Removed by mod

Right, I don't want want to talk about vocal fry either, as I mentioned in my initial post.

I will work harder at providing a bit more info on my reasonings

Thank you for this. However it doesn't really answer the question of if removing Quinn's post was justified. A more specific reason doesn't solve that. I find it hard to understand the impetus for those that reported Quinn's posts and for you to agree with them. His thoughts seemed reasonably well thought out and stated (unlike nintindude, who seems to have deserved it)

I'm sorry, I don't follow. They PMed you to delete the posts and then put a vague reply acting surprised that you deleted them? Why didn't they just delete them themselves?

criticizing a podcast because the vocal range of the women who run it doesnt please you is misogyny.

This seems rather questionable. Is criticizing a male podcast because the voices are grating misandry and grounds for post removal? Is saying the audio equipment is cheap and audio quality poor classist and grounds for post removal? Is saying someone's accent makes them hard to understand prejudiced and grounds for post removal?

How is discussing the listening experience of a podcast inappropriate for a discussion thread about the podcast? It would be one thing if they said the hosts were ugly and they don't want to listen to them (or whatever) but the audio is an inseparable part of the media!

except the time when someone did provide arguments against his point and were ignored.

But they didn't! The only time arguments were actually given saying that vocal fry is misogyny was within the top couple comments. As soon as redarmor and others replied to those top level comments, those saying that vocal fry is misogyny stopped actually replying to the content of their posts. They just posted saying they already answered that despite not addressing the issues the replyers brought up.

I think the core of the issue here is that you don’t think this is misogynistic

Pure projection. I'm not some sort of speech prescriptivist. In the very first post I made on the topic I acknowledged misogynistic background regarding vocal fry, and made some polite questions. Chamomile said that she had already answered them elsewhere, but I found no post of hers that addressed the points I made.

The only reason I am even invested in this is because of her glib replies. I had the benefit of there already being some post history to see that it was foolish to pursue any further. Redarmor did not, and I sympathize with him getting insulted and derided for making valid points that were ignored. No, I'm not saying his posts were perfect, but it is hard not to lapse into some toxicity when you see what kind of post replies he was getting.

Except redarmor wasn't doing the Ben Shapiro tactic. He was responding in earnest and others were ignoring the content of his comments.

Doesn't seem like they asked for that thread to be deleted.

Totally cool that all the comments here got deleted, but not the responses lying about why I said in them. Totally a cool thing to do.

he said shit like “this should be a copypasta”

Did you read the comment thread this came from? Seriously, read this and tell me redarmor acted inappropriately and self acted appropriately.

https://hexbear.net/post/80004/comment/863016

you said I mischaracterized someone because they didn’t say exactly the phrase I used but communicated that message with their repeated actions.

Is this talk about what you said in the first half of your comment? Are you trying to say that I was engaging in bad faith there? Because I was earnest, and still am.

Two days of people telling him in a variety of ways that he did a thing and him saying it didn’t happen or was okay,

But those people were just repeatedly calling him a reactionary or a misogynist! They never actually provided any criticism to his points besides just telling him to do some self crit! Red's position wasn't (as far as I could tell) that vocal fry had no misogynistic elements, or that it was OK to make fun of women with vocal fry, but merely that it was possible to have discussion about vocal fry from a non-sexist point of view. Chamomile and others did not engage at all with redarmor (or my) objections, just continuing with bad-jacketing.

Phrasing yes, but not tone.

Hey there’s that double-talk you wanted to find so bad!

This is exactly the sort of debatebroism "frustrating bad faith comments designed to get an emotional reaction" you talked about!

Jesus Christ, you are doing the same fucking thing! He didn't say he was above criticism, he just said he wasn't ipso facto a bad person for disagreeing with a woman! Those two links, (the first set of information) wasn't ignored, it was engaged with! One of them was just a link to a male radio host playing random news clips of women who had received comments and criticism on their vocal fry. At the end of the audio the male host goes "and did you notice I had vocal fry this whole segment" and yes, I did notice, from the get go, as I'm sure others did! This provides a great springboard for the conversation, but was not a substantial start. You can't just point back to the audio clip and say "I already answered that" of someone says they found male vocal fry annoying. THAT is engaging in bad faith.

Chamomile, did provide explanations for why this behavior was misogynistic

Yeah, she linked to a couple articles and then refused to engage with any points that other posters made in regard to the issue, saying things along the line of "I already answered that" when neither the article nor anything she commented had anything to do with what the replies were talking about.

Your middle two paragraphs are straight double-talk. Are you telling me that marginalized groups are automatically correct, or not? Because first you say, no, they aren't, and then go on to say that that doesn't matter, men have no right to comment on women's issues.

When does red make bad faith arguments? Was that before or after being called a bad revolutionary and a bad person by people who refused to explain themselves beyond link dropping and then proclaiming themselves to be right? Did chamomile or else ever, once, substantially reply to anyone else in a straight-forward, non-snarky way actually addressing the point made in their parent comment? Because I didn't see it.

@Cuttlefish @quartz242 I pinged you mods, as you said you prefer to discuss mod actions openly, and this thread seems to be quite clearly about such a mod action.

In Defense of @RedArmor and @Mightyquinn Firstly, I would like to say that I clearly have a side in this argument: that mentioning vocal fry is not a sufficient condition for sexism. Also I apologize if I missed any part of the discussion. The UI of the site is hard enough to navigate, and navigating removed comments makes it even harder. I also don't want to discuss anything about vocal fry here, just the actions of users and the response by mods.

Why were Mightyquinn's posts removed? Chamomile's initial post was pretty short, and when mightyquinn put an extended, polite response she responded by saying "I did answer your question" when, from what I can tell from the modlog, nothing she said addressed any of mightyquinn's points. She then accuses him of debatebroism and other bad faith actions. He responds with some mild shit-flinging, but still tries to maintain a substantial dialog. So, why is the mod response on this so one sided?

In regards to RedArmor, I have a harder time telling what comments specifically the mod action was taken about, since he has made so many. He has some salty posts, mainly two where he dragged comments from the vocal fry thread into other threads, but that hardly seems ban worthy, especially in comparison to some of the other user's replies to him. In a reply with _else, he used the metaphor of "painting a picture". _else went on a scattershot rant about denigrating her art (somehow interpreting a clear metaphorical use as literal) culminating in vitriolically insulting basically every fiber of RedArmor's being. Throughout the exchange he remains considerably more composed. Why was he get banned? What acts of misogyny did he commit?

The Bigger Picture: Throughout the exchange, posters who thought that criticizing vocal fry was not inherently misogynistic were told to believe women about this issue. I have a fundamental problem with how they said this: Yes, we should listen to and engage with women, POC, marginalized people, etc, with an understanding ear; but the mere act of being one does not automatically qualify someone's opinions on the topic as correct. How many anti-black black people, transphobic trans people, and bourgeois-venerating poor people exist, and are sometimes given prominence? Certainly we should not take their positions at face value. Secondly, these users were consistently told to self-crit, or told that they were bad leftists because they failed to self crit. At the same time, their responses were ignored and their arguments sidestepped. Is that the way to get someone to come round to a greater understanding? Sure, humiliate them, but humiliate them through humiliation of their arguments, not merely by proclaiming yourself to be right (from an innate property!) and them to be wrong. The one-sidedness and glibness of some users in that thread are directly opposed to any such comradely goals.

blaming cis women for adjusting voices to their culture to gain respect.

what?

Yeah I think you are thinking of uptalk. It doesn't happen to me, but there is some conceivable basis for vocal fry causing discomfort. For example (unrelated to fry or uptalk) some youtube videos that I watch cause physical discomfort in my ears-- kind of like a milder form of when you hear something really loud and your ear shuts off. Something about the way the voice is mixed is just physically grating. Even turning the audio down to barely perceptible levels doesn't solve it.

Uptalk is a purely prescpitivist social thing, like you said.

Removed by mod

Literally didn't address any of that. All you said was vocal fry has a sexist background, so any and all criticism of vocal fry must be sexist

up to the frequencies that cis women typically hit at the high points of speaking in vocal fry

except vocal fry is in lower frequencies?

But I unironically immediately thought the guy reading the intro (ira glass?) to have an annoying voice while none of the women bothered me. Is that misogyny?

Saying that vocal fry is more often noticed in women and that that is a bad thing is an understandable position. What is not understandable is saying that ever criticizing vocal fry is misogyny. I have no strong feelings about Red Scare one way or the other. I opened their most recent episode and skipped to the middle to listen, and while their regular voices are tolerable, at times they draw out words in the most grating manner! Are you going to say that drawing out one word over 3 seconds like that is not a choice?

when's the last time you saw god?