The Loveshack/SoSuave Discussion [Merged Threads]

[Nighthawk]

Not so. You recently banned someone who was posting here from LS. So I'm not sure, where you're coming up with the fact that not a single person from LS hasn't been banned.

Do you mean the one whose every post was just 'shoot yourself in the face' or 'your an idiot.' I'm guessing they were from LS.

Right, this thread hasn't been deleted "yet." But it probably will just like the other clone of this thread did.

Wow, a psychic! What are next weeks lottery numbers? Seriously, deletions and bannings are extremely rare here. Difference in moderation styles? Ok. But not a gender-biased one IMO.

..............

 

[slowgold]

Care to tell me then why my only thread on here is locked?

Yes, and didn't they lock a couple of other LS people's threads? Sounds like a form of censorship to me.

 

[Señor Fingers]

Hmm, you are right slowgold and I stand corrected, they finally banned HOMBRE/Touche. Not surprising though, considering she openly stated her intentions to troll and pretty much only did that.

Regardless, there is still no comparison in terms of censorship between the two communities. You should also be refreshingly surprised by my not taking this bait and arguing needlessly with you.. something else that is very tough to find on "Love-Shackles" as I like to call it now.

Welcome to SS, btw.

 

[scratch]

It's worth pointing out that not a single person from LS has been banned, and this thread has not been deleted yet.

Is there a status quo in place here? Of course. For better or worse there are certain ideals that most people here will agree on. But that doesn't mean we don't have our healthy share of debates and yes, even joke at our own expense sometimes.

I don't understand or agree with the way that your group's debates in particular were moderated over there, but in my experience it was much more restrictive than normal.

One element of this site that I prefer is the way that things aren't life or death the way they are there. Someone here can recognize they're an internet-based life form, feel stupid about it and get on with their "life." There, that same person will rationalize to defend their dignity to the point of absurdity.

If you want to claim that this site is superior based on a better balance of moderation and debate, I agree. However, I sense an overall smugness based on the membership here "getting" the dating game better, and that makes any claim of greater open-mindedness illusory. You may let the LS women post here, but that doesn't mean you're the least bit open to what they have to say, so what's the practical difference?

 

[MacAvoy]

I can recall only a few weeks ago where long standing members on here were banned and any threads communicating about them were deleted.

 

[slowgold]

..............

Nope. I don't mean the ones who just said rude things. Not at all. There was another poster on here who I know for a fact was banned.

But yes, I agree with you about the difference in moderation styles being different and not being gender-based. All the mods, on both sides, are male after all.

Senor Finger, Hombre, did say she was a troll at first, but then was posting seriously and got banned but whatever. I don't want to get into about it. I just needed to correct you on that point.

Well, I don't know about taking the bait. Seems like many on here took the bait as they were posting all day on there yesterday. But, that's irrelevant.

Thanks for the welcome.

 

[Nighthawk]

I stand corrected Re HOMBRE.

Scratch, fair comment. I think if the LS women post intelligently (unlike HOMBRE) they get listened too and treated with respect, but there is a default 'women don't give good dating advice' paradigm here, and there's some good reason for that, hence the 'raid' on LS. But I'm happy to debate anyone, male or female, based on what they write not their gender. We don't all agree on everything here either.

 

[Nighthawk]

Slowgold, I meant that bannings here aren't gender-based, but seem to be at Loveshack.

And it may surprise some Loveshackers to know the last banning here (before Hombre) was because of repeated homophobia.

 

[slowgold]

I can recall only a few weeks ago where long standing members on here were banned and any threads communicating about them were deleted.

Wow. Sounds like LS! ahaha

Scratch, I agree 100% with everything you said. Great post.

Nighthawk, I thought Hombre posted intelligently but you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

I do think the "raid" was stupid though. It served no purpose. Who is to say that women don't give as good or better advice on dating as a man? I know. You guys do. But it doesn't mean that you're right about that. You're entitled to your opinion though and I respect that. I just wish some of you would have more of an open-mind. Scratch is right on. It's the smugness and arrogance that is a turn-off. That your way is the ONLY way. Not so. And from what I've seen on here, it's not really working for many of you.

 

[slowgold]

Slowgold, I meant that bannings here aren't gender-based, but seem to be at Loveshack.

And it may surprise some Loveshackers to know the last banning here (before Hombre) was because of repeated homophobia.

Nope, not true. Women are banned on there all the time. Trust me, I know.

 

[scratch]

I think if the LS women post intelligently (unlike HOMBRE) they get listened too and treated with respect, but there is a default 'women don't give good dating advice' paradigm here, and there's some good reason for that, hence the 'raid' on LS. But I'm happy to debate anyone, male or female, based on what they write not their gender. We don't all agree on everything here either.

Here's the thing about deciding who gives good advice and who doesn't, or who is intelligent and who isn't:

Unless you make a very concerted effort to banish preconceptions from your mind, your determination of who posts intelligently is probably 1% driven by grammar and vocabulary, 20% driven by quality of logic and 79% driven by whether they agree with you in the first place. Most people untrained in logic and debate won't even recognize that the disagreement is due to different underlying assumptions, but instead just spout "you're stupid and don't make any sense."

The reason I initially came over here is that I found my stuff reposted here and disparaged. Here:

http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showthread.php?t=141934

That thread, and the embedded links, are the key bases for my conclusion that the general rule above applies pointedly to this forum in particular.

 

[Commando]

Slowgold, I meant that bannings here aren't gender-based, but seem to be at Loveshack.

That is not neccessarly true. Although, I can see how you would come to that conclusion. Alot of people (men) got banned in succession at the same time over the raid/saving/insert term here. Does that prove that more men get banned or infracted per ratio to women? On the whole, I would think not. SS's instance was just that. One instance.

There are a few women and men that get banned on LS too.

I've had my share of infractions over there and in doing so I have learned to post more respectfully (or passive aggressively). Does it suck sometimes when I want to scream at someone for how stupid, or how much of a chump (male or female) I think they are being? Sure it does. However, I have learned and still strive to temper my words. As well as to let some of the negativity I read just...go.

This site is more leanient, I will give it that. (and the emoticons are cooler) However, the sensitivities are on both sides of the table.

As far as advice from women or men. I think both sides offer valuable perspectives. Wisdom comes from experience, roads traveled, sights seen.

If someone could convince someone to not go down a bad road what difference would the gender make?

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

What's worse is that you don't even need to openly criticize these ideas. Say anything that is remotely conflicting even in jest and they not only ban you, but delete all your posts...

What's the purpose of carnavoirs trying to serve meat to Vegans? Even though each lifestyle can have their merits, neither is for everyone.

They (LS) may have an underlying agenda that they aren't aware of or even acknowledging but who cares, it's serving some purpose to a certain group of people. Why not just NEXT them, it's not as if their existance is impeding any of ours. Hell, I'll even say that we're walking two completely different paths.

 

[Nighthawk]

Here's the thing about deciding who gives good advice and who doesn't, or who is intelligent and who isn't:

Unless you make a very concerted effort to banish preconceptions from your mind, your determination of who posts intelligently is probably 1% driven by grammar and vocabulary, 20% driven by quality of logic and 79% driven by whether they agree with you in the first place. Most people untrained in logic and debate won't even recognize that the disagreement is due to different underlying assumptions, but instead just spout "you're stupid and don't make any sense."

The reason I initially came over here is that I found my stuff reposted here and disparaged. Here:

http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showthread.php?t=141934

That thread, and the embedded links, are the key bases for my conclusion that the general rule above applies pointedly to this forum in particular.

Many people are here because they've found out the hard way that (most) women's dating advice is not very useful and often counter-productive. They've already shed their preconceptions. In short, because women say (and think) they want one thing (a nice guy/doormat) and in reality go for the mysterious, challenging or often unobtainable guy that doesn't treat them like a princess and knows how to push her buttons.

A case in point was Lishy's advice thread. Her laundry list wasn't totally inaccurate, and she did mention 'don't be a puppy-dog, women hate that.' But a look at her posts at LS shows that what really drove her bananas was a man she couldn't have. Most women will leave out these factors and men are better off receiving advice from those who are willing to tell them. If women were more honest with themselves, we'd listen.

I don't think people with different viewpoints to me are stupid. I don't think Hombre posted intelligently though.

 

[Phyzzle]

I thought Hombre posted intelligently but you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

Have you read ANY of them?

http://www.sosuave.net/forum/search.php?searchid=803404

Here they are. Compassion, intelligence, she has it all.

 

[ThunderMaverick]

Says theres no matches, Phyz.

 

[Señor Fingers]

I will give Touche credit for this thread

http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showthread.php?t=142030

Unfortunately, its hard to bounce back once you've been established as a troll, her message essentially went out the window.

 

[Phyzzle]

Looks like you can't do it that way.

http://www.sosuave.net/forum/member.php?u=44414

Here they are. Click on find all posts.

 

[scratch]

Many people are here because they've found out the hard way that (most) women's dating advice is not very useful and often counter-productive. They've already shed their preconceptions. In short, because women say (and think) they want one thing (a nice guy/doormat) and in reality go for the mysterious, challenging or often unobtainable guy that doesn't treat them like a princess and knows how to push her buttons.

I don't believe you could have proved my point more perfectly. "We don't have preconceptions, those who disagree with us do. Those who agree with us have shed them." Dude, you're better than that (or at least up to this point you have been).

case in point was Lishy's advice thread. Her laundry list wasn't totally inaccurate, and she did mention 'don't be a puppy-dog, women hate that.' But a look at her posts at LS shows that what really drove her bananas was a man she couldn't have. Most women will leave out these factors and men are better off receiving advice from those who are willing to tell them. If women were more honest with themselves, we'd listen.

You're not getting it. Her list wasn't "accurate" or "inaccurate." Rather, there were points with which you agreed and others with which you did not. I enjoyed the way you caught her in a contradiction, and feel that she acted foolishly when called out about it, but that has less to do with her being wrong than her lacking in perspective and intellect.

I don't think people with different viewpoints to me are stupid. I don't think Hombre posted intelligently though.

I agree that she's another poster with little to add, like 99% of people on both forums. Again, consider the issue of perspective - within this interaction, I'm being patient with you because you're trying, but bear in mind that there's always another level of poster who is going to think you (or I) aren't posting intelligently. The trick is to try hard to make sure that decision isn't based on underlying factual disagreement.

 

[Nighthawk]

I don't believe you could have proved my point more perfectly. "We don't have preconceptions, those who disagree with us do. Those who agree with us have shed them." Dude, you're better than that (or at least up to this point you have been).

Well, when you put it like that I sound stupid. But I'm saying that a lot of members here tried it under one set of 'preconceptions', found they didn't work and logically found a better, more useful understanding. But I think we are getting too bogged down in semantics. Of course I'm not right just because I'm right, and Loveshack isn't wrong just because it's wrong. There's confirmation bias on both sides. But if I accept that, can we move on to who is 'more correct' based on the arguments and evidence, on the paradigms that both sites purport? Again, I don't want this thread to be sidetracked into a post-modern exercise on the nature of truth.

To be clearer on Hombre, I think she's an intelligent person who didn't best use her intelligence when posting casual sarcasm and avoiding real debate.