The female troll squad in love & dating

Post Reply New Topic

Honestly, the only thing a person can know about another poster is either some form of inference from style, or by actually reading the person's gender on their profile. I rarely do the latter, and have been called out many times for giving someone the wrong gender.


Well, the issue is that we are unlikely to have a reasonable solution without a sound semantic solution, nor should we trust a solution as reasonable unless it is sound.

I mean, to present the problem of intimidation, there are a few issues:
1) Is intimidation actually driving away posters who have something to really add? Some posters may be interested, but they may have very unsound ideas, and those ideas are never good.
2) How many people are likely intimidated?
3) Will a counter-measure intimidate away other users?
4) Is "offensive" or "inappropriate" bad in all cases? Certain political opinions are inherently offensive to some people, should they be intimidated away?
5) Is "intimidation" the hugest of problems for a debate forum? After all, any debate forum will demand thick skin.
it matters far less who has behaved more appropriately to the nuanced and unwritten rules of PPR than it does this: people are being dismissed for objecting to objectionable things. this is the problem.


What is the problem? Does it need a solution? What will be the costs of the solution? Why is the current situation overly bad?

Really? Maybe you're reading too much into it. My "warning" was rather neutral, but I do support her right to complain - even if I don't care enough to do it. It's perfectly credible that others contacted her - many have expressed frustration with the PPR in the open forum.

I'm only interested in this because it leaked in here - the PPR is just an occasional source of entertainment for me and I can't take it seriously. There are a few solid posters there but the large number of reactions bordering hysteria and delusion is just... hilarious.

But I understand why people see it as a private club - for example, you recently reported (in the deleted thread) a new poster who only made comments like "what an idiot" and so on. Fair enough - but quite a few regulars do that and it's acceptable for them... It looks like a double standard.



I don't know about awful, but something did happened - she and others see her complaint as valid, while you're trying to convince us it's not. As far as I can see her only "mistake" was that she complained publicly instead of PM-ing a moderator. Going back to the original thread to tell people they were reported encouraged them to have a go at her and accuse her of... what? Meddling into your business? Some with pathetic discourse along the lines - "I will defend my freedom of speech till death, even if it's just talking about killing those damn rag-heads on an obscure internet forum". See, that's why you're a good choice to speak for the crowd there, because you're articulate and respond to reason - but that doesn't represent correctly the way things actually go in there.



While I might laugh at what he does (I didn't the first time), it is rather disgusting and dangerous for more sensitive people or those who don't understand his game. Many see sensitive as weak and think aggression can effectively mask their own weakness, but IMO that's a very childish view. He tried pulling the same shite in other parts of the forum and he was told off by several members and warned by at least one moderator. If you want him to be treated differently you'll have to back it up with a rule. And really, why would you do that, because he's old? Would he actually want us to think "poor old grandpa he's senile and lost contact with reality"? And deliberately stepping on people's toes will provoke them or make them think or accept a different opinion? Or instigate some substantial discussion? The threads about the Muslims and Japanese are proof it doesn't work. It just seems to air some or his hatred and we wouldn't want him to choke on it, would we?

Isn't this the most common complaint about the PPR - it's all about debate (often degenerating in insults and bullying) - and barely any discussion?

"Hate speech is, outside the law, any communication which disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race or sexual orientation." -Wikipedia

"Kill all Muslims" comes under that.



The rules quoted are at the top of PPR, how can you possibly say they don't apply there?

We...or at least I, do not respond as an effort to abuse the men who post them. I respond for one reason, to offer what I view is constructive advice because I would very much like these men to get a woman.

So if you are referring to any of my posts, then I can only conclude that you do not actually wish to solve your dating issues and am perplexed in that event, what your point of posting them are, and what you would like me to do about it.




As are women with AS. But I'm still not sure exactly how that has anything to do with anything. A man asks a question about dating women, or expresses he requires some input on a situation and I do my best to provide it. If it is not what you want to hear, because you wish for me to lie about the world, or sugar coat things, I do not have the capacity to lie to you or coddle you or any other man.



Honestly the world was much more brutal to men when society was more gender polarized.



Again, I hope you do not think I fall into that group...I've seen no such group to tell you the truth. If my answers are not to your standards perhaps you might give me an example of the type of answers you would like because to be honest, I'm quite perplexed, and to tell you the truth, as a woman, I feel there is far more hostility towards women here than there is towards men here.

If you are going to go through life with the perception that women are your enemy, with all this pent up anger and frustrations towards women, then you probably are not going to be very successful with them. No one wants to be with someone who hates them.

Yes but what is one to do when a person presents an issue and becomes upset because the proposed solutions are not to his liking even though those solutions may very well be based in truth?

For example in your threat on "sh!t tests" examples were given which I, as a woman, would never perceive as a test. The ice cream trip, the chapperone.....I did not see any ulterior motives in this and personally the thought that someone would perceive these incidents with such suspicion really makes me reconsider going out with a guy for fear he will have such notions and misinterpret my positive intentions as negative ones and my innocence as maliciousness.

I thought the perceptions that these were tests was paranoia and I still view it that way.

However, at the same time, I was honest and did acknowledge that women do occasionally test men. I stated this because to my knowledge it's true. I also stated my views on this very clearly and I also illustrated why I did not think the examples given were tests.

I gave the most insightful, honest answers I could to attempt to help you correct issues which appeared to me to be standing in the way of many of those with AS, and a happy relationship.

I don't know what you would have preferred said instead.

Well I for one would like the men of wrongplanet to know that I don't think all of them hate women. I think the majority are aware that whatever social problems they may have, dating and otherwise, stem primarily from within themselves (as with all people with AS), and don't demonize women for it.

As I have previously said, the vast majority of my socializations are with men and most of them are well balanced human beings who don't have this man vs. woman thing going on in their head.

The way she presented your PM is right here in the thread, you don't have to take my word for it. I'm also not saying that it's impossible that other people contacted her, just that her claim to such in and of itself didn't prove anything, since anyone can make claims. Finally, I too support her right to complain, just as I support the right of others to disagree publicly.



It's not a "club", my reaction would have been the same no matter who did the reporting and no matter who was being reported. Like you pointed out, I didn't hesitate to report behavior that clearly falls outside the bounds of acceptable for PPR, and if you're paying that much attention you ought to know that I reported that same poster for FIVE different personal attacks in a short period of time. That's not acceptable ANYWHERE on the board, even PPR has standards.



Here's the offending thread, I had to do some digging to unearth it: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt137399.html

Notice the initial responses, generally negative towards the OP.

Here's where it's reported back to PPR that Hyper reported the thread: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp3046859.html#3046859

Notice that it wasn't I who alerted the forum, and that all that was said was "hey, someone reported this thread", no judgment, nothing else.

Here's my most stinging "rebuke" to Hyper in the thread: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp3046933.html#3046933

I described her as new to PPR and unused to how it works without even mentioning her by name; outrageous!

As to me being "chosen" to speak for the forum, why don't you go in there and ask them about that, you may be surprised by the answers, not to mention the various way's you'll find me portrayed there. There is no "bloc", "club", or collusion on these things in PPR, I'm just unusual in having been banned once for defending the sanctity of posting offensive ideas in PPR, and took this task upon myself because I don't want anyone else to have to go through that. That I'm reasonable and articulate (and generally recognized as such) is just a happy accident, though I won't make any claims about being the only person in PPR possessing those assets; you've all now been introduced to AG and he's not unique either.



PPR is not the place for sensitive people, just like the Haven isn't the place for aggressive people, or at least aggressive behavior; yet there aren't virtual Visigoths storming the gates over there. Blanket enforcement of site rules that are arbitrary and ambiguous in the first place is no justification for destroying a valuable forum; why do you think I'm trying to get official recognition for the "different" status of PPR? I regard this whole situation as a misunderstanding that's gone off the rails, hopefully one that an be avoided or at least minimized in the future by the clarifications that I'm attempting to make.



How about "because he's autistic"? Or "because he's had a radically different experience in life than me and who am I to judge"? I don't care what he does outside of PPR, that's not my concern here, but within that forum he has the same rights as any other poster. Do you think that having the mods hammer on him is going to change his feelings? Or how about the venom dripping from the end of your paragraph there, it sounds an awful lot like you're wishing ill effect on another member because you disapprove of his worldview, that's not very tolerant of you.



Complaint by who?

Because what the rules say and how and when they're enforced are very different things, that constitutes de facto different rules than the rest of the site regardless of what the posts say. I'm just trying to make that official to reduce misunderstanding and to eliminate the possibility of selective enforcement being used to persecute specific posters.

As someone with AS, I don't pick up on slight hints. I can only pick up on overtness.

I would like if you could illustrate an example of what you consider an over-reaction to a slight generalization so I can better understand your perspective.

If it ain't written, it ain't gonna be enforced. The written rules are the only real rules and therefore should be followed and completely enforced by the moderators. You don't go into court and say that you broke the law because, in your option, it shouldn't be enforced, do you?

No venom there, just sarcasm. Believe it or not, I wish him no ill. I don't even want to see him banned - as I said, he amuses me.

Most people here are autistic and many have their feelings overlooked or trampled. I was merely asking why should we be more understanding with him that we are with others. After all, he's being quite judgemental himself and he often wishes ill to others - it's only expected that some of it will return to him.

Actually, selective enforcement is a legitimate defense in court, as is jury nullification of unjust law. That being true however, what I'm trying for here is clarification of the standards in PPR in order to reduce these types of misunderstanding.

No, the written rules aren't the only real rules. If you look at actual law in the US or any other common-law nation, a lot of legal rules are actually not what is written, but how those rules have been interpreted in the past. So, that's why courts and lawyers will reference X vs. Y, as these instances are important for what these laws really mean. Additionally, in practice, we all know of a lot of "real rules" that are not "followed and completely enforced", one very good example is speed limits, as most people actually go over the speed limit, but the unwritten rule is that speed-limits mostly exist for egregious offenses. Even further, I would also have to argue that in practice, the enforcement of legal codes ought to be of the nature that promotes social cohesion, as that's the real purpose of codifying these norms. I don't see how the "strict enforcement" group really suggests something that really promotes social cohesion, and I also think that all of these appeals to "legal formalism" are just intellectually bankrupt because I haven't seen an argument that laws ought to work this way, and I know that in practice they often DON'T work this way and that this is often for the best (economics professor Arnold Kling in this essay coined a phrase for laws that really in practice would be more damaging to strictly enforce than not to: http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_dail ... ciety.html ), so to appeal to some "Platonic law", just doesn't make sense to me.

Secondly, that actually would be a very good option, and at times it actually does go sort of that direction, as Dox already pointed out, as Jury Nullification has actually been used to overturn laws and punishments, and selective enforcement does also prevent enforcement of laws. Even further, the courts also sometimes do invalidate past laws and past legal precedents anyway, whether people like that or not. In fact, there was one case in a state, where the state legislature made the legal structure so incoherent that under the current laws, people who committed crimes could not be punished for their crime. What did the court do? The court simply reversed all of that legislation to allow for a particular murderer to be punished. Maybe someone may think the court overstepped its authority, but that's actually how society worked there.

Finally, all of the legal analogies kind of fail given that this is a forum anyway. I mean, we could actually have any number of ridiculous ways for the world to work here. I just really don't think that this provides much of a case.

Wait? That's the big incident??? Honestly.... while I dislike ruveyn's statements, I would have to argue that it also should be neglected unless the problem got worse. His comments seem to generally avoid racial slurs. While racism isn't this "impersonal thing", ruveyn himself is reacting to the matter in a personal way as well, and honestly, I really am not sure that I would think silencing ruveyn for this is really the best thing. I really really dislike the idea of punishing someone for being personal, even if this is sort of in a negative way. I've had that happen in my life, and it bothered me, and it still bothers me. I'd advocate some charity to ruveyn in this case, and the same to anybody even in an opposite position as well. It is not as if ruveyn is the only person who seems to want large numbers of people dead anyway.


Wait? I don't understand why we would formally elect somebody to speak. That requires a lot of coordination. PPR actually doesn't have a "club" or "bloc" in any clear sense. There are people there who do respect each other, but that's mostly it, and even the people who respect each other have disagreement. I also don't think that we would actually elect Dox either, unless we had a lack of other people interested. Nothing against Dox either, just that there are a lot of other potential candidates who have sufficient qualities.

Also, Dox is wrong, I am AG, and frankly, I am the most unique being in existence. Or at least, I am one of the more notable members of PPR. He is right though that there are a lot of articulate members. (Note: Articulate may not mean "correct", or really anything about dealing with non-PPR people, and I know that many people will accuse me of splitting too many hairs and holding on too tightly to semantics.)


Actually "poor old grandpa, he's senile and lost contact with reality" is probably the best way to describe ruveyn. Perhaps this is overly sensitive of me, but hammering on a guy who is kind of outraged about this kind of situation doesn't really seem like the most humane solution, regardless of who anybody was angry with. I mean, ruveyn's comment about muslims isn't the creepiest thing that could be found on PPR to any extent, and yet the other things would rightfully be protected.


Umm.... debates are discussions. A lot of my discussions are somewhat in a debate-format. Even further, if you have two different opinions, unless we're going to smoke the happy-peace-pipe and say there is no truth, then it is an important question to see which is right. I also don't think that a lot of these conversations are just "insults and bullying" at the end of the day.

Alright, I've got the real lawyers on me now

I guess you do have a point about interpretation and legal precedence etc, but it was a stupid analogy on my part anyway as you've said.

The point I'm trying to make is, if the rules say something, that's what should be enforced. At the end of the day, though, our opinions on this are utterly worthless considering that it's the mods that make the final decisions on how the forum is run. If they wanna let hate speech on their forum, then hey, it's their choice and their forum to run I guess.

Maybe, maybe-not. I'd have to say that prudence should triumph over anything in writing.