Warwick University and Stonewall

"a year or two back The Times handed moderation to this outfit:

www.openweb.com/moderation-and-safety/

We actively incentivize and nudge users to be positive contributors. The more civil they are, the larger their reach and influence — creating a virtuous cycle of positive engagement."

I've trying to find on their website a definition of toxic user. Has anyone else looked?

Have you interviewed many staff? Yes, HR would consider the possibility these days that someone fresh out of a college or uni that is particularly mired in this would potentially have ideas and beliefs that would not work well in a professional environment. That’s being aware...

Mumoftwoinprimary - I thought it was somewhere up in the northeast that had the rape culture... god what are we letting our kids into?

It used to be that we wished to move away from labels and people wanted a world where we were allowed to just exist as we are. Now it seems they want to force labels onto everyone

And we’re ordered to think this is progressive.

So maybe it is a strategic upgrade by the university.

Why is who you sleep with or not sleep with being made into the most important thing about a person?

All these different labels that change constantly. Feelings changed from one minute to the next? Then you have a New gender identity minute to minute … Personality. That’s what it used to be called. Now parts of a personality are made into a label that supposedly defines who you are as a person.

It used to be that we wished to move away from labels and people wanted a world where we were allowed to just exist as we are. Now it seems they want to force labels onto everyone (focusing on children and young adults) to put themselves into a box and then to make that label the main focus of who they are.

Introducing yourself based on who you have sex with or what you identify as is amazingly abnormal and creates a sense of over familiarity in a moment where repoire is meant to be building. It’s a breakdown of boundaries in the most basic of human interactions. No one need to know such personal information on first or even second meeting. Why can’t we stick to introducing one another by name? Why even the need to explain your pronouns? As in English if I refer to you by name it’s fine. If I speak about you to someone else then you don’t have a right to dictate how I speak about you in my conversations to other.

Who you are sexually attracted to is not a personality. That’s one small part of who you are. It seems we are going to be faced with a generation of emotionally stunted individuals who have no concept of self unless it is around who they choose to sex. This is sad and worrying.

It is turning society into an even more sexually charged environment in all areas.
There are very few places one can go to that isn’t permeated by sex these days. Children can no longer just exist without sex even permeating what should be safe spaces for children to just exist.

It’s disturbing.

What I find the most bizarre about "non-binary, agender, undefined" etc is that no one needed any of those "categories" before gender ideology was a thing.

Surely all those things are just "bog standard boring human"?

We actively incentivize and nudge users to be positive contributors. The more civil they are, the larger their reach and influence — creating a virtuous cycle of positive engagement.

Ugh, so sinister. "Civil", "virtuous" and "positive" as defined by them, obviously.

"Undefined". That'll be me then as I refuse to have a "gender" and am definitely not a "cis-woman"

Indeed. Me too.

Wow. The “U” is quite a tell. This crazy ideology is all about defining people in categories and keeping them there.

This. It says it all.

That would offend me. I’m not the most feminine person on the planet but the basically say ‘I can’t even begin to guess your sex’ is a bit of a piss take.

"People should be introduced as “they” until they voice their pronouns."

I can't see this being very popular with non-binary people. It'll mean the pronoun "they" will end up as the default pronoun and how can they feel special if a bunch of "cis" people are also referred to as they.

"Undefined". That'll be me then as I refuse to have a "gender" and am definitely not a "cis-woman"

If I was interviewing staff these days, a fresh Warwick graduate would be viewed with suspicion. Would the be an insufferable brat? Would they be demanding mixed wax facilities? Asking for days off to hide under the bed if someone genders them (let alone misgender a them). What else would they be demanding as their god given right as a overindulged young person?

I’ve unsubscribed from Warwick’s alumni association telling them why.

I've had the same problem with the Times. I said this in a post along with another one. The post was passed but the comment about restrictions wasn't

DS was considering Warwick. God help us.

I noticed when I left home this morning that one of the most popular comments was from an Andy Pontin, who noted that he hadn't seen Josephine March's comments recently. He wondered what had happened to her, as she always gives (gave) such knowledgeable answers.

I came back this evening, and I see that that comment has been deleted! Along with many others, of course. What a joke!

Have the Times tightened up on commenters?

ItsRainingProstateOwners a year or two back The Times handed moderation to this outfit:

www.openweb.com/moderation-and-safety/

We actively incentivize and nudge users to be positive contributors. The more civil they are, the larger their reach and influence — creating a virtuous cycle of positive engagement.

Since that time many gender critical commentators have falling away. I've stopped commenting, even with a relatively innocuous style about 50% of my comments were getting deleted. It's odd that with The Times having a commitment to free speech, and free speech in this area particularly, they're enabing the silencing of dissent.

However, all those letters are about sexual orientation, sexual preferences. Who they want to have sex with or not have sex with. And what I see with DC’s friends etc is this unceasing and endless focus on their sexuality at earlier and earlier ages.

More worryingly, what’s happening is a conflation of their sexual orientation with their identity full stop. Maybe it’s just our area/DC’s school but every other aspect of identity is subordinated to ruminating on which letter represents them, which letter dominates. The anxiety these discussions provoke is heart breaking. No space or freedom or time to just be.

Plus, whilst LGBT have been / still are vulnerable, how are those ‘undefined’ marginalised or discriminated against? Surely by definition this is not possible?

All of this is aIded and fully abetted by well meaning adults (like you?) and a social media ruthlessly intent on prioritising content with extreme emotional content.

I came to comment about the "Undefined" label, surely they have completely jumped the shark now.

The entire world population fits under LGBTQUA+ if the U is undefined.

When will the LGB people who support this Stonewall type stuff realise that they have been marginalised within their own movement which has become so wide as to be meaningless.

It would be like BLM championing the rights of white people because all races matter, all lives matter.

ItsRaining Hasn’t the experience of Reddit shown that the real power to online commentary lies with moderators? If you silence those with concerns it’s so much easier to claim either no one cares or those that do care are a minority.

Also, Warwick has recently distributed pronouns badges, ran a survey managed by Stonewall, and has a page on ‘queering the university’. Now this Times article explains why.

Given the recent criticisms of Stonewall and loss of high profile diversity champions, perhaps there’s a push to rapidly disseminate its message as fast as possible through remaining partners?