The fucking comments on here are insane. It’s not a private comm, and pretty much every comment that’s been deleted for being posted by a male user was because they explicitly stated they were male. As in started off a comment (usually on women’s issues) with “as a guy…”
Go on a linux forum and post “as a windows user…”
Go on PC gamers and post “as a console gamer…”
Would have a problem with being told “this is not for you” then? No, you wouldn’t. You’re literally just not used to being told it’s not your turn to speak. Get over it.
And to those who demand it be taken off all: fucking learn how to curate your own experience. Skip over or block it the same way you would other communities that have nothing for you
So as a guy on some men only subreddit, I also welcomed the opinion of women while expecting them to clarify.
So you’re ok with a community defining how it wants people outside its demographic to interact with it?
Also you literally do not have to interact with the community. No one is shoving it in your face or demanding you join and then going HAHAHHAHA PSYCH you can literally just scroll past it.
Yeah, I concur. When I learned I wasn’t allowed to speak there, I simply blocked it and moved on. They can have whatever rules they want. No one is obligated to be there.
On the flip side, I can see it being irksome to click a post and have your comment be deleted because you didn’t notice that community it was or didn’t read every rule for every community.
I’ll wager the vast majority of users don’t read community rules until they run afoul of one. Personally, I just shrug it off and move on, it’s not like whining about it is going to make an entire community change it’s rules to accommodate you.
Eh, irkers can sit down. It’s long been a thing about paying attention to community rules before posting, and if you don’t and violate them, you don’t get to whinge.
To be fair the vast, vast majority of the rules are simply common sense stuff. If you are not an asshole, you can avoid reading community rules and in 99% of case you won’t violate any.
I feel based on the name of the community, some rules would be obvious. But a “absolutely nothing from you, male scum” isn’t obvious.
I posted one there yesterday or this morning, haven’t checked on it, but it’s probably deleted now. No harm no foul. It wasn’t meant to break a rule, and they can do what they want. But I would’ve never even known if not for this post.
But I will be blocking the sub now. Both because I’m apparently not welcome, and because I will probably accidentally do it again otherwise.
Edit: It wasn’t that sub after checking. Phew. One less toxic place to be.
“Women only…trans women are women, and gender critical talk isn’t allowed. Anyone under the trans umbrella (eg non-binary, bigender, agender) is free to decide whether a woman’s community is a good fit for them”
Literally does not say “male scum”, that’s something you’ve invented entirely. Wonder why that’s your response.
I feel based on the name of the community, some rules would be obvious. But a “absolutely nothing from you, male scum” isn’t obvious.
Rules…
Women only… trans women are women, and transphobic or gender critical talk isn’t allowed. Anyone under the trans umbrella (e.g. non-binary, bigender, agender) is free to decide whether a women’s community is a good fit for them.
I understand, you’re a man, you have an opinion, and being told ‘no’ just won’t cut it, will it?
Did you miss the first 9 words you quoted or something? Seems like you’re misrepresenting what was said in quite a profound way.
OP claims it’s not obvious from the title; you claim it’s obvious from the rules; Both of these statements can be true at the same time.
Also, now that they’re aware, they’ve blocked the community to prevent any engagement… Can you explain how that translates to them not accepting the situation?
“male scum” oof. Maybe cool it a little with the self-victimization, friend.
If you genuinely don’t understand why it’s helpful to have both kinds of spaces and not something to get mad about, I’m happy to explain. But some good-faith effort on your part is required.
this reminds me way too much of the “let women have their own spaces” rhetoric when it comes to cis women wanting to exclude trans women. you can’t expect the people who you are actively excluding from your group not to be a little hurt by it, even if it isn’t something they’d be interested in.
Would have a problem with being told “this is not for you” then? No, you wouldn’t.
This is a terrible example, because yes absolutely I would indeed consider the mods to be militant over-the-top a-holes if they deleted and blocked all comments just because they were from Windows or console users.
Consider what the word “majority” means and how that impacts the balance of such discussions. Especially on a platform where people vote on each other’s comments.
In the Linux forum example, the occasional “as a Windows user…” comment isn’t a problem, but it does become one when it makes up 80-90% of comments / visitors. Try to understand how this shapes a community when the relatively few directly affected people (for whom the community was created in the first place) are annoyed by this and stop contributing.
This is why you need both kinds of spaces, and why it’s silly and short-sighted to get mad over this policy.
The person you are replying to never mentioned their stance on the rule in question, only the analogies used by the original commenter… Which are terrible analogies both for skisnow’s reasoning, and your comment as well.
They are not the same thing, because of the power dynamics at play, and I think most people in either a linux forum or PC gaming forum would react negatively if the mods banned people for one comment made while not being the “target demographic”.
Also, someone can use both linux and windows. Someone can play PC games and console. They might have valuable insight having experiences from both.
That doesn’t really apply to a women’s only community. (although I am curious what WomensStuff’s stance on Trans people is - I don’t know of the community that much to be honest).
vegan communities might be a closer example. A community of people vastly outnumbered by carnivores that have strong feelings about vegans. Generally when a vegan post gets popular, the comments become a bit of a shit fest due to the influx of people with less positive views of veganism. /r/SeattleWA had a similar issue and without effective moderation, turned into a place for non-Seattlites to complain about Seattle.
AFAIK WomensStuff is open to trans women and nonbinary folks - pretty much anyone who identifies with womanhood on some level and can speak on it based on their own personal experience.
as a nonbinary person with lived experience across the gender spectrum I feel at home both in WomensStuff as well as MensLib type communities, so the “windows + linux” example definitely applies in these spaces too.
Maybe we are missing some context. Did a target demographics’ contributions get drowned out by others in this or a similar community? Or are you only worried it could happen based on the demographics of the platform?
Yes that is absolutely the norm in such communities. It was the same for subreddits that went default.
Obviously you can’t trace every single up-/downvote and comment to a certain gender, but it’s very apparent from the content of comments and the general tone. That’s the whole issue.
You’re literally just not used to being told it’s not your turn to speak.
I respect their rules on that community as browsing Everything (Sync) it shows up for me fairly regularly and I haven’t had any issues.
I reject the part I literally quoted.
I care about precision in communication and fighting against entropic decay in how we communicate so I feel compelled to respond to this quote.
I am a male and because of that I have no turn to speak there so you are flat out wrong. It will never be my turn. It is inaccurate what you are saying.
Please consider reframing what you said.
and using literally there makes your error much more egregious, literally
You’re literally just not used to being told it’s not your turn to speak. Get over it.
Isn’t the goal to move past this behavior when based on immutable qualities rather than merit? The ethical value of a reverse country club model is pretty controversial.
the rule isn’t based on an immutable quality - the community accepts AMAB trans women and nonbinary folks. It’s in line with the goal of the community being to discuss experiences with womanhood - people that don’t identify with any aspect of it aren’t who the community is for.
Usually self-policing is good enough for this kind of thing. as an American, I don’t have much reason to comment in European centered communities, and while I do occasionally see Americans posting there, it’s pretty rare. (and even more rarely welcomed, lol)
That changes when it’s a community of people that are vastly outnumbered by those that have strong feelings about them. take vegan communities for instance. Check the comments of any vegan community post that gets popular, it’s often a shit fest due to the influx of carnivore opinions, and I can understand mods not feeling able to keep up when this happens. Without enforcing some kind of standard in line with the goals of the community, you turn into /r/SeattleWA, a place for non-Seattlites to complain about Seattle.
Ideally I think this rule doesn’t exist, ideally this could be like other communities where people recognize their opinion isn’t needed here and move on - but that’s absolutely not going to happen with a women’s community.
You can very easily block it if you don’t like the idea of a community that isn’t for you, but e.g. as an American I do like checking in on European communities to see what’s going on over there. Even if they’re clowning on us. That’s ok.
True, I guess immutable wasn’t the right term. It’s mutable, but it’s not really a choice.
I do disagree that banning men is necessarily helpful for the discussion of women’s issues though. Yes, some women’s issues are so far removed from our experience that most male advice wouldn’t be helpful. But I believe there is always value to be found, even-- actually, especially-- from the outgroup. This is the exact rationale for DEI, or at least the one that I find reasonable, which is that having perspectives from people with a wider variety of experiences represented in a space can improve the discussions within it. When done correctly, this improves the experience of the people who the group is “for”. Mixing perspectives with outgroup members like this also improves the mutual understanding between the group’s members and nonmembers, which in this case especially is important. And it allows people to more easily become allies.
What we don’t want is people with a hostile view of the group to be free to participate as much as they want. Maybe banning all men from the community is necessary, or maybe just efficient, to fulfill this purpose. In this case the ban might be worth it, but the loss of external perspectives is a downside and that should be considered here and always.
Like another user replied, there’s a difference between “this isn’t for you” and “you aren’t allowed here”. There aren’t a lot of other public high-quality places to discuss women’s issues, so as a man your options are to:
Not discuss them, at most trying to understand by watching
Start your own community for men to discuss women’s issues, which without womens’ perspectives is not likely to go well
Start a community for all genders to discuss it – maybe I should do this one tbh, although maybe it might be smarter to expand the topic a little. This being the best option may be why I feel compelled to argue for the merits of gender inclusivity in the community we’re discussing
Maybe banning all men from the community is necessary, or maybe just efficient, to fulfill this purpose.
Yeah, that’s more or less how I see the rule too. Ideally it wouldn’t exist, but without something like it in place, the majority of comments in a women’s issues community would come from men, especially on popular/controversial posts, and the mod team would get bogged down trying to keep discussion on topic. The tradeoff is between creating a community where women can speak to each other on these issues, or including men, some of whom would positively contribute to discussion and have their own relevant experiences to offer. The former isn’t really something that exists otherwise on Lemmy and I do feel it’s important to have a community to fulfill that purpose. I don’t see a more inclusive mod policy that’s simple enough to communicate as a rule for WomensStuff, but other communities could definitely step up to fill that role.
The last two bullet points are good ideas and it’d be completely valid imo to respond to a post in WomensStuff in another community including men. (“Guys, how do we feel about this?” kinda threads) !mensliberation@lemmy.ca may be what you’re looking for, it’s primarily for men and masc people but it is open to everyone to comment. (though my impression is that the vast majority of people there are men)
There you’d find discussion of issues men face too, and discussion of women’s issues could be framed around how men can respond to them. I think it’d actually be cool to encourage discussion of women’s issues among men, without women necessarily being present - I have a feeling different opinions and feelings would come up in a men’s community that probably need to be processed and understood, among people with lived experience as a man. Back when I identified as such I personally benefited a lot from browsing /r/MensLib and engaging in those types of discussions. So long as it’s centered around productive discussion rather than blaming women, which I do see these types of communities do a good job of.
Also similar to why religious (online) comunities will usually deny the talk if “dissents” (also atheist comunities having rules against proselytizing, which do makes sense)
In the end, it sums up to “Don’t be an asshole” rule
I expect in most online communities if you made a post like
“As a windows user, I am looking into linux and have heard that some common apps don’t run well. Is that an issue you all run into much?”
or
“As a console gamer, I find myself envying some of the mods I see through Steam/Nexus and am thinking about switching platforms. Is it hard to get controllers working well in most games?”
or something similar, you would be welcomed by the people there. You just need to be respectful and on-topic.
I imagine that community probably has frustrating behaviors that men do as a common topic. Having men reply about why they would do a particular behavior or the sorts of strategies that could get other men to stop it would be not only acceptable, but valuable. Silencing their voices without cause then does a disservice to not only those users, but to the community as a whole. By not letting men reply, you’d be criticizing a large group of people while also preventing any member of the group from having a chance to defend themselves.
You can try to justify discriminating a place, but it is a high bar to clear, especially on a core part of someone’s identity like gender. It’s akin to preemptively banning someone based on that characteristic. There’s a difference between “this is not for you” and “you are not allowed here”. I can only really think of that much restriction being necessary in a very private community where content can reasonably identify someone or the members are very vulnerable.
IIRC, r/BlackPeopleTwitter had country club threads where only users the mods had verified were black could participate in. So there’s probably a compromise to have restrictions on a post-by-post basis. As it stands, if they’re primarily banning the users that include “as a guy…” in their replies then they are really just selecting against the ones that are being upfront about it. I really don’t want to see another r/FemaleDatingStrategy develop and a big contributor for that toxicity was silencing diverse opinions.
Reminds me of the dude who came in here complaining about being banned from r/nintendo or something, because he was part of the r/fucknintendo sub. Everyone was supportive of him here. The playstation sub on reddit is dominated by PC masterrace preachers too, but they’re allowed. That’s a bit annoying to me, but I don’t make the rules.
The fucking comments on here are insane. It’s not a private comm, and pretty much every comment that’s been deleted for being posted by a male user was because they explicitly stated they were male. As in started off a comment (usually on women’s issues) with “as a guy…”
Go on a linux forum and post “as a windows user…”
Go on PC gamers and post “as a console gamer…”
Would have a problem with being told “this is not for you” then? No, you wouldn’t. You’re literally just not used to being told it’s not your turn to speak. Get over it.
And to those who demand it be taken off all: fucking learn how to curate your own experience. Skip over or block it the same way you would other communities that have nothing for you
BS, we had the same argument on Reddit
So as a guy on some men only subreddit, I also welcomed the opinion of women while expecting them to clarify.
As a nerd in many “year of Linux on the desktop” debates, I welcomed constructive opinions from the benighted fools
As a PC gamer I want to game with my buddies so yes I want the opinion of those on consoles
So you’re ok with a community defining how it wants people outside its demographic to interact with it?
Also you literally do not have to interact with the community. No one is shoving it in your face or demanding you join and then going HAHAHHAHA PSYCH you can literally just scroll past it.
No other publically visible community has posts that I find interesting but am not allowed to interact with.
You do get “but i want it” isn’t a valid reason past the age of like six, right?
Yeah, I concur. When I learned I wasn’t allowed to speak there, I simply blocked it and moved on. They can have whatever rules they want. No one is obligated to be there.
On the flip side, I can see it being irksome to click a post and have your comment be deleted because you didn’t notice that community it was or didn’t read every rule for every community.
I’ll wager the vast majority of users don’t read community rules until they run afoul of one. Personally, I just shrug it off and move on, it’s not like whining about it is going to make an entire community change it’s rules to accommodate you.
Eh, irkers can sit down. It’s long been a thing about paying attention to community rules before posting, and if you don’t and violate them, you don’t get to whinge.
To be fair the vast, vast majority of the rules are simply common sense stuff. If you are not an asshole, you can avoid reading community rules and in 99% of case you won’t violate any.
I feel based on the name of the community, some rules would be obvious. But a “absolutely nothing from you, male scum” isn’t obvious.
I posted one there yesterday or this morning, haven’t checked on it, but it’s probably deleted now. No harm no foul. It wasn’t meant to break a rule, and they can do what they want. But I would’ve never even known if not for this post.
But I will be blocking the sub now. Both because I’m apparently not welcome, and because I will probably accidentally do it again otherwise.
Edit: It wasn’t that sub after checking. Phew. One less toxic place to be.
“Women only…trans women are women, and gender critical talk isn’t allowed. Anyone under the trans umbrella (eg non-binary, bigender, agender) is free to decide whether a woman’s community is a good fit for them”
Literally does not say “male scum”, that’s something you’ve invented entirely. Wonder why that’s your response.
I understand, you’re a man, you have an opinion, and being told ‘no’ just won’t cut it, will it?
Did you miss the first 9 words you quoted or something? Seems like you’re misrepresenting what was said in quite a profound way.
OP claims it’s not obvious from the title; you claim it’s obvious from the rules; Both of these statements can be true at the same time.
Also, now that they’re aware, they’ve blocked the community to prevent any engagement… Can you explain how that translates to them not accepting the situation?
“male scum” oof. Maybe cool it a little with the self-victimization, friend.
If you genuinely don’t understand why it’s helpful to have both kinds of spaces and not something to get mad about, I’m happy to explain. But some good-faith effort on your part is required.
Ftfy: “Go on Lemmy and post ‘as a windows user…’”
Heheh. Oh and… by the way loads gun what flavor of Linux do you use?
Facts right here. Learn how to let people have their own space. Sometimes a thing isn’t meant for you, and that’s okay.
Saying “you are not allowed here” is a step up from saying “this isn’t meant for you”
this reminds me way too much of the “let women have their own spaces” rhetoric when it comes to cis women wanting to exclude trans women. you can’t expect the people who you are actively excluding from your group not to be a little hurt by it, even if it isn’t something they’d be interested in.
This is a terrible example, because yes absolutely I would indeed consider the mods to be militant over-the-top a-holes if they deleted and blocked all comments just because they were from Windows or console users.
Consider what the word “majority” means and how that impacts the balance of such discussions. Especially on a platform where people vote on each other’s comments.
In the Linux forum example, the occasional “as a Windows user…” comment isn’t a problem, but it does become one when it makes up 80-90% of comments / visitors. Try to understand how this shapes a community when the relatively few directly affected people (for whom the community was created in the first place) are annoyed by this and stop contributing.
This is why you need both kinds of spaces, and why it’s silly and short-sighted to get mad over this policy.
The person you are replying to never mentioned their stance on the rule in question, only the analogies used by the original commenter… Which are terrible analogies both for skisnow’s reasoning, and your comment as well.
They are not the same thing, because of the power dynamics at play, and I think most people in either a linux forum or PC gaming forum would react negatively if the mods banned people for one comment made while not being the “target demographic”.
Also, someone can use both linux and windows. Someone can play PC games and console. They might have valuable insight having experiences from both.
That doesn’t really apply to a women’s only community. (although I am curious what WomensStuff’s stance on Trans people is - I don’t know of the community that much to be honest).
“My favorite linux distro is WSL”
vegan communities might be a closer example. A community of people vastly outnumbered by carnivores that have strong feelings about vegans. Generally when a vegan post gets popular, the comments become a bit of a shit fest due to the influx of people with less positive views of veganism. /r/SeattleWA had a similar issue and without effective moderation, turned into a place for non-Seattlites to complain about Seattle.
AFAIK WomensStuff is open to trans women and nonbinary folks - pretty much anyone who identifies with womanhood on some level and can speak on it based on their own personal experience.
as a nonbinary person with lived experience across the gender spectrum I feel at home both in WomensStuff as well as MensLib type communities, so the “windows + linux” example definitely applies in these spaces too.
Maybe we are missing some context. Did a target demographics’ contributions get drowned out by others in this or a similar community? Or are you only worried it could happen based on the demographics of the platform?
Yes that is absolutely the norm in such communities. It was the same for subreddits that went default.
Obviously you can’t trace every single up-/downvote and comment to a certain gender, but it’s very apparent from the content of comments and the general tone. That’s the whole issue.
I respect their rules on that community as browsing Everything (Sync) it shows up for me fairly regularly and I haven’t had any issues.
I reject the part I literally quoted.
I care about precision in communication and fighting against entropic decay in how we communicate so I feel compelled to respond to this quote.
I am a male and because of that I have no turn to speak there so you are flat out wrong. It will never be my turn. It is inaccurate what you are saying.
Please consider reframing what you said.
and using literally there makes your error much more egregious, literally
Mate, i’m ASD and saying dial it back.
I’m not ASD and saying nobody cares about your diagnosis.
Isn’t the goal to move past this behavior when based on immutable qualities rather than merit? The ethical value of a reverse country club model is pretty controversial.
the rule isn’t based on an immutable quality - the community accepts AMAB trans women and nonbinary folks. It’s in line with the goal of the community being to discuss experiences with womanhood - people that don’t identify with any aspect of it aren’t who the community is for.
Usually self-policing is good enough for this kind of thing. as an American, I don’t have much reason to comment in European centered communities, and while I do occasionally see Americans posting there, it’s pretty rare. (and even more rarely welcomed, lol)
That changes when it’s a community of people that are vastly outnumbered by those that have strong feelings about them. take vegan communities for instance. Check the comments of any vegan community post that gets popular, it’s often a shit fest due to the influx of carnivore opinions, and I can understand mods not feeling able to keep up when this happens. Without enforcing some kind of standard in line with the goals of the community, you turn into /r/SeattleWA, a place for non-Seattlites to complain about Seattle.
Ideally I think this rule doesn’t exist, ideally this could be like other communities where people recognize their opinion isn’t needed here and move on - but that’s absolutely not going to happen with a women’s community.
You can very easily block it if you don’t like the idea of a community that isn’t for you, but e.g. as an American I do like checking in on European communities to see what’s going on over there. Even if they’re clowning on us. That’s ok.
True, I guess immutable wasn’t the right term. It’s mutable, but it’s not really a choice.
I do disagree that banning men is necessarily helpful for the discussion of women’s issues though. Yes, some women’s issues are so far removed from our experience that most male advice wouldn’t be helpful. But I believe there is always value to be found, even-- actually, especially-- from the outgroup. This is the exact rationale for DEI, or at least the one that I find reasonable, which is that having perspectives from people with a wider variety of experiences represented in a space can improve the discussions within it. When done correctly, this improves the experience of the people who the group is “for”. Mixing perspectives with outgroup members like this also improves the mutual understanding between the group’s members and nonmembers, which in this case especially is important. And it allows people to more easily become allies.
What we don’t want is people with a hostile view of the group to be free to participate as much as they want. Maybe banning all men from the community is necessary, or maybe just efficient, to fulfill this purpose. In this case the ban might be worth it, but the loss of external perspectives is a downside and that should be considered here and always.
Like another user replied, there’s a difference between “this isn’t for you” and “you aren’t allowed here”. There aren’t a lot of other public high-quality places to discuss women’s issues, so as a man your options are to:
Yeah, that’s more or less how I see the rule too. Ideally it wouldn’t exist, but without something like it in place, the majority of comments in a women’s issues community would come from men, especially on popular/controversial posts, and the mod team would get bogged down trying to keep discussion on topic. The tradeoff is between creating a community where women can speak to each other on these issues, or including men, some of whom would positively contribute to discussion and have their own relevant experiences to offer. The former isn’t really something that exists otherwise on Lemmy and I do feel it’s important to have a community to fulfill that purpose. I don’t see a more inclusive mod policy that’s simple enough to communicate as a rule for WomensStuff, but other communities could definitely step up to fill that role.
The last two bullet points are good ideas and it’d be completely valid imo to respond to a post in WomensStuff in another community including men. (“Guys, how do we feel about this?” kinda threads) !mensliberation@lemmy.ca may be what you’re looking for, it’s primarily for men and masc people but it is open to everyone to comment. (though my impression is that the vast majority of people there are men)
There you’d find discussion of issues men face too, and discussion of women’s issues could be framed around how men can respond to them. I think it’d actually be cool to encourage discussion of women’s issues among men, without women necessarily being present - I have a feeling different opinions and feelings would come up in a men’s community that probably need to be processed and understood, among people with lived experience as a man. Back when I identified as such I personally benefited a lot from browsing /r/MensLib and engaging in those types of discussions. So long as it’s centered around productive discussion rather than blaming women, which I do see these types of communities do a good job of.
To add the most blatant and widespread version of “as a man”:
“But in the usa…”
Also similar to why religious (online) comunities will usually deny the talk if “dissents” (also atheist comunities having rules against proselytizing, which do makes sense)
In the end, it sums up to “Don’t be an asshole” rule
I expect in most online communities if you made a post like “As a windows user, I am looking into linux and have heard that some common apps don’t run well. Is that an issue you all run into much?” or “As a console gamer, I find myself envying some of the mods I see through Steam/Nexus and am thinking about switching platforms. Is it hard to get controllers working well in most games?” or something similar, you would be welcomed by the people there. You just need to be respectful and on-topic.
I imagine that community probably has frustrating behaviors that men do as a common topic. Having men reply about why they would do a particular behavior or the sorts of strategies that could get other men to stop it would be not only acceptable, but valuable. Silencing their voices without cause then does a disservice to not only those users, but to the community as a whole. By not letting men reply, you’d be criticizing a large group of people while also preventing any member of the group from having a chance to defend themselves.
You can try to justify discriminating a place, but it is a high bar to clear, especially on a core part of someone’s identity like gender. It’s akin to preemptively banning someone based on that characteristic. There’s a difference between “this is not for you” and “you are not allowed here”. I can only really think of that much restriction being necessary in a very private community where content can reasonably identify someone or the members are very vulnerable.
IIRC, r/BlackPeopleTwitter had country club threads where only users the mods had verified were black could participate in. So there’s probably a compromise to have restrictions on a post-by-post basis. As it stands, if they’re primarily banning the users that include “as a guy…” in their replies then they are really just selecting against the ones that are being upfront about it. I really don’t want to see another r/FemaleDatingStrategy develop and a big contributor for that toxicity was silencing diverse opinions.
Very well said
Reminds me of the dude who came in here complaining about being banned from r/nintendo or something, because he was part of the r/fucknintendo sub. Everyone was supportive of him here. The playstation sub on reddit is dominated by PC masterrace preachers too, but they’re allowed. That’s a bit annoying to me, but I don’t make the rules.
i genuinely wouldn’t have a problem with windows users on linux forums or console gamers on pc forums. maybe you should get over it.