BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Policy & Help >

What exactly does get you banned on Barbelith?

  
  

Page: 1234(5)678910... 42

 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
08:52 / 14.12.04
"I is black?" Does this not show an attitude and belief that the average person of color doesn't know proper grammar?

No. It's a reference to Ali G, the comic creation of the British comic Sasha Baron Cohen, and is primarily a joke aimed at white B-Boys from Staines (an exurb of London) who behave like they are from Los Angeles.

Now, Z., do you have anything to add to the discussion apart from "stop having it"? For example, how would *you* deal with a "racist slip-up"? Just ignore it? How do the many, many posts suggesting ways to deal with racist slip-ups in future strike you? Do you feel we should just let it go every time it happens, as long as we are pretty sure it was a "slip-up" rather than anything more serioous? How does that factor in to the way it appears on the board, say to somebody without our highly-developed nose for slip-ups?
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
09:02 / 14.12.04
Z. deScathach, read this wikipedia entry, especially the second paragraph of 'controversy'.
 
 
Z. deScathach
09:39 / 14.12.04
Yes, and Psionic Nurse's comment came from an episode of the Simpsons......

What I'm talking about is common sense. Our Lady made a comment from a British Comic. Psionic Nurse made a comment from the Simpson's. How are these different, other than one is in the Wiki and the other is not? Also, I don't recall the Simpson's getting picketed, but I bet it's happened... Don't you see, the same thing is about to happen with Our Lady...'s comment that happened with the other one. If there is a huge expolosion over EVERY slip of the tongue, people will just get fed up and leave. There's vicious racism and homophobia, and then there's an unthought-of comment. The unthought-of comment should be politely challenged. The damaging racism such as Fetch espoused should be strongly challenged,(yes, I know I questioned his banning before, but Tom's relating how such things almost destroyed Barbelith in the past changed my mind). What I'm saying is that the comment that Psionic Nurse made did not warrent 5 pages of flaming. Perhaps a warning, saying,"Gee that was insensitive, please don't do that again or we shall become upset." Oh, BTW, if the discussion about Our Lady's.... comment reaches 250 posts, I WILL freeze myself...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:01 / 14.12.04
I don't think I read 5 pages of flaming, though, Z. As Ganesh pointed out quite early, PsionicNurse was the example, not the question. I read a 5-page discussion, at times heated, on what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable commentary on Barbelith, and how we as a board should react to this now and in future, which some people have attempted to turn into personal flamewars because that is the level on which they operate most comfortably. That's quite a different thing. You're welcome to disagree with the wisdom of discussing it, or the wisdom of continuing now that we have moved into metadiscussion, of course. However, your ability to distinguish immediately and precisely what is an unintentional and utterly benign slip-up and what is vicious racism is, I fear, not common to everyone, and those unable to apply the same accuracy of intention-reading might well read:

Do Pietro and Wanda over-pronouce certain letters in words and do they smell of cabbage like all gypsies inherently do (I can be derogatory to gypsies because none of them know how to use a computer)

And think that that *was* pretty vicious (the idea that this is a comment about the representation of gypsies in comics is, of course, utterly unconvincing. First up, you can't smell people in comics), or at the very least utterly gratuitous, and that they don't want to occupy a board which tolerates it. So, polite challenge sounds good. I think I suggested we think about a form of words for the polite challenge on page 3 or 4 of this thread, and suggested a new thread. Perhaps you'd like to start the ball rolling, rather than bumping up the number of posts about OLOTF's quotation?
 
 
The Falcon
10:28 / 14.12.04
Haus, I would like to point out my 'paki' claim was not made for myself.

I cited a case in Scotland several years ago, which both you and I could not apparently find on the internet.

Next time this happens, you can of course mention the 'gay, and not in a good way' mini-furore and it'll be hugely more appropriate. Though, frankly I'd rather not be used as an object example for the next two years.

My tuppence will remain that I think words are not things, that they are only powerful if you choose to give them that power, and so on, and so on. But I realise this is a textually based interface, and our interactions here are solely text-based and we have designs on welcoming anyone regardless of race or sexual pref, so we certainly cannot condone hate-speech.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:09 / 14.12.04
I cited a case in Scotland several years ago, which both you and I could not apparently find on the internet.

Well, yeah. You cited a historical event no record of which actually happening can be found to support the idea that two words I associated with purely racist uses could simply be "descriptive diminutives", but I take your point. To a certain extent.

Next time this happens, you can of course mention the 'gay, and not in a good way' mini-furore and it'll be hugely more appropriate.

Hang on - wasn't that Toksik? As in "too hot can be bad when you die of heat exhaustion"? You, IIRC, wanted to know how anyone could be offended by "poof" when it was "such a jolly word"...

It scares me that I remember this.
 
 
Axolotl
12:36 / 14.12.04
Going back a few posts can I follow Tom in saying that I'm not a big fan of Calvinballronan's trollsome arguments, despite his quotation of my posts.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
13:05 / 14.12.04
It seems likely that the suit has been hijacked by Cunto, so you can safely ignore any posts that come from it from now on.
 
 
The Falcon
13:12 / 14.12.04
I'm sure if someone wanted to take the time to sift a law library, we could find it.

I know I really don't though.

I stand by 'poof', though, which is exclusively an affectionate term round my bit.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:41 / 14.12.04
OK, one more time. As far as I am concerned, you made that story up. Until any further proof is produced, you made it up. As the person who cited it, the burden of proof that it is not a fantastic false recollection is on your shoulders. If you can't be bothered to substantiate your claim, that's your right, but it means that there is no evidence to suggest that you did not make it up. Even if it *does* exist, it does not make it good law, but that's another question. If you want to make reference to cases that, as far as we know, took place only in your fantasy dream Scotland, expect to be asked to substantiate them, and expect not to be taken seriously if you say you cannot be bothered to when it should be a simple matter of record.

Many of us have encountered "poof" used both affectionately and abusively in all sorts of contexts and places. If it is only ever an affectionate term in your fantasy dream Scotland, that's great also, but it's not universalisable and why am I even having to do this again?

Can we get back onto the topic now, please?
 
 
The Falcon
15:31 / 14.12.04
Why would I make it up? What's so very hard to believe about it?

I really didn't want to go into this, but seeing you chose to mention me - incorrectly - among your list of poor fools who've transgressed Barbelith, I thought it best to rectify your error.

And the best you have to offer is "You're telling fibs"?

How unpleasant. Sometimes you're brilliant, Haus, and sometimes, just sometimes, I think you may be the problem.
 
 
The Falcon
15:36 / 14.12.04
Furthermore, I think we're all aware that the internet does not - as yet - contain free access to every written piece of information ever set down. Are you seriously suggesting that I ought to go to a law library and scan and format details of a case I read about in a newspaper some 8 or so years ago (and, oh, how I wish I had not) in order for you to believe me?

'Round my bit' is a little bit of vernacular which you can roughly translate as 'in my domain', and therefore absolutely does refer to my little non-fantasy area of Scotland.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:55 / 14.12.04
Duncan, read and think. You recounted a vague memory of having read about a Glasgow policeman being exonerated for shouting "stop, P***!" at a dark-skinned person, on the grounds that it was simply a descriptive term. You were unable to provide any grounds for this. You could not tell when it took place, or who was involved. You could not produce any documentary evidence to support your contention that it ever happened. A bloke in a pub could have told you, it could have happened in a satirical article, it might have been an urban myth, You could have dreamed it. You could not produce any evidence whatsoever that it ever happened, which given how controversial a ruling it would have been is frankly pretty improbable.

As such, I had very little faith in the accuracy of your recollection then, and I have very little faith now. If you or anyone else can provide any evidence that it happened, well and good. Otherwise, stop pretending that you can say with certainty that it did.

I didn't suggest you were lying. I suggested that you made it up. Different things. Read what I write, then try to form a coherent response to it. Otherwise you are not worth talking to, except to prevent others from being misled by you into believing that something is factually attested when it is not. Like right now.

So, actually, yeah. If you want to maintain that this happened, I *do* expect you to demonstrate that it did, whatever that entails, or admit that you have no proof whatsoever that it did except your own word, based on a fuzzy recollection. Let's say I say "Hang on, Duncan - I remember that you fucked those pigs. It was in the paper. I don't think we want a pigfucker like you around here. I mean, why would I make it up? What's so improbable about it?", you would be within your rights to demand that I back it up. I asked you to do the same. You did not. As such, this is what we call anecdotal evidence. Just like the baby-killing Bengalis of old London Town.

Now, does that answer this frankly tedious detour? Will you actually now either contribute something of value to the thread or just stop rotting it? You're a moderator, Duncan - for Christ's sake actlike one once in a while.
 
 
HCE
00:27 / 15.12.04
However, I must admit that, personally, I find "casual racism" - the stuff that might readily slip under one's rader - almost more worthy of comment.

Back on topic, I agree with Ganesh's comment, above. Extremists do enough damage to their own credibility without my help. Having had to explain for the third time this month that Asians don't actually have slanted eyes and having been pushed back against quite hard since the parties in question were known to themselves to be nice people and not racist, I would like to suggest that it is advisable to point out that even nice people who are not racist are capable of making comments that are at best misguided and foolish. This is less to teach them any sort of lesson than it is to create an atmosphere which is not conducive to the repetition of such comments. Leaving outright trolls aside for the moment, I suggest that since there are many people here who are uninterested in hearing racist jokes, that we annoy the ones who do by very coolly pointing out the error, again and again until they tire of hearing it. I believe that people will eventually come to be able to identify which sorts of comments will initiate The Drone. If we keep The Drone very dry and dull, perhaps the offenders will be bored into modifying their speech.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
07:44 / 15.12.04
I would like to suggest that it is advisable to point out that even nice people who are not racist are capable of making comments that are at best misguided and foolish.

My thoughts exactly. Nobody, after all, is likely to say "Oh, yeah, actually I am beinbg racist, sorry about that", unless they are astonishingly self-aware. I was thinking more something along the lines of:

(name),

The comment you made above is offensive to me, and I think to many other people as well. You may believe that it is funny, but this does not stop it from being offensive. You may further believe that this shows that Barbelith has no sense of humour, is infested with Political Correctness gone mad, or similar. This is entirely your right, but does not stop your commnet from being offensive. Could you take a look at (links to Wiki, relevant threads) and think about editing your comment, and/or thinking more carefully about the offence you might be causing in future.

This is not an attempt to restrict your freedom of speech. YOu are free to say whatever you want elsewhere on the Internet, and if your freedom to use offensive language is very important to you, you can save time and heartache by going somewhere else to do it now. Alternatively, if you want to continue to enjoy Barbelith, please understand that we have some standards of behaviour that, although you may find them limiting, are generally for the greater comfort of our users.

If you would like to discuss this further, please feel free to start a thread in the Policy referencing this thread.

But, you know, more Blairite.
 
 
Tom Coates
19:43 / 15.12.04
I love the Blairite comment, because it actually restates the issue again in terms of what offensive language does, what it means and what it appears to mean or how it should be phrased. I don't really want to get back into this discussion (it still feels a bit like I should stay out of it because words fall out of my mouth with alarming weight and resonance and that's a bit troubling to me). Nonetheless I'm going to restate my position that being right isn't the be-all and end-all, and that there are numerous circumstances where the vigorous and unflagging restatement of one's correctitude can make situations worse and not better. I think as moderators and 'community leaders' or whatever, we have a responsibility to always try and be the most reasonable - to give people the benefit of the doubt whenever possible and to try not to get too emotionally engaged (this is a line I've crossed a few times recently and been taken rightly to task for). Tann's detailed (and I hope at least slightly satirical) response to someone who makes (as he himself says) a fundamentally unclear statement that could be construed as being intentionally discriminatory rather than accidentally stupid, is - I think - the kind of reaction that would start a ten-page flame-war each and every time it happened.

Rather than posting it - something entirely more Blairite (and I think more useful) might be something like:

Re: [racist comment quoted here]. Apologies for having to do this, but it's one of my dreary jobs as a moderator to point this stuff out - I just need to warn you that the comment above could easily be construed or misconstrued as a racist / homophobic / sexist one. I don't want to make a big deal about it, but Barbelith has a pretty clear policy on this stuff (ie. that it's something we want to avoid). No one's going to jump to any conclusions or start pointing fingers or anything, because we're all aware that it's difficult to gauge tone on the internet, but in the meantime can I just remind everyone to //check out this relevant page on the wiki that explains why we avoid discriminatory language even in jest//. If you have any queries about this and want to private message me, then feel free to do so, and if you feel that you want to respond to this statement, then The Policy is where we work through any disputes or arguments or whatever.

Sorry to stick my oar, and please don't let me derail the major thrust of the thread.
 
 
Tom Coates
19:45 / 15.12.04
Even more ideally, people would write a private message first behind the scenes and not talk about it on the thread until it was clear that the person concerned didn't feel any angst whatsoever for recommending the ritual burning of everyone from North Norfolk.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
14:00 / 05.01.06
Now might be a good time for 'Lithers old and new to read this thread.
 
 
Ganesh
14:32 / 05.01.06
Did we reach a useful conclusion on this thread, then?

I was actually thinking of trawling the old threads on something similar although perhaps not specifically tied to racism: what is and isn't considered 'acceptable' to post on Barbelith, in terms of subject matter.

I ask this because the question seems to have arisen two or three times in recent threads. Tom Tit Tot questioned the acceptability of making flip comments related to hating or wanting to inflict violence on children. The gun thread's been partly derailed by the repeated query, 'is it acceptable to talk about this on Barbelith?' There are other instances of people taking exception to some of Nina's comments on the US, but these seem to be at least partly about the form of those comments, whereas my first two examples seem to be directed at the content itself.

I can't quite decide whether the precedent for asking these questions is the banning of posters for making posts that were reckoned to be anti-Semitic. I mean, we've always tended to be reeeasonably self-examining as a community, but I think the anti-Semitic thing was the first clear example of subject matter being so beyond the pale that it couldn't be discussed here. One of the reasons given for this was the worry that anti-Semites might see Barbelith as fertile ground and be attracted here. A similar argument has been proffered in the firearm thread.

So... has that line changed at all? Is it acceptable to talk flippantly about harm to kids or wanting to gun people down?
 
 
Ganesh
14:37 / 05.01.06
Hmm, okay Flyboy, I see why you're reviving this thread. Please treat my last post as a side-issue to explore once the gypsy/chav/fatfucks thing has been dealt with.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
14:51 / 05.01.06
So far today he's insulted gay people, women, gypsies, anyone who is fat (I'm not sure what fat is precisely- Sharon apparently) and Brian from East 17.

And Ganesh, don't use my name in vain.
 
 
Ganesh
14:54 / 05.01.06
*mutters inaudibly*
 
 
Tits win
15:43 / 05.01.06
Nina Skryty is Brian Harvey and I claim my £5.
 
 
Tits win
15:51 / 05.01.06
For the record though, I didn't post with intentions towards insulting anybody. I might come across as flippant and uncaring but that's just me and I think the way that you're responding to it is, seeing things from your worldview for a moment, hypocritical; just as insulting. But hey, I started it, didn't I? You're were obviously a really nice person before I showed up.
 
 
*
18:11 / 05.01.06
I might come across as flippant and uncaring but that's just me

You see how that's not an effective argument, right?
 
 
Tryphena Absent
18:24 / 05.01.06
I might be flippant and uncaring but I actively try not to generalise entire groups of people in one sentence. If I do (as a lot of people felt I had in Switchboard recently) I try to explain why I'm not being fundamentally negative generalising a specific nation, race or class but perhaps expressing cynicism about humanity or a political system that doesn't cover one country alone (as I was in Switchboard). If people fail to understand that then I accept that there's a problem with the way I'm explaining myself and feel embarrassed that I've failed to give my opinion as I've been trying to. So embarrassed that I can only be flippant because it's clear that I cannot articulate what I mean. Frankly I'm not getting a sense from you that you've been misinterpreted in any way or that you're expressing anything other than a bias against certain groups. That you are flippant and uncaring is not an excuse to be biased against large numbers of individuals simply because they live in a specific way or were born female, with a slow metabolism or into an ethnic group.
 
 
Tits win
18:35 / 05.01.06
Fair enough. Points taken.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:05 / 06.01.06
I might come across as flippant and uncaring

That's not how you're coming across to me, TW. Is anyone else getting "flippant and uncaring"?
 
 
Spaniel
10:50 / 06.01.06
This really doesn't need to go any further, methinks.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:03 / 06.01.06
Could you support that belief with arguments, Boboss? For example, from my point of view, TW is suffering from a misunderstanding of why, for example, his posts in the Head Shop have been delted, and if we allow that misunderstanding to be perpetuated we're not giving him tools he may need to interact with Barbelith in a profitable manner. That might be an argument for going further with this. What's an argument for going no further with this?
 
 
Tits win
11:13 / 06.01.06
Well tell me then Haus.
 
 
Spaniel
11:17 / 06.01.06
My bad, I posted without fully understanding the context.

However I think this

from my point of view, TW is suffering from a misunderstanding of why, for example, his posts in the Head Shop have been delted, and if we allow that misunderstanding to be perpetuated we're not giving him tools he may need to interact with Barbelith in a profitable manner

is a considerably more helpful way of taking the discussion forward, than this

That's not how you're coming across to me, TW. Is anyone else getting "flippant and uncaring"?

In that it makes your point more fully.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:31 / 06.01.06
OK, TW - I don't think the issue is your flippancy or lack of care, at least in the sense of "concern". I certainly at no point so far have found your flippancy or uncaringness offensive. On the other hand you are coming across as unaware of the level at which a contribution becomes worthwhile. Most of the time, just just means you look ignorant or simply dim - see the Buddha. However, if the quotation "Brian Harvey is a chav, but I wouldn't go so far as to call him a gypsy" is accurate, it seems that at times your lack of thought (not care) also shades into the uncritical absorption and repetition of simple racist dogma.

Blanket statements like "the Israelis are tougher and more intelligent than the Palestinians" or "fat people are ignorant" shade into similar areas - they suggest that you are not able to understand the difference betwen stuff you have decided in your head and stuff that exists in the outside world and which is subject to peer review.

So, while it is comforting to believe that you are being criticised because (by implication weak) people are unable to deal with your devil-may-care attitude, certainly from my personal perspective it is rather that your posts are of such a low quality that they are at best a sort of conversational Olestra and at worst likely to cause offence without any actual value being added. Which is fine - much Internet discussion operates at about this level - but means that on Barbelith you are (still) likely to be invited through a combination of gentle persuasion and poking with sticks to raise your game. How you react to that is your choice, but a clearer picture of what's going on in the first place might be useful.
 
 
Tits win
20:25 / 06.01.06
Okay. I take onboard all your points, and can see where they come from.

BUT...

I honstely don't know whether I house a huge desire to raise my game - At least, not in the way you think is appropriate. At the same time, I can see how some of the blanket statements, rushed and ill-considered, are making me look unobjective and narrow-minded, but then, I'm much more for a subjective take on things these days anyway. I don't think that being subjective is a bad thing in itself, and from what you've written it would seem you only think it's a bad thing when it generates certain results - Like generalisations, or commentry that can be easily mis-read. For example, yes I phrased the gipsy thing wrong. my intention, not fully illustrated, was to get across the idea that I would never go so far as to attempt to portray Brian Harvey as a gypsy, but that I WOULD definitely support the perception of him as a chav. It related to earlier stories about a gypsy being run over with his own vehicle.

If that makes any sense. A high level/expectation of quality debate might be the benchmark here, but I think there are many different ways of going about that - Including a subjective, or, as you view it, a 'low-intelligence' worldview, which has its advantages - For example. You get to weed out the reactionaries and the hypocrites. You do it yourself Haus, but seem to be able to do so in a higher plane of thinking - I guess I just don't have those kind of thought-processes in my head, to be able to do so, or maybe I'm too lazy, or something about thinking that way puts me off. Or maybe I prefer the way I go about it better.
 
 
Mirror
21:00 / 06.01.06
TW, the problem I see is that given the average standard of discussion on Barbelith, and your choice to cross the consensus lines of acceptable conduct and unwillingness to raise your game, many of us have no choice but to then judge your posts as trolling.
 
  

Page: 1234(5)678910... 42

 
  
Add Your Reply