Hеllo, I am asking here regarding the answer of user B. Goddard to the following question: Should I intervene when a colleague in a different department makes students run laps as part of their grade? B. Goddard described in the original question a situation where somebody was fired because "he forced himself on a secretary". This was edited to "other misconduct". Knowing what the original was, I find the words "other misconduct" far too weak and somewhat offensive because of events in my social circle. Based on a recommendation by Wrzlprmft, I am asking here to edit this. I propose three solutions:

  1. Change "for other misconduct" to "for sexual misconduct" or "for horrible deads" etc. (My English is not so good, maybe there are better words than "horrible". "Other" sounds too weak to me and sounds like "similar to the weighting issue above".

  2. Remove that the person was fired. If one thinks that the reason of the misconduct is irrelevant, I think one should consequently also remove that the person was fired. After all, it is not relevant to the story B. Goddard is telling.

  3. Put a comment there encouraging users to check out the edit history. Indeed, I did this but it was removed. Instead, Wrzlprmft commented that one should ask on Meta for editing.

  • Could the downvoter explain their downvote? – user111388 Aug 1 '19 at 17:01
  • 2
    the down vote was not me, but voting on meta is a little different. Down votes can indicate a poor question, but more typically down votes mean no. In this case I would guess the down vote was intended to say there is no reason to edit the answer anymore or something like that. – StrongBad Aug 1 '19 at 17:39

There was no "sexist content." The whole point was that the (certified feminist) female professor accused the male professor of being insensitive to female needs. She said a sentence to me something like, "He has no idea what a woman's relationship is to food." I think her assertion was that women are more emotionally attached to food. She was furious at the male prof for thinking that that women were just little men, rather than that women have a different body chemistry and a different metabolism.

As I said in the original post, "Don't ask me to sort this out." Sometimes feminism means treat women as if they were men. Other times, you have to be aware of the differences. Her accusations against the male prof was that his attitude was, "If they want to act like men, then I'll treat them like men."

Both the female prof and I protested to the provost. The forced dieting quietly went away.

I was not privy to the exact nature of his later sexual misconduct. I understand it was something like this: The secretary was making copies and he cuddled up to her from behind saying something like "need me to show you how to work that thing?" He is and was a pig of a man and she immediately filed a grievance. As I said, the pig was a buddy of the provost (how else do you get to be dean only 3 years after your Ph.D?) who tried to smooth things out, but she remained adamant and left the school no choice but to "let" the pig resign.

I'm surprised that, given that the first incident was considered sexual harassment, the subsequent sexual harassment was considered irrelevant. In the first incident, the harassment is subtle, but my friend ferreted it out. To prove that she was right, I included the second incident.

In the original question, then, I'm suggesting that the OP's situation be looked at through the lens of harassment. Thin, athletic students only have to run for 50 minutes, while the fat kids have to run 3 hours. With the butchering of my post, NONE of this survived.

Only on THIS stack exchange is there this bigotted culture of bullying people who don't talk just like you do. Most negative comments are "you should have worded that like this..." Almost never is the suggested change an improvement. Rather, it is usually some dumbing down of the language. Some people are not that bright, but they think they are, and whenever they get confused, they, very wrongly, think that 90% of people would be equally confused. But they are not.

The bottom line is, people who can wrap their incivility in a right sort of cattiness are allowed to be as uncivil as they please. Whereas the neurologically different people, who can be quite bright, but don't have the social skills to word every sentence in the ultra PC way, or see the need to connect every single dot for some non-so-bright bigot who thinks he should run things.

That the moderators refuse to even discuss this with me should be proof enough that they are afraid to have their bigotry exposed.

But nothing will change the fact that they let their own kind be as abusive as they will, while then using the reactions to that abuse as an excuse to suppress and bully their target group. "You're not autistic, you're an asshole."

We will find our voice soon and the mods here will be exposed for their callous indifference to and often participation in the bullying of the spectrum. If they had the tiniest bit of tolerance or conscience, none of this nonsense would have happened.

  • So, could you maybe edit your answer? I am quite worried that you will be banned soon because of your opinion here and the answer stands as bad as it is now. Cheers! – user111388 Aug 6 '19 at 21:55
  • 1
    I don't care that much about this stack exchange. If I get banned it's no big deal. Instead of me editing my answer, how about if all the people who cared jumped on my bandwagon and demanded accountability from the mods. I have sent them a number of messages about their bigotry and they have refused to even respond. It's not that we disagree but that they won't come to the table to see whether I have a legitimate concern. If someone came and told me that I was hurting them, I would stop and ask "how?" And so would most other people. What can possibly explain the mod's behavior? – B. Goddard Aug 6 '19 at 22:00
  • While I agree that many things are bad here (especially for newcomers and people who are not so "great"), I don't think anyone is in the position to demand accountability. It is not a democracy after all. However, may I change your answer to that question? – user111388 Aug 6 '19 at 22:05
  • 1
    @user111388 Neither is Walmart a democracy. But the customers can still demand accountability. Edit all you please. – B. Goddard Aug 6 '19 at 22:38
  • Maybe you coukd discuss with them in the chatrooms? But again, this is not a Walmart. – user111388 Aug 7 '19 at 16:02
  • 1
    @user111388 They refuse to talk about. They know they're in the wrong and they don't want any light shed on it. If the local cops write speeding tickets only to black drivers, they don't get to hide behind "Look, the guy was breaking the law and I gave him a ticket." The way the policy is enforced is bigoted. Sure, they can point to my colorful sentences and say "You're being uncivil so we can ban you." The problem is that they don't ban others who are uncivil. And in every case the others were uncivil first. And as far as I'm concerned, chatrooms are for [bigotry removed]. – B. Goddard Aug 7 '19 at 16:14
  • 3
    I honestly don't see the point in bringing up neurotypicality, or neuro-atypicality, or assuming that the mods' behaviour towards you is part of some larger bullying to do with "you're not autistic, you're an asshole". Bringing up neurological differences seems to be getting away from concrete issues such as what you wrote, edits that were made to it, and whether the nature or the manner of those edits was proper – Yemon Choi Aug 8 '19 at 1:23
  • 1
    I did not understand your suggestion that the OP look at the situation through the lens of harassment. If you spelled that out more directly and elaborated on it, I would probably up vote your answer. – StrongBad Aug 8 '19 at 18:56
  • 4
    As moderators we are happy to discuss our actions and any biases you feel we may have. We communicated with you via private message a little, but these types of discussions are best had in the open. Ask a new meta question about our behavior or bring it up in chat. We will respond. If you feel our behavior is so problematic, you can always use the contact us link at the bottom of every page to engage with an SE employee. – StrongBad Aug 8 '19 at 18:59
  • 1
    @YemonChoi Try to follow: People were uncivil to me. They were not banned. Why? Because they know how to be uncivil in the right way. Autistic people have different sets of detectors. I pick up on a lot of clues others miss. Others pick up on things I miss. I can't detect the difference between "their" incivility and mine, yet I'm the one that gets the note from the moderators. – B. Goddard Aug 8 '19 at 19:20
  • 2
    @B.Goddard sometimes we (moderators) miss when one user is being rude to another. This can be because we didn't see the relevant posts, or weren't looking carefully, or our biases blinded us to the rudeness. If you see something that is rude (either to you or another user) flag it with a comment about why it is rude. If we decline the flag or don't handle it in a way that you think is appropriate, start a meta post about it. – StrongBad Aug 8 '19 at 19:41
  • 1
    @StrongBad It's not random. If it were random, then I'd win one once in a while. Instead, I have a perfect losing streak. This is not a problem to handle one flag at a time. A serious policy shift is needed. You tolerate every race, religion and gender on here, but you fall to pieces if someone's personality doesn't fit the majority mold. – B. Goddard Aug 8 '19 at 20:36
  • 1
    You have raised one flag and this answer and comments are you entire contribution on meta. I don't recall you in chat, but I could be mistaken. Yes your flag was declined, so you do have a perfect losing streak. Again, when you see rude behavior, flag it or point it out in chat/meta. – StrongBad Aug 8 '19 at 21:23
  • 1
    @StrongBad When the other moderator banned me, he listed 5 or 7 previous incidents and called it a "pattern." In each one of those incidents, I was responding to obnoxious comments. Flagging doesn't work because YOUR POLICY is corrupt. You always decline my flags and always honor flags against me. And I'm not the only one who says so. – B. Goddard Aug 8 '19 at 22:14
  • 4
    You have raised 1 flag and it was rejected. A number of flags against you have been rejected (in fact most of them have been declined). If you find other users behavior inappropriate flag it and/or bring it to meta. Do not react. Being rude in response to rude behavior will get you suspended. It should also get them suspended, but if we don't see it, we cannot do anything. If there is an issue let us know. – StrongBad Aug 8 '19 at 22:30

I did most of the major editing on that answer. I was by no means trying to minimize how bad the described behavior was. My edit was a pretty coarse hack to remove what I felt was sexist content. At that level, I just didn't feel the description of the further misconduct was relevant. In hindsight, I totally agree that the additional misconduct being sexual misconduct and it being more severe is relevant. That additional behavior sounds like it was in fact sexual assault, so I would be happy, in principle, to see other misconduct changed to sexual assault.

Looking back now, I also think the edit to remove the later promotion was also too coarse, and probably should be left, to a degree. Something like the behavior didn't seem to hurt his career as he eventually became dean, but in the end, ...

While in principle I don't see a problem with the edits, the user is currently suspended (you can see this on their profile page). This means they cannot participate here or contribute to the revision. I personally would hold off on making the edits until their suspension is over.

  • Also, looking at the history of edits, I think the 2nd edit and then your editing misread the direction of BG's answer as condoning sexism when it seemed to be actually highlighting and criticizing the behaviour of a male professor to a female friend of BG – Yemon Choi Aug 8 '19 at 1:34
  • 4
    @YemonChoi I didn't interpret the answer as condoning sexism. I just felt the professor being a mother-hen type that taught Jane Austen and that she was on a tirade and being irrational (the OP said Don't ask me how this fits in feminist philosophy in the answer) was not being friendly to women. More importantly, I did not see how what I removed was relevant to the answer. As I said in this answer, in retrospect I can see how my edits were too coarse and could be improved and have no problem with further refining the answer if that is what the OP wants. – StrongBad Aug 8 '19 at 18:52
  • I think the question was fine prior to editing – David Sep 2 '19 at 14:40

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .