Neanderthal Lands' postings in the RMB

I’d like our moderators to review whether Neanderthal Lands’ posts on our RMB violate our Community Standards.

Post in question: “it is well known that women often vote based upon feelings and impressions”

More specifically, does this post violate our rule on Offensive Material, which states in part:

Material that is discriminatory based on race, sex, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, national origin, religion, or appearance.

It seems so to me. We will discuss it further in the moderator chat.

While the poster is probably foolish, exactly how is the post in question discriminatory?

I would argue that it implies that women are inherently emotional (Implicitly contrasting with “cold, hard, logical men”) which in turn implies that women are less likely to be rational.

Sigh… the original complaint was never presented to myself or any of the other rmb mods, instead choosing for what ever reason, to post a petition here. Regardless if you agree or disagree with the statement in question, it’s a matter of if we’re just going to be ignored whenever someone thinks to pull juice, why should we actually do the job.

For the record, I’m not in the RMB much at all, I was just answering your above question based on the post.

I petitioned the moderators here so there would be a public and accessible record of it, which would have been much more difficult if it was posted on the RMB, where it could have easily been lost. Frankly, there’s also the fact that the post remained unsuppressed and, somehow, the question must be asked how the post in question is discriminatory.

I don’t just suppress something because it annoys me. If you had come to me in telegrams and expressed concerns and backed it with a rule, I would’ve looked into it. Or I would’ve talked with Amerion over it to seek a resolution over the issue. Did you even bother to report it to NS mods if it was rule breaking?

1 Like

Honestly, I don’t bother reporting much to NS mods these days because they have a 2005 mindset when it comes to moderation. Pretty much like moderation on Twitter these days.

1 Like

You do realize to me 2005 isn’t ancient history, right? And the majority of our guidelines are based on NS standards, so a problem in one is a problem in the other.

1 Like

Was RMB moderation given a chance to review this report? If not then I’m not sure why it’s being elevated to the forum.

1 Like

No complaints were told to me. I’m not sure if the others were notified, but something as serious as this would’ve included both myself and Amerion at some point.

I saw the initial post, but I hadn’t remembered that the 19th ammendment was the one that allowed womwn to vote until I saw someone bring it up on the discord. And, unless someone has communicated with me about it via discord, which I am unable to check right now, I have not recieved a complaint about it. I understand why people may want to take action.

I agree that it seems to break the rules.

Disagree on the quoted part of the post violating RMB Community Standards rule on Offensive material – regarding sex & gender. Below terms are taken in a legal context:


The statement is (albeit disputed - thus untrue) an opinion.
“It is well known” does not mean anything, further amplified by “often”. By whom is it well known? How frequently?
“Vote[ing] based upon feelings and impressions” while a discussion point, also heavily disputed, with no consensus among anyone employed in Campaign Management & other related fields.
Furthermore, the target audience of “women” is heavily reductive due to its universalist nature. All women, all time, everywhere?
Overall, I agree with Drystar – “foolish”, though I’d say the statement itself is. The entire statement doesn’t mean anything. Although it might have intent, the purpose this serves is null.


The statement alone is a showcase of confirmation bias by the poster. Although the process by which the conclusion-presupposition (unclear which) was reached is incorrect, the widest context of its intent we can draw is a propaganda piece. This is unconvincing.

The statement from the entire reply which is more troubling, in the context of Offensive material rules, but points regarding ethnicity and national origin is:

The Germans are a very logical people.

The following is subjective opinion, not to be taken as a reading:
Subjectively (as the OP discrimination point targets the group), I don’t feel targeted by the statement, I find it saddening.
The paradigm which the reply as a whole implies is that of dividing the subjective aspects (aesthetics, sentiment, art…) from the objective aspects (logical-rational, empirical-analytical, science…) of general human nature & behavior.