Sexist claims suck.

False claims and offensive claims can be valuable. It's valuable to learn about opinions that we disagree with and who holds them, if only to learn that someone is full of crap. A "web of trust" app needs a "web of distrust" as well ;)

Patrick: that claim tells me something about the claimant and its voters. I'm not saying that I want to see offensive claims for their own sake, I'm saying that they can tell us things.

For example: submit a sexist claim. Look at the location information of the people voting for and against. You've collected demographic information.

Or: submit a sexist claim and a claim that asserts the opposite. If different people vote on them, or more vote for one than the other, you've collected information about how people respond to language.

I don't have strong feelings about them. If nothing else they provide some insight to the person who made them as Karl said. And they provide some lulz in the flame war that ensuses

Sexist claims may be useful, but I still think they suck. The fact that they may be useful also sucks, as it means that enough people are flawed for gathering information about it to be useful.

Good point, now I can vote for this claim.

Having your abdomen sliced open sucks, even if dying of appendicitis sucks worse.

Because "sucks" is a sexual term and sexuality is not sexist.

No, because I don't actually agree that the usage implies that. Even if we take as a given that "sucks" relates to oral sex given to a man (which I don't think is necessarily valid) then we have to make the leap that using it in a negative way implies that the act itself is demeaning.

I think we need to look at whether the use of other words in a similar way implies that. "Fucker" is a good example.

If I say, "You're a fucker." then I am insulting you and most people would take that as a bad thing. However, I do not think most people would take that to mean that having sex is a bad thing or that you are a bad person because you have sex.

In fact, I could even say, "You're such a fucker that nobody is ever gonna want to have sex with you." and while that sounds contradictory, I think most people would understand it, because when we use the sexual terms in a way divorced of the sex act itself, we change the meanings. Much the way that "bastard" really has two meanings now, one is a bad person and one is a person who was born out of wedlock. Context usually makes the situation clear.

While I agree that historically words like "fucker", "bastard", and "sucks" were used to denote an anti-sex attitude (note, not a sexist attitude, but an overall view that sex was bad), I think they are losing that meaning and becoming words that when used in these ways do not even convey their sexual meanings anymore. Much the way people use the word "lame" to mean something is unpopular or bad rather than that it has difficulty walking. You can try to point out the earlier meaning of lame to them, but they don't even think about it when they use it, which is the only reason they are not insulting the disabled when they use "lame" to mean "bad".

Basically because I think even when looked at in context of the sex act, it's not sexist, but anti-sex. There's a difference. It's not picking on women; it's picking on sex.

I hold this view because sex (in the sense of biological sex) neutral terms like "fucker" are also viewed as negative. It's not that sex acts commonly viewed as feminine are bad, but that it's part of a stupid Puritanesque morality system that has issues with sex.

Sexist claims are illustrative.

Also, sexism sucks.