/bf.
Omega then stated that this was a reflection of the communities making those memes, and not stereotypes about men.

My exposure to this meme was in one of the gaming circlejerk/shitposting subreddits, modified to be more disparaging as a part of casting it as the stereotypical gamer in the subreddit's usual half-irony anti-gamers stance.

Omega then stated that this was a reflection of the communities making those memes, and not stereotypes about men.
Soreyew posts stats about men being overwhelmingly present in pedophilic crimes perpetrator, not victims.
MSO saw this, and muted soreyew for this.

(stat image|PDF)

From my point of view, soreyew is combating omega's point. Omega's argument is that men are over represented in gaming communities, the group the memes were originally about, and thats why its that way. Soreyew is instead saying no, its because its just men committing the crime and points to stats on convictions that shows 97% men, 3% women. However convection stast can only reflect and show biases in enforcement, not speak to demographic data on who does a given crime.

Maybe its because im a stoner, but this is soo well known i find it hard to think anybody posting crime stats to suggest they reflect the group who commits those crimes is acting in good faith. I've known about weed possession arrest stats being overwhelmingly black since i was 16. (All studies and survives about who uses illegal weed shows race has no to little impact on if somebody will smoke pot).

There are in fact things you can learn from these stats, but who commits crimes is not one of the, only who gets arrested or convicted for the crimes, a data point that is inherently impacted by biases, more so in some crimes.

(You know, In order for somebody to get convicted, the action has to be seen as abusive by the victim (or their providers) soon enough for police to bother, something less likely to happen if one (or both) genders doesn't the narrative.)

Might explain why the dutch Independent Commissioner for Child Sexual Abuse Issues has this to say:

It has to be assumed that sexual abuse inflicted by women is discovered less frequently because they are expected less likely to commit such acts.

(They list the number as 10-25% of abusers are women btw).

You can't try to wash yew's posting of the stats as some high level academic discourse about biases in criminal enforcement like you tried to do in your txt, you can't even say he was trying to make some point about a lesson the stat shows us on socialization of men. He posted it to reinforce the narrative that its only men who commit those crimes.

You know its possible to limit that kind of discussion to such higher level discourses while leaving the default concept of a generic perp be gender neutral right? You don't think the people abused (also gender neutral, how nice) deserve that? You don't think you deserve that?

Arguing that the overwhelming majority of these memes portray men with child bf/gf because of stereotypes or because the people who make them are men changes nothing to the fact that it's a reflection of reality.

Why? What? How? When?

Why bring it up?
What does that bring to the conversation?
How should it be brought up to avoid reinforcing the harmful stereotypes?
When should it be brought up to avoid reinforcing the harmful stereotypes?

Ultimatly this is an issue of representation, earlier this week you made a joke about the lack of representation of black people video essay because i was memeing about become yet another white trans woman video essayist. This is the same.

I think you'd agree that if you want to seek spaces in which you want your story to be represented, and you're part of the minority, you will not get this in spaces where everyone is included, no one is stopping you from making a safe space for people who are victims of women who commited SA, polcon already is it, as you mentionned a lot of people in polcon have suffered from shit like this, and sharing stories of people being abused by women helps people to come out and admit that they were raped, even if it was by a woman.

Why did yew bring it up in a discussion about the default narrative? Was that really the best place?
What does it bring to the conversation? "here is the most biased towards men stat to suggest that women doing it is so rare its hardly worth caring about" putting up a 3% stat when im commonly finding ones 4 to 6 times as large. Doesn't this seem like it does more to push a harmful gender stereotype then it does to advance any conversation?
How should it be brought up to avoid reinforcing the harmful stereotypes? for starters, how about contextualizing the inherent biased nature of the stats? In this case that would mean not bringing it up to dismiss conversations about women abusers.
When should it be brought up to avoid reinforcing the harmful stereotypes? Bringing them up in contrast to other stats to show the harm of that stereotype?

Categorizing what you underwent as rape is hard,[..] And it's always hard to be a minority, not recognizing yourself in the stories of SA told by others because your aggressor was a woman is tough. But the solution isn't categorically banning all mentions of men being majoritarian perpetrators of SA.

Thank you for those kind and empathic words. but i have to disagree with the end sentence. I still haven't been sold on the benefit of bringing it up except in extremely specific situations, and i fear the stats can't be accurate anyways because this narrative being the default narrative clouds the reporting (as discussed). which is one of many reasons i want it to stop being the default narrative.

Also, for the most part. We do in fact categorically ban (nearly) all mentions of racial groups being the majoritarian perpetrators of anything.

You know! putting it another way, on these same stats, the massive majority of sex abuse against boys is committed by men. 60%-90%. You know! There is another way one could phrase that statistic:
Please explain to me, in which situations you would find it acceptable to point out that the majority of perpetrators of SA against boys are the same gender as their victims?

Don't worry. I'll wait.

In comparison you achieve nothing, you mute people because you disagree with what they say. there is little to not benefit from you muting soreyew here, no one who would refuse to see their SA experience as valid because the perpetrator is a woman would change their mind because the stats aren't posted, because there's still a societal notion that men overwhelmingly perpetrate those crimes.

You do know we ban the 13%ers even if nobody in the channel would be likely to have their view of black people negatively impacted by them posting their bullshit.

No one here has argued that your experience of SA is less valid because the perpetrator is a woman, just that it's less likely for the perpetrator to be a man.
You banned me not because i was discounting the experience of people SAd by women, but because you saw what soreyew posted as sexist towards men, that is the only way your ban makes sense.

I think that last part was enough for a ban on its own, yes, its also something that i have strong thoughts about, and have voiced them in the channel before, yes, I'm not making it my primary argument thou partly because i don't think you'll fucking care, showing you the harm your rhetoric does is something i think you'll care more about, and mostly because the harm this narrative can cause is far more fucking important then my unease at how normalized viewing men as predators by default is.

Speaking of that, there is a fucking bear elephant in the room i need to address:

Its not just the children who won't see what happened to them as abuse until much later. Its their parents and the other people in their lives too. its the aunt at the family gathering that notices somebody followed their niece down the hallway and gets an gut feeling, stopping the abuse. Its the mother who notices her son has been more withdrawn since the move and new babysitter and replaces them, just in case...

Stats do matter

Not if it means the public perception of who commit abuse causes people to miss abuse, to fail to stop abuse. Not if it means that same mother ignores the signs her son is getting withdrawn again.

and muting people for posting them because it conflicts with your reality and your experience is anti-intelectual and self centered behavior. You shouldn't feel threatened by stats that show your experience is less likely than another.

This is a nice segue way to the arguments i've already posted in the peanut.


First post, issues with Stats commentary: I have many reasons to be threaten by the stats. but heres another:

2.22% of millennial men and 4.32% of millennial women reported taking advantage of being an adult more than 5 years older than somebody younger than 16

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... nial_Shift



This was the most recent pin in the channel while all of this was going down.

The narrative is a fucking lie. Once you take away the biases of men not thinking that what happened to them was abuse, and go directly to asking men and women about what they've done you get millennial women being twice as likely to sexually abuse minors under 16.

Does this mean we should start treating women the way we used to treat men? Oh man i can admit that part of me wants that, so they can *feel* how it's like to be treated that way… but no. That's an immature impulse and one even I can see past. I haven't brought this study up until now because I don't think it matters. Even if the narrative against men was true it doesn't justify defending a narrative that casts the default/generic predator as a gender. Full stop.

Also its not like this can be believed any better than the other stats. The culture trend of not treating women committing these offenses seriously may cause a higher percent of them to be willing to report doing so. And even thou 1.4k people were studied very few answered yes. Error margin still puts the range in the ball park of "equal rates" men and women if you are most favorable to women and least to men. a far fucking cry from 97%/3%.

The best case you could make? is that its complicated. which is exactly the kind of nuance that gets erased when people feel the need to reduce it down to "ackwually its because dats da gender that does it" every time somebody tries to have a conversation on these trends and the impacts they can have, especially when there is multiple (i've given like 7? some repeats of others thou, so, like 5?) reasons to question if this is even true.

---

Anywho, the bottom line is you don't have a fucking leg to stand on, so sit your ass down and accept your dunce cap.

You ran defense for bigotry against men by needlessly pushing this gendered narrative of who commits sex crimes as necessary when its fucking not and not even concretely true enough. You did so in front of some of the primary victims of the harm that causes, and when given the chance to apologize 3 times, you threw it away.

This isn't even the first time you got in trouble because you felt the need to push or defend a gendered narrative to who commits crimes.

This appeal is denied. You may appeal again in a year.

MrStonedOne wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 9:23 am Might explain why the dutch Independent Commissioner for Child Sexual Abuse Issues has this to say:

It has to be assumed that sexual abuse inflicted by women is discovered less frequently because they are expected less likely to commit such acts.

(They list the number as 10-25% of abusers are women btw).

If your goal is to fight stats that you think are wrong you shouldn't blanket mute people post those stats with 0 explaination, especially when those stats aren't viewed as wrong by most people apart from you.
If your issue with that data is that it's flawed or that it's wrong, say it, don't just go "STOP REINFORCING A HARMFUL STEREOTYPE" because it sounds a whole lot like you just bury your head in the sand.

MrStonedOne wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 9:23 am

Arguing that the overwhelming majority of these memes portray men with child bf/gf because of stereotypes or because the people who make them are men changes nothing to the fact that it's a reflection of reality.

Why? What? How? When?

Why bring it up?
What does that bring to the conversation?
How should it be brought up to avoid reinforcing the harmful stereotypes?
When should it be brought up to avoid reinforcing the harmful stereotypes?

In a conversation on why men are portrayed as the people dating children, bringing up a meme that presents men as the perpetrators, if the data you got on this type of crime shows that it's not overrepresented, the point of view doesn't matter, wether you portray it from the point of view of a bystander, applying what you would call a stereotype, or the perpetrator, where you portray yourself like that, in both cases you're still showing what is true, in this case, that men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of SA on kids.

MrStonedOne wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 9:23 am You know! putting it another way, on these same stats, the massive majority of sex abuse against boys is committed by men. 60%-90%. You know! There is another way one could phrase that statistic:
Please explain to me, in which situations you would find it acceptable to point out that the majority of perpetrators of SA against boys are the same gender as their victims?
Don't worry. I'll wait.

Imagine a simple three way conversation, talking about some media, and how it paints men as pedophiles, more so than women.

One participant claims this is because of stereotypes against men.
The second claims it's because those communities who are portrayed as pedophiles, and whom men are majoritarly the members, are found out to be pedophiles more than women.
The third claims that it's simply because the meme portrays a situation close to reality, and decides to back that claim up using some data, like the data on the perpetrators of SA on kids.

This was the fucking situation, it was perfectly valid to bring up, and you saw it, and you immediatly went "WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO LESSEN THE EXPERIENCE OF VICTIMS OF SA AT THE HAND OF WOMEN" Which again, no one, fucking did.

MrStonedOne wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 9:23 am

In comparison you achieve nothing, you mute people because you disagree with what they say. there is little to not benefit from you muting soreyew here, no one who would refuse to see their SA experience as valid because the perpetrator is a woman would change their mind because the stats aren't posted, because there's still a societal notion that men overwhelmingly perpetrate those crimes.

You do know we ban the 13%ers even if nobody in the channel would be likely to have their view of black people negatively impacted by them posting their bullshit.

This is not my point 13% miconstrude the stat to imply black people are inherently more capable of crime (stat who is to some extent also skewed by a system biased against black people in general). Just like 41% try to imply trans people are mentally ill forever and always more likely to kill themselves.

This is not what that was, someone posted the fraction of perpertrators of SA on kid who are men, because it was relevant to the discussion of portrayal of men as the ones doing SA on kids.

And you saw that, assumed it was bigoted towards men, and went to mute them. And when i defended them, you tried to pin me as the type of person who would lessen their experiences as victims of SA, regardless of what i typed after the ultimatum, regardless of w
hat i've said on wanting to enlarge the definition of rape to include men raped by women, regardless of what i ever would've said, because i disagreed with you.

MrStonedOne wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 9:23 am

No one here has argued that your experience of SA is less valid because the perpetrator is a woman, just that it's less likely for the perpetrator to be a man.
You banned me not because i was discounting the experience of people SAd by women, but because you saw what soreyew posted as sexist towards men, that is the only way your ban makes sense.

I think that last part was enough for a ban on its own, yes.

There it is folks. I wasn't permabanned for " defending the marginalization of victims of childhood sexual abuse with fbi crime stats" but because what i wrote was sexist towards men, wonder why MSO would write the ban reason like that then uh.
I'm not going to acknowledge what comes below my last quote, as you have decided that arguing with him shall remain an unmarked minefield and he's still as always.

I'll just say that, saying that women and men don't do the same crimes in same proportions, isn't bigoted or "a gendered narrative". Anyone can do any crimes, but some crimes are commited more so by men, or more so by women, and acting like this is bigoted, is fucking stupid, and shows how much brainrot you got.




There is a world MSO in which you advocate for men's right in a way that's not absolutly rancid and antagonistic towards everyone who has a slightly different opinion than you.

You can't define the word inc*l and apply it's definition to how everyone uses it, you can't say that X stat is bigoted without justification, and you can't make me admit i'm wrong when i've done none of the things you accuse me off.
But you can however, permaban me, if you so wish.

I would like to say to everyone who i've talked to and has wanted me to drop the ball on MSO's bullshit that i am sorry for disappointing you, but that to me, i'd rather be permabanned than passivly watching MSO vomit his shitty arguments and mutes.

Love to all the people i won't be talking to as much anymore because of this, like fikou omega and technokek.

See you all in a year.

and you immediatly went "WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO LESSEN THE EXPERIENCE OF VICTIMS OF SA AT THE HAND OF WOMEN" Which again, no one, fucking did.

Yes, they did. This is what i keep trying to get you to understand. Every time somebody brings up that stat, or defends it, or defends bringing it up, they contribute to the erasure of a group of victims. It doesn't matter if you mean to, the mimetic damage caused by that stat being in the public conscientious can not be ignored just because you find it inconvenient. Every time that stat is brought up, the benefits of doing so, in the context of why its being brought up, or what point is being made, must be weighed against the harm the gendered default narrative it indirectly reinforces causes.

Society moved from calling firefighters firemen because WRAs were worried a gender default narrative around who is a firefighter could cause girls to not get into that career by casting it as something only one gender does.

Why is it so hard for you and other people like yew to do the same in this situation and just...... let go of the need to chime in to discussions to point that stat out.

I was trying to start a conversation about how imagery of firefighters are always male and this minimizes and erases women who are firefighters and yew chimed in like some chud to go 'her dur thats because men are the demographic who are firefighters' and you came in half an hour later to defend it for some reason?

---

Anyways thats not why i decided to reply. you challenged the timelime, so im providing receipts because you can't look for yourself.




(also reminder that you had just came off of an 1 hour mute for implying that women's issues were more important when this happened)

MrStonedOne wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 9:47 pm
Society moved from calling firefighters firemen because WRAs were worried a gender default narrative around who is a firefighter could cause girls to not get into that career by casting it as something only one gender does.

Why is it so hard for you and other people like yew to do the same in this situation and just...... let go of the need to chime in to discussions to point that stat out.

I was trying to start a conversation about how imagery of firefighters are always male and this minimizes and erases women who are firefighters and yew chimed in like some chud to go 'her dur thats because men are the demographic who are firefighters' and you came in half an hour later to defend it for some reason?

---

Anyways thats not why i decided to reply. you challenged the timelime, so im providing recipes because you can't look for yourself.

1. Wasn't defending some random chud, the conversation is not the same. No one is saying we should call pedophile, MENPEDOPHILES, and change the language to gender that word. And just as saying that if you pick a random firefighter they'll be more likely to be a man than a woman, if you pick a pedophile, they're going to be more likely to be a man.

Are all men pedophilic fighters ? No.
Are all firefighters men ? No
Are all pedophiles men ? No.

There's a difference between changing common language to not make someone, like a woman, seem like someone that shouldn't be here. If people say firefighter women who are firefighter won't have to listen to chuds who go "ERRRR WOMEN FIREMEN ???? WEIRD ????"
But no feminist is asking that you ignore reality, if you were talking about the portrayal of men as firefighters, pulling the stats of gender of firefighters to say "Hey look men are overrepresented in firefighters, maybe that's why they're also overrepresented in the roles of firefighters in media???" wouldn't be a reach, nor bigoted, nor downplaying the existence of women firefighters.



About the timeline, i was seemingly wrong, mostly because into my head those were completly different conversation, i talked to threes about what he posted (i invite you to post my response to threes, maybe while avoiding what he posted to preserve SOME of his privacy).
And i talked to you, about what you did. In my mind both where totally seperate.

There is a gap in talking to my friend (?) threes about his personnal experiences that are very serious and you frivolously muting people for posting stats.

If anyone else in that chat at the time thought that what i posted was bad taste in response to either my txt, or the ultimatum you put out, i will gladly apologize, not to you, but to them.
I invite you to pull examples of this.



Moreover, the fact that people sharing their experiences of SA happened when i posted misses SOMETHING, i was talking about a specific case here, where stats where posted, not while SA of people in chat was being talked about.
At most me posting that txt in the middle of this, is bad timing.
Even if i had in fact lessened the experience of victims of SA, other people would've agreed if not when they read it when you put out the ultimatum.

Imagine our example of bringing up stats for firefighters and firefighter media; now imagine that after the stats are brought up a feminist who's particularly fierce and single minded, scolds the person who brought them up, all the while someone is listening to them, but gagged, and unable to talk, and then that person gets ungagged, and tells the feminist off for scolding people for shit reasons, and it happens to lend at a moment when a woman is discussing her firefighter carrier.
Even worse, everyone involved, the woman, the feminist, and the person who tells the feminist off, are all firefighters.

And when the person who tells off the feminist refuses to admit they're wrong, they're pinned as a mysoginist, and lessening the experience of women firefighters who have imposter syndrome.

It's not hard to see who's role is analogous to whom in this situation is it ?
In my place, in this situation, would you have said you were wrong to avoid the ban ?


Another example, people talking about overrepresantion of women as the single parent, stats about single parents are brought up, women are the majority, someone tells of the person who brought up those stats cus it "puts down men trying to raise their children", someone tells this person they're wrong. Threatened with an exclusion from the ingroup if they don't admit they're wrong.



I would also like to add that your personnal involvement in the matter and you're inability to detach from your past experience when admistrating around it might be impairing your ability to admin.

I can get if people in the past have used such stats to devalue your experience, or others, but you shouldn't assume everyone who posts those stats is doing it, nor should you administrate as if.

MrStonedOne wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 9:47 pm

and you immediatly went "WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO LESSEN THE EXPERIENCE OF VICTIMS OF SA AT THE HAND OF WOMEN" Which again, no one, fucking did.

Yes, they did. This is what i keep trying to get you to understand. Every time somebody brings up that stat, or defends it, or defends bringing it up, they contribute to the erasure of a group of victims. It doesn't matter if you mean to, the mimetic damage caused by that stat being in the public conscientious can not be ignored just because you find it inconvenient. Every time that stat is brought up, the benefits of doing so, in the context of why its being brought up, or what point is being made, must be weighed against the harm the gendered default narrative it indirectly reinforces causes.

Who in the chat did this at the time the stats were posted, or my txt.
Who did this, who are they, why are you apply your distaste against people who clearly don't hold the same beliefs as me onto me.


People will always misuse stats, there's many examples of this, should be then burn down all stats about anything that implies something bad about a group ?

Assuming those stats are valid reflection of reality.

Should we burn down stats that show that Aids patient are more likely to be gay than straight because homophobes use it to claim gays are unclean or unpure or suffering divine punishement ?
Should we burn down stats about the lower rates of acceptance of gay people in easter european countries because some people use it as a tool to dehumanize civilians there ?
Should we burn down stats about trans suicide rates in unsupporting environements because transphobes use it as a tool to claim trans people are always depressed and suicidal ?

Should we burn down stats about the gender of perpetrators of SA on kids because some people use it to demean the experiences of SA victims ?



I am sorry for the timing, i don't think it bothered anyone but you, but i am sorry, that conversation landed at the exact end of my mute, and i didn't think anyone would mind me shitting your bad adminning habits.

If the previous questions answer for you is yes, codify it, make it clear for everyone, and if i am one day unbanned it won't happen again (even if i think it would be a stupid rule)

If the answer is no, then how is that consistent, you do you justify that some stats should be hushed but not others, all them being able to used problematically.

I'm assuming you want this appeal to end, if you got nothing to add, nothing else to argue, i invite you to lock this topic and move on.

I wish i could be let back into the discord, i doubt you'll change your mind, and having to think about this appeal is tiring, i don't want it to check daily until a kinder admin decides that it needs to be put to rest.

I am sorry for the timing, i don't think it bothered anyone but you, but i am sorry, that conversation landed at the exact end of my mute, and i didn't think anyone would mind me shitting your bad adminning habits.

Hello, Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, between weekend events (seattle pride, etc), cat sitting for a friend, and getting my truck stolen, i've had a busy week.

I am glad you apologized. I am still a little hung up on the fact that I had to give you 4 chances to do so before you did, but am honestly glad none the less.

Consensus seems to be that you let you anger towards me blind you from how you were being a dick. Somewho I suspect I can relate.

To get it out of the way, yes, I have had abuse survivors reach out to me in pm in support, they weren't in the channel at the time, but that hasn't ever been a factor in how we enforce our rules. (although we are kinda leaving out the elephant in the room aren't we? There was one abuse survivor in that room who we both know took objection.)

Anyways, your anger towards me is not entirely your fault. A couple of years ago you reached out to the discord mods expecting help removing a bigot from polcon, and instead you got a slap in the face. and for that, I am sorry. I allowed my anger over what I see to be a societal trend to excessively fixate on symbols and language red lines to compromise my judgement, and took it out on you. I should not have done that.

---

Our apologies not withstanding, I can't ignore that all of the times we've butt heads, a common trend has been an incessant need to either paint men with the brush of the worse of their kind (incels, school shooter stats, man v bear), or object to them being allowed to escape the shadow of the worse of the their kind (abuse stats, school shooter stats, reclaiming the word incel, man v bear). It really smells like you think men should have to wear the shame of the actions of others on their sleeve. I don't know if its subconscious, or if its just because you know I'm an mra, or what.

What is the harm in just.... not telling men their issues are less important?
What is the harm in allowing the general conversation on sexual abuse to shift in the direction of gender neutral so that our brothers and enbies in arms can feel comfortable acknowledging their abuse?
What is the harm in allowing people to use a (still relevant and in use in some spaces of the internet i might add) definition of incel that doesn't paint them with brush of the most visible minority?
What is the harm in allowing men to be mad at depictions of them as predators by default?
What is the harm in acknowledging the role the stats play in reinforcing harmful stereotypes?
What is the harm in expecting people put in the extra care when mentioning demographics of crimes stats to ensure they aren't doing little more then reinforcing harmful stereotypes and holding them accountable when they fall short?

I'm reducing your discord ban to timed serve + a perma pol-con ban.

You may appeal the pol-con ban separately, I would suggest reflecting on what i wrote above and waiting a few weeks to a month before doing so.

Aight,
I have a question though,
Why make me wait months/weeks to appeal my polcon ban ?
I don't want to have to go check appeals everyday and if you think i should remain banned from polcon for some time, i'd rather you tell before i have to wait rather than after i've had to wait.
Also i appreciate the apology, a big part of my distate for you as a person and as an admin was the unability to say sorry for your actions. I'm glad we've both been able to get over that.

Also get rid of the forum filter for inc*l already, it makes reading anything about the topic absolute hell to understand.

I mean technically you could appeal it now, im just gonna reject it and tell you to wait a year.

This isn't new to /tg/ bans. you are responsible for choosing a good time to appeal a ban. too soon and your appeal could get denied and you get told to wait a year before trying again. I had cause (and backing) to just flat out reject your first appeal and tell you to wait a year before trying again. You really should have waited a day or so before you made the appeal so it could have been made from a level head. I didn't tell you to re-make it in 24 hours to punish you or mess with you. It was me doing you a favor to keep you from tanking your own appeal.

In order to get you to apologize you got 3 chances, technically 4 since i had already rejected the appeal, as well as a week of time to reflect. Don't get me wrong, Im glad we have finally taken that first step, truly i am, but I can't look over how long it took you to take it, nor the other things i mentioned in my previous post.