You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Without comment,
GT has received a temporary ban. His response to this was to request for it to be permanent as he no longer wishes to be part of this forum.
I mention this purely because if people are posting expecting a response then they're not going to get one in the short term at least, and <mod> I'd request that you don't slag him off when he doesn't have right of reply </mod>.
So... nice weather we're having. About that game last night?
OOB – Ok – I’ll just pick a few misogynistic utterances from that last long posty of Geetees
Ok, none of that seems misogynistic to me, but if it is, hit the report button. The mods will look at it objectively and if they agree with you they can remove it. Job done.
Brilliant. The bully boys win again.
There seems to be some confusion.
This is about someone asking people not to repeatedly post certain stuff because it upsets them.
Simple as that.
Those asked to stop have repeatedly posted exactly what they knew would upset the OP on the same thread.
Which is an answer in itself, I suppose.
I will join the list of people who don’t know best when to shut up, but I think the above is somewhat unfair. Whilst I do not agree with what people have posted, they weren’t simply asked to stop, they were by name called trans phobic and misogynistic - they felt unjustly and attempted to clarify their position. Somewhat similarly to Cougar clarifying his meaning when using that word.
England 2 - Brazil 1.
Result!
Scotroutes - you really think its acceptable for someone to cause offense, not apologise for it, then to compound the offence by dismissing the concerns of those offended?
I have offended folk on here, when called out for it I have apologised, considered what I have said and either shut up if I still believe it or changed my view in light of what was said to me.
Brilliant. The bully boys win again.
No, the bully copped a ban.
Then people counter these ideas, with sarcasm and poor analogy etc etc, rather than clear arguments. Then they start telling those people that they are stupid, idiots, etc etc.
Deffo this. Mind you that's par for the course with forums and STW isn't the worst by a long shot.
This place is like EastEnders, but with worse story lines.
they weren’t simply asked to stop, they were by name called trans phobic and misogynistic – they felt unjustly and attempted to clarify their position. Somewhat similarly to Cougar clarifying his meaning when using that word.
+1.
@scotroutes +2
Deffo this. Mind you that’s par for the course with forums and STW isn’t the worst by a long shot.
People had been reasonable with him for a long time, he wore them down to the point they couldn’t be ****ed anymore as he seemed stuck on repeat
People had been reasonable with him for a long time, he wore them down to the point they couldn’t be **** anymore as he seemed stuck on repeat
Bullys always blame their victim, it's the number one stock excuse.
Except I generally steered clear - nice try though 🙄
This place is like EastEnders, but with worse story lines.
I call BS. That is simply not possible
Are we allowed to know what the reason for the ban was - what rule was contravened?
(third time I've attempted to post in this thread, first time I've not deleted the post before hitting submit)
Hmmmnnn.
The forum has potentially lost a divisive voice, but an interesting one - I rarely agreed with geetee but found it fascinating to see his views and reasoning as they challenged my preconceptions and that's a good thing.
The forum is also poorer as his contributions to the photography thread were always very interesting although, again, our views on photography were poles apart.
So, I'm torn. I get the upset Rachel feels (along with others I assume) and don't wish that on anyone but I would hate this place to become an echo chamber like so many other corners of the 'net. I keep some FB friends just because they hold and espouse views so very different to mine, and part of the appeal of here for me is that I can access a range of views on all sorts of topics - keeps me on my toes.
If anyone is clearly and repeatedly attacking a particular group or individual deliberately to cause upset or offence then swing the banhammer as hard as you like. but if they are 'just' consistently expressing an opinion that they clearly hold true then I'm not sure that's as valid a response - they need to be challenged rather than disposed of.
Having modded a huge forum a few years ago, I know how tough the job can be and how much it relies on users reporting and peer-regulating (which is not the same as ganging up on...). I actually think the modding here is pretty damn good.
I wish there was an easy answer, but I really don't think there is. I would hope I would have the strength to ignore or challenge stuff posted here that upset me, but I'm not really in that position (unless the constant mocking of middle-aged, overweight men counts - BTW we deeply need some shorthand for a mocking sarcastic tone when typing text) so don't know for certain.
Deep down, and I know this isn't the comfortable answer in many ways, I think any healthy online community needs to reflect the wider world it is a microcosm of and cycling (if we assume for just one second that is in fact the glue holding STW together) is a broad church. We need to deal with those dissenting voices here as we would anywhere - with a balance of understanding, empathy, constructive opposition, and (when absolutely necessary) sanction.
I have ducked in and out of this today and tried to formulate some thoughts on it. I feel sorry for the hurt felt by Rachel.
I worked within an almost all male environment for 15 years with generally 40-65 year old guys whose world view did not fit my own. I found it quite toxic. A career switch only now sees me become friends and colleagues with openly gay and lesbian people. I don't personally know any openly trans people and feel so lacking in knowledge on the topic as to be wholly unqualified to form an opinion one way or the other.
I don't think I am untypical of a lot of folk here. If I want to know what it feels like to be a 40 something heterosexual sometimes biking male I don't have to walk a mile in most STWers shoes I imagine. It does feel like peoples keyboard finger engages quicker than their inquisitive mind to actually find out about multiple angles on a topic.
I am at the stage of doing what I can to find out about LGBT issues and am truly interested in Rachel's story, however on such topic I don't think this is the place I would feel comfortable fielding any comment or truly inquisitive questions for fear of bringing in unintentional bias, coming across as ignorant, stupid or insensitive. I feel more at ease discussing this with people I know well enough who are dealing with similar issues.
I am all for robust opinion and I am sure we all strive to be well read, however it's clear from what I saw of the moderated thread in question, and what appears to be some deliberately inflammatory and derogatory terminology and language that we as users of STW are nowhere near where we need to be to achieve mature debate on what is a highly sensitive topic. Even how this thread has progressed highlights this. There is a specific thread for gender discussion. Use that for your thoughts. I won't be posting on it as I just don't know enough.
I had a positive 18 month sabbatical from here and am considering doing so again as I get riled up by some posts and get narky back. I have no wish to be like that. This isn't one of STW's finest moments. Good luck Rachel
My first thought when I see a thread this many pages long is that life's too short. To the OP, there are good people out there, many more than the bad ones. The problem with the internet is anonymity. That same thing that allows people to open up about their problems also allows people to act without a shred of humanity. I think if everybody had to post under their real name they might act a wee bit kinder, or at least think a bit more before hitting submit.
Loads of people: "this forum has some toxic people, we'd be better off without them."
Me: "yeah, but we can't just ban people because we disagree with their opinions."
Load of people: "Yeah, but, drip drip..."
Me: "someone's just been given a couple of weeks off for exactly that."
Load of people: "Brilliant. The bully boys win again."
Like I said a day or two back, damned if you do...
I’m not the best at expressing myself on here, but colournoise and athgray have made very thoughtful comments, imo.
Cougar- you have a very difficult task, I think everyone acknowledges that. You can’t please everyone.
What would happen if Drac banned Cougar and Cougar banned Drac at exactly the same moment?
Posting on this thread is probably like jumping into a pack of particularly peckish wolves, but @colournoise sums up better than I could; I also agree on the bullying point.
The op is as right as anyone to pop up her views and everyone else, including Geetee, is allowed to debate, politely. And, as has been my experience, reading some posts can change your views.
The irony of some people though posting their white-knight comments here is laughable - some are experienced proper showers that launch into any thread to post their self-righteous comments that intend to do nothing other than to put down someone.
( I know, the internet, right? 🙂 )
Anyhow, let us just remind ourselves of this gem.
https://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/anyone-in-the-surrey-hills-area-recognise-this-chap/
Loads of people: “this forum has some toxic people, we’d be better off without them.”
Me: “yeah, but we can’t just ban people because we disagree with their opinions.”
Load of people: “Yeah, but, drip drip…”
Me: “someone’s just been given a couple of weeks off for exactly that.”
Load of people: “Brilliant. The bully boys win again.”Like I said a day or two back, damned if you do…
Mods weren't damned for inaction in GT's case today - I didn't see the mods getting any stick for "failing to ban" GT, and there was some support for evenhandedly applying the forum rules.
The irony of some people though posting their white-knight comments here is laughable – some are experienced proper showers that launch into any thread to post their of self-righteous comments that intend to do nothing other than to put down someone.
Agreed.
Unfortunately my initial thoughts when I read the OP have panned out as I suspected they would. My thought was:
“Oh, oh. There aren’t going to be any winners here”.
I don’t know the back-story to all this, and it seems a lot of pressure has been building across various threads.
100% honestly.....
The OP was a genuine outpouring of hurt and anger, and was quite upsetting to read. Knowing of allthegear’s usual very measured and considerate posts made it stand out. In my opinion, naming specific people from the off was always likely to lead to this point in the end. I would say that was probably an error of judgment, as I doubt she wanted it to end up like this.
Unfortunately the named ‘usual suspects’ did keep doubling down. A few people who Rachel may well have not actually wanted ‘on her side’ went for jugular and hey presto, recriminations and regret all round.
So, to move on.....
Is anyone riding anywhere nice this weekend? Let’s hear about it.....
Anyhow, let us just remind ourselves of this gem.
Until this thread I don't think I ever noticed GT's username, I guess we had different interests, but that thread's made me smile.
After rereading the whole of this again, I've noticed what I reckon is the most hypocritical statement ever made on this site.
As we've had enough nastiness for a while, I'll keep schtum, but there's a free envelope of blancmange up for grabs if anyone wishes to pm me with suggestions...🙂
Have followed this spiralling thread with interest. I wondered why Allthegear signed off posts as Rachel; I guess her post explains why.
I have no interest in anyone's gender at birth or their self-identified gender; I'm interested in the person.
On this forum and in society generally there has been a noticeable increase in negative and offensive comments......if you don't agree with me you're wrong, thick with it, I know better than you etc.
I'm with Dannyh^^^ in that I've always thought Allthegear's posts to be informed and considered; I'm also in agreement that naming individuals in the first post was not the best approach but the fact that Rachel did that clearly shows how she feels and that should be taken seriously.
Any time I see a long post on here I think.....trying too hard to justify themselves.
Moving on to vickypea's comment a few pages back about religion that's a subject which brings out the bigots - and their posts are completely unnecessary; sky fairies etc. How many times have they or parents or grandparents said something like....God, help me or pray for (insert name). For those people who have a belief, leave them to it; if you don't they could sneer about, for example, your 'skills' as a musician.
Some people are so blinkered to the evidence that's been put before them in countless threads before, how many times do they need to be told?
Empirical evidence is based on observation and experience, which is open to so many variables and variations in interpretation; there's been a paradigm shift since those opinions were formed.
I'm not going to debate this and give a platform to the crap but I'm not going to be complicit by being silent either.
The Cycling UK, the UCI and The Runnymede Trust are all focusing on inclusion in cycling this week so I have emailed them as well as notifying aquaitences at Leeds Beckett Uni as several recent threads have demonstrated how exclusive cycling is
I suppuse we should await the joining of 'gtagain' ?
Scotroutes – you really think its acceptable for someone to cause offense, not apologise for it, then to compound the offence by dismissing the concerns of those offended?
Holy ****. It's not like you just discovered the Internet. In this case, geetee rightly responded to the accusations made against him. Challenged, you couldn't even come up with an example of the transphobia you'd accused him of. Even Rachel agreed there was no case to answer in that regard.
And then we have the spectacle of the middle-aged white guys telling the lesbian she's wrong to be worried about the perceived erosion of her, long fought for, rights. What a massive step forwards.
So that's two members that have been hounded out of the group.
I was going to leave in protest but then I thought "what the hell am I going to do all day at work" and decided against it.
The lack of empathy some of you exhibit here, to the OP and people in general, is genuinely shocking.
So that’s two members that have been hounded out of the group.
I was going to leave in protest but then I thought “what the hell am I going to do all day at work” and decided against it.
It strong action like this that made this country great - I salute you.
The bullys haven’t won.
I speak from very bitter experience as a victim of bullying over a period of many years. The constant drip, drip of toxic, corrosive comments gives the victim a very clear insight into the behaviours, language and constant defence of their position that a bully will use to justify and admonish their actions.
Some people have entrenched views and beliefs, but repeating those same views, time and time again, without any empathy for those that find it offensive, and being asked politely to stop, either genuinely lack social skills to recognise the hurt they are delivering or they are simple a bully.
I have no time for bullys
, but repeating those same views, time and time again, without any empathy for those that find it offensive, and being asked politely to stop, either genuinely lack social skills to recognise the hurt they are delivering or they are simple a bully.
But they have. GT generally starts a thread himself to put his views across, for the most part I read it, more often than not agree with parts, but certainly not everything then move on to a wheel size thread or something. But others don't, they embark on a campaign to shout him down. Some use reasoned arguments others just throw insults at him, he doggedly plugs away constantly repeated his beliefs. I don't get the sense his repetition is to offend or bully just a means of defending himself and his views. None of which are really that extreme just out of step with prevailing views on here.
Banning him for coming on this thread and defending himself when named by the OP is very much a low for STW.
The phrase ‘white knight’ is certainly getting a lot of use recently. It’s almost as if sticking up for people is undesirable and worthy of derision.
Equality doesn’t mean people can’t be vulnerable and need support or understanding.
Jeez the homophobia in that Dave surrey hills thread.
“Oh, oh. There aren’t going to be any winners here”.
TBH, that sums up this thread succinctly. IMHO.
I'm with taxi25, scotroutes, gauss77, outofbreath and no doubt others, the irony is many of the criticisms levelled at GT would be far more appropriately aimed at a number of his detractors.
I am afraid STW got this badly wrong, very shabby.
The chat section of this forum has **** all to do with cycling or cyclists or inclusion (other than it's cliquiness). Never has. Never will.
it's basically Dadsnet.com
ie. a big group of folk of mainly of the same sex generally married with seemingly no real mates other than those they're "allowed" to go cycling with. Just instead of sharing motherhood as a connection it's owning an expensive pushbike.
Get outside and ride your nice bike as much as you can. It doesn't matter what sex/colour/religion/ability you are (or want to be) or where you ride. If nothing else riding a bike is great for a bit of temporary relief from the shit going on in your life.
Not everyone you meet on a bike will be a dick.
infact most won't be.
By "nice bike" I don't mean expensive BTW
Scotroutes - I did not accuse him of transphobia. Be very clear about that.
tj- I didn’t see you accuse him of transphobia but you did tell him to “stop making comments about gender”, just below where he had explained his support for trans rights.
Anyway, as I said a few pages earlier, this discussion includes several people slagging off specific individuals or members in general and makes pretty unpleasant reading.
There was someone in “that” thread who persistently used a very offensive term which was rightly pulled up, but now there’s a lot of hatred being bandied around.
I got really sick of this place and have had a break for 6 months and this is the first and will be the last time I post.
Most of you on here are clearly leftist liberals and obsessed about being pc. Some people are more traditional or conservative socially and should be allowed their opinion. This leftist (dare I say neo-marxist) attitude to identity politics and the vitriol that you throw at anyone who doesnt share your very narrow views is so disappointing.
I'm out of here. I have no desire to share anymore of my time with a forum so up its own ass that it can't accept that people have other views to you
I’m out of here. I have no desire to share anymore of my time with a forum so up its own ass that it can’t accept that people have other views to you
Different views are fine.
Refusing to moderate yourself and tone it down, even though it’s clearly upsetting someone, isn’t fine.
If you can’t see the difference maybe it’s best you do leave.
It's almost irrelevant what GT wrote. He was told that his behaviour was upsetting people, and instead of apologising (or just stopping), his response was to continue - to try and prove how 'right' he was. That is at best rude and at worst vindictive. The temporary ban was a reasonable response.
It’s almost irrelevant what GT wrote. He was told that his behaviour was upsetting people, and instead of apologising (or just stopping), his response was to continue – to try and prove how ‘right’ he was. That is at best rude and at worst vindictive. The temporary ban was a reasonable response.
^^This. There should always be a discretionary line in the "is this behaviour adding value to or detracting from the forum?" and "does this content enhance or damage the reputation of the forum and by extension singletrack as an entity?".
If either answer is a negative, then sanctions need to be applied.
Scotroutes – I did not accuse him of transphobia. Be very clear about that.
No, but you made a repeat drip-drip of postings *not* accusing him of transphobia, which we now know is exactly the same as accusing someone of transphobia.
...and you invented the ludicrous drip-drip pretext for banning people [1] *and* you claimed he had made misogynistic postings and when challenged came up with a load of stuff that wasn't misogynistic.
It’s almost irrelevant what GT wrote.
So it would seem. None of his recent posts have broken the rules or needed to be deleted: https://singletrackmag.com/members/geetee1972/forums/replies/
[1] "However its not an individual post that is offensive – its the continually drip drip drip of repeat postings."
I felt GT could have split his post in half. Kept his statement of his belief in his view here, and then carried out the rest of his post on his actual views on gender in that thread with a sign post to it.
I only looked at the gender thread after this one, and we have to ask where we want to be with opinions raised, freedom of speech, diversity and lots of other topics. It's nowhere near where I think it should be and I dont think it is what people think it is. It didn't take long for the merits of the body of Miley Cyrus to crop up. In a thread recently where I and others defended a certain woman's rights, someone accused myself and others of forming this view based on the assumption we wished to have relations with her.
So, let's start a thread on gender.
What a good idea. Do you have a range of views that would allow the casual observer to feel that some balance and sensitivity is achieved?
Oh yeah definitely.
Ok, who do you have?
Lots of blokes from a wide variety of backgrounds, ages, jobs and home life situations. We can draw on input from across the globe. We share an occasional hobby of riding bikes.
What would you think if the 1990's swaggered simian like into the debate sporting a pair of Adidas Sambas, clutching a bottle of Stella in one hand and rolled up copy of Nuts magazine in the other?
Well I disagree with them, however it shows the diverse opinions we have on such a relevant topic as gender. Not having them may result in this place becoming an echo chamber and we wouldn't want that.
That's good I like that. So on a discussion on gender do you feel that input from perhaps LGBT people and women in general is necessary, and I assume you have such input for the interest of a balanced debate.
Oh yes certainly? Well we dont have many LGBT individuals I think, and a smattering of women.
Why do you not have many female posters?
Don't know... can't think why. We do include womens views in other ways though. We effectively have that base covered.
Oh, how so?
Well we are well read and like research to form our opinions. Just last week I was on a works night out with my wife and her colleagues. 94% of drunk nurses agreed with me on a particular point of discussion. I also know that a few people here frequent mumsnet, so we feel we have a good idea on that side of things.
That's reassuring crack on!
This is crude, but not a million miles from where we are here. We should be striving for diversity on gender issues not as a white knight to show how we are standing up for others, but for ourselves to be better Informed.
There aren’t going to be any winners here”.
Dammit! Was just going to ask who is patting themselves firmly on the back for being the cleverest in this circlejerk of wordplay.
We should be striving for diversity on gender issues not as a white knight to show how we are standing up for others, but for ourselves to be better Informed.
Not sure how ad homs/bannings on the people on one side of that debate helps us to be better informed. If you close down a debate you can't win it. AFAICT, in thise thread GT was the only one doing any informing at all [1], everyone else was just posting ad homs.
[1] I'd never heard of the patriarchy until GT mentioned it above.
I have never advocated banning outofbreath. I have to consider whether I think I can add value to a debate, and whether the context and direction of movement of both a debate and this forum is one in which I wish to contribute to.
I do wish people would stop framing GT's contribution as debate.
constantly repeated his beliefs.
This is what he did, with claims of empirical evidence and research, which anyone within the research community would recognise as false
As to his banning, i imagine that might be rooted in trying to get him to stop saying stuff which was hurting people. It was he who decided to walk
I have never advocated banning outofbreath. I have to consider whether I think I can add value to a debate, and whether the context and direction of movement of both a debate and this forum is one in which I wish to contribute to.
Yup, no quarrel with any of that. In turn, I'm not here just to make posts, I'm mainly here to read what other people think and question them. I'd literally never heard of the Patriarchy until GT mentioned it yesterday arguing that (by one definition) he didn't think there was one, it's interesting and I googled it. (I'm not saying you disagree with any of that.)
I do wish people would stop framing GT’s contribution as debate.
But that's what it is. Just because he is staunch in his views doesn't change that. When was the last time you saw a televised debate where one "expert" stopped half way through and said"you know what, your right you have completely changed my mind". Never. It doesn't happen.
As to his banning, i imagine that might be rooted in trying to get him to stop saying stuff which was hurting people. It was he who decided to walk
But in singleing him out and then continually drip drip feeding the accusations of mysogyny and transphobia what else is GT supposed to do except defend himself?
Just out of interest which post of yours in this thread do you regard as most interesting to others? Which post of yours has contained some researchable claim or counter claim that I can google to see if you’re right or not?
with claims of empirical evidence and research, which anyone within the research community would recognise as false
Oh, i meant his claim of research would be considered false
Thanks for your interest