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: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11(12)13 14 15 16 17... 42

19:35 / 08.03.06

No, Our Lady did not, and Shadowsax: your use of "chicks" given dubious postage elsewhere and the context of your reply do seem to suggest that very few large assumptions need to be made to conclude that you intended it dismissively. You seem to have missed (somehow) that the board is highly sensitive to language which attempts to disempower other posters, collectively, based on perceptions of their gender. Whether you find it "funny" to call ladies chicks or not, in the manner that you did, “upping the ante” is something you should reflect upon in terms of your actual beliefs with regards to those you perceive as female posters and how you wish to be perceived if you continue posting here.

I'm new to the board, so I would like to think I don’t have ingrained habits or an axe to grind, but having suffered through your contributions to the Fathers 4 Justice thread, I’m afraid I agree with Our Lady, your attitude is persistently tiresome and offensive; the responsibility to point that out to you doesn’t rest solely with those you call foolish names.

ONLY NICE THINGS

19:52 / 08.03.06

But, Shadowsax, you are a misogynist. Sorry. I know you don't realise it, but you might want to try thinking about it. People who aren't misogynists take rape and spousal abuse a lot more seriously, which is to say at all seriously. That's a danger sign.

miss wonderstarr

20:11 / 08.03.06

it's not your battle to battle

I'm not sure about that. If someone is making the online space I inhabit unpleasant for me, then I think I have the right to say something. I haven't encountered you before because I haven't read the "F4J" thread. When you popped up on the "Sensitive" thread, I didn't much like the things you were saying. That's what I addressed above.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

20:29 / 08.03.06

Shadowsax, I really think that whilst I misread your response to Our Lady as directed at me (mea culpa ect ect chiz), you really did mix up our respective genders. No, really. You totally did.

I further think that a) the way you responded to us is sort of telling if you think about it (I was merely a small-minded twit, but Lady was a chick and a boring chick to boot)

and

b) your attempt to pretend that you knew all along who was an outie and who an innie is pretty hilarious.

miss wonderstarr

20:48 / 08.03.06

you really did mix up our respective genders. No, really. You totally did.
b) your attempt to pretend that you knew all along who was an outie and who an innie is pretty hilarious.

I don't think anyone can be blamed much for that; I also thought Our Lady was a woman. What's problematic is someone treating the person they see as female differently because of gender, eg. being more dismissive or using the person's gender as part of the snub.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

20:59 / 08.03.06

That was sort of my point. I don't get offended if people mistake me for a bloke, because it happens a lot; I don't take it personally. I do get offended if I see people using gender slurs as a way to dismiss people in my vicinity. I reckon I can take that as personally as I like. If I get a twofer, as here, then I feel that I may mock them roundly.

miss wonderstarr

21:06 / 08.03.06

Yes, I agreed wholeheartedly with your point #2 ... just that people can't always be blamed for mistaken identity (your points #1 and #3!)

21:28 / 08.03.06

i've posted to many threads that had nothing to do with one another without expressing a common theme between my posts.

You mean other than "women hate me, I've got a tiny little winkie"?

Chicks> Mm-hmm. That's right. You never said that unless it was in response to somebody who was baiting you. Whoops! You're either using it in order to get a rise out of people, or else you're an idiot. The latter is confirmed, the former, I'll grant you, is conjecture on my part.

most importantly, it's not your battle to battle

Actually, it is (although I'd have said "battle to fight" or something - the repetition makes you look a bit thick). See, the board's a community, and if you start stinking it up with your shit, every member of that community is entitled to point out what an obnoxious lump of foulness you are and demand you either mop it up or plug the hole it's spouting from.

I've been operating on a 'benefit of the doubt' thing with an awful lot of the numbnuts who've been using the place as a toilet recently. In some cases, people seem to have a genuine interest in being part of the debate and have just tripped over themselves in their eagerness to get involved. That's why I get annoyed when other long-standing members go off on one right from the start.

Let's take Dead Megatron as our example. Here we've got somebody who's new to the board and manages to swing his foot right into his gob on more than a couple of occasions. But he's prepared to listen, prepared to learn if he thinks there's something he's not getting. Telling him to fuck off from day one would have done nobody any good.

You are no Dead Megatron. You're not even Dead Scorponok. Go away, you simpleton.

Regrettable Juvenilia

21:50 / 08.03.06

So while we wait on Tom, any ideas what we should do with Insensitive Fuckwit's thread? 'Cos I don't really like having it at the top of the Conversation. Can it be locked now?

21:53 / 08.03.06

any ideas what we should do with Insensitive Fuckwit's thread? 'Cos I don't really like having it at the top of the Conversation.

Oh, I do. It's like a head on a pike atop the gates of the Fair City Barbelith, sport for the crows and a warning for the unrighteous.

21:59 / 08.03.06

I think grant’s proposed a lock. Or maybe he just proposed proposing a lock. Personally, I’d like to propose a deletion. It’ll still be available as a ‘ghost’ thread if anyone wants to read it back, but no-one else will have to see it just sitting there in the meantime.

22:10 / 08.03.06

Lock or delete and lock - to be honest, I don't see much difference. It's Conversation (forget it, Jake). There's over 200 pages of the stuff - it's going to get lost in amongst the rest of it soon enough if it's just left as a lock. It also means it's easier to find if it has to be referenced in future.

22:13 / 08.03.06

You could delete and link it to a policy thread in the style of the Knodge and Hawksmoor ones.

22:42 / 08.03.06

As far as Shadowsax goes, I think the dog is quite clearly rabid and should be put to sleep, for its own good and everybody else's.

22:53 / 08.03.06

Lock proposed.

22:56 / 08.03.06

(No offence intended to dogs, or their owners.)

22:58 / 08.03.06

oh the fucking DRAMA.

23:14 / 08.03.06

oh the fucking DRAMA

Which you've quite obviously got your cock in your fist about, you excitable chap, you.

Why not just think about doing something else.

To be specific; yes, I think you're a misogynist, yes, I think I spend your Saturday evenings masturbating blankly into a bowl of warmed over, maggot-infested KFC, and yes, based on your recent contributions to teh board, I do think the social services should have you under pretty much constant surveillance (11!23). What else were you expecting? Let's face it, if this is not the case, (which hopefully it isn't, but chief, you're doing nothing to dispell that impression,) why would you repeatedly insist on presenting yourself in such a frankly demented fashion? What's in it for you? What's in it for anyone? What's the point?

01:39 / 09.03.06

Regarding reassessment: I've read ShadowSax's posts in the F4J and Islamophobia threads, and now, with his contributions to Sensitive's explanatory thread, it seems to me inescapably clear that the time has come to be rid of him. He has managed, against the odds, to hit a new high in hideously and persistently offensive behavior, and I don't see why anyone here should have to deal with it anymore.

02:36 / 09.03.06

Seven posts total and you feel you're qualified to advise as to who's in/who's out?

03:26 / 09.03.06

That seems a little harsh, don't you think? Maybe some people are a little thrifty with their posting. Maybe Orange lurked for four years....

Regrettable Juvenilia

09:28 / 09.03.06

Who cares how "qualified" Orange may be - ze's right, entirely right, and that's what counts!

09:46 / 09.03.06

I thought it was more having read the relevant threads and being able to come up with a thoughtful and reasoned response to themn that counted, not years of long service...

09:46 / 09.03.06

Looks like SR's had his name edited. He's now just "Sensitive".

09:54 / 09.03.06

Peraonally, I wouldn't call SS a misogynist on the basis of his contributions to the F4J thread. Huge blindspot with feminist arguments, yes. Misogynist? Not so sure. (Though I'm aware he's been an idiot in other threads).

I'm also uncomfortable with talk of him being banned on the basis of his statements in that thread. I think it's heading worryingly close to banning people just because "we" (whatever that is) don't agree with them.

10:06 / 09.03.06

I share your concerns somewhat, illmatic... The problem is one of engagement and rather nebulous concepts such as good faith and intellectual honesty...

Barbelith is a place for reasoned arguement, but its patience for engaging with posters who are lacking in good faith and intellectual honesty to give any kind of credence to positions they do not hold and are unwilling to examin their own positions with any great degree of rigour is getting mighty thin here of late... and while I can apprecieate why that is, and don't particularly feel a pressing need to suffer fools gladly, I can't help but feel that we needs to be a greater emphasis on reasoned engagement... easier said than done, I know...

10:12 / 09.03.06

I'm also uncomfortable with talk of him being banned on the basis of his statements in that thread.

I don't think it's just that. His entry onto the thread about Sensitive's poor name choice came across as looking for a fight rather than trying to discuss the issue in a rational way.

Shadowsax is a jerk pretty much most of the time. If he showed any capacity for developing beyond that then I'd argue for a stay of execution. I had PM'd him regarding his initial post on the Ficsuit thread and the reply I got back seemed more measured and considered than what he was flinging publically.

I'm wondering how much of what he posts is personal belief and how much is him trying to cross blades with posters he considers to be his "opponents".

Either way, threads seem to suffer a drop in quality when he's around.

10:36 / 09.03.06

I agree broadly with sleaze and Illmatic on this. I think banning should be reserved for those who don't engage with the board other than to promote a bigoted agenda, and have no interest in participating in debate (e.g. the Fetch), and for those who abuse other posters using sustained racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, or misogynist language, or other types of discriminatory abuse (and I would add that I am aware that this might prove difficult to define - but in practice these would need to be taken on a case-by-case basis).

ONLY NICE THINGS

10:57 / 09.03.06

Could we define the state of having no interest in engaging, though? Shadowsax, for example, has consistently ignored large amounts of data and comment in favourt of pushing his own beliefs - which is pretty much exactly what the Fetch did, except the Fetch said that Jews lie about the Holocaust, whereas SS has gone for the safer line that women lie about being victims of rape and violence.

11:34 / 09.03.06

Yes, this is true... I was thinking of ShadowSax as being more like Leap, who was similarly deaf to many valid points made against his arguments, and who was similarly guilty of expressing sexist attitudes - e.g. 'pregnant teenage single mothers are only doing it to spend MY TAXES on luxury council accommodation'. But there may be a qualitative difference between that kind of sexist comment and claiming that women accuse men of abuse in order to gain advantage in family courts.

I think in the end Leap left the board because no one agreed with him, and he couldn't win an argument. I would prefer it if the same happened here (or of course, if ShadowSax changed his mind about feminism, but at present this seems unlikely).

11:38 / 09.03.06

Well, quite.

I know I am not really convinced that shadowsax is operating in good faith from a position of intellectual honesty... so, what next?

11:54 / 09.03.06

which is pretty much exactly what the Fetch did

Presumably Fetch was banned, yes?

Well, given the discussions of the past few weeks or so, then Shadowsax should be given the same treatment. The upshot of Feminism 101 seemed to be that people agreed that we don't come down as hard on sexism/mysogyny as we should. Perhaps examples have to be made.

Shadowsax, if you're reading this. I would suggest that there may still be time to solve this without someone getting spaced. Surely there is a way for you to interact with the boards, and express your views in a more controlled and moderate way? You obviously enjoy posting on here, why else do it in the face of such opposition to your beliefs (unless you are, as some suppose, a troll)?

Is it really worth getting chucked out of the airlock for posting things which you know are going to cause people offense?

It is possible to hold views which are alternate to the popular on Barbelith. Look at the animal-testing threads in both Lab and Switchboard for one example of this. But the very nature of the site is that you have to be able to back up your arguments with evidence.

Like I said in my PM to you, I don't feel you're a troll (although your Ficsuit post was damn close to a classic troll manuever). I'd like to think this can be solved with calm, reasoned debate. But you need to be aware that the time is fast approaching when that's not going to be enough (and I think a lot of people would argue it has been and gone). The wheels are in motion even now.

Anyway, listen or don't dude. I'm hardly a big wheel in the scheme of things round here (and I don't want to tread on anyone's toes over this). But I think my points might make some kind of sense.

12:29 / 09.03.06

I think it's pretty obvious that in the ficsuit thread SS was, if not trolling, then at least indulging in some Troll-horseplay. Reading it, it's incredibly obvious that he's just saying things that he knows will get a rise, I doubt he even believes half of what he's saying, he's just doing it 'cause he knows you lot will blow your stacks (which is pretty funny to read, but still wrong, and hardly conducive to a healthy, happy and honest community).

All you posters questioning the size of his penis and condemning him in strong, serious language... well, it doesn't really do anything as far as I can tell, except making him laugh, and making those of us that actaully care about these issues more stressed out/annoyed. Ban the fucker, end of the story - he's consistently mocking, antagonistic, and works against what Barb seems to stand for. Do you really need that?

Haus - your point about engaging in the discussions hits the nail on the head. Why are we still talking about this?

12:43 / 09.03.06

Why not just think about doing something else.

thats sort of the pot calling the kettle black, no? look at this. look at the posts about this. count mine. the ONLY time i've posted in this thread was in response to people asking if i should be banned.

SS has gone for the safer line that women lie about being victims of rape and violence.

you're generalizing where i'm not. your generalizations of my arguments are no more valid than mine. if i'm generalizing that many women with specific custody and financial advantages to stake a claim to sometimes falsify criminal actions, you're generalizing by saying that my claim is that "women lie about being victims of rape and violence."

I think in the end Leap left the board because no one agreed with him, and he couldn't win an argument. I would prefer it if the same happened here (or of course, if ShadowSax changed his mind about feminism, but at present this seems unlikely).

so the bar to cross for acceptance into this community is to share a common view of feminist politics?

Is it really worth getting chucked out of the airlock for posting things which you know are going to cause people offense?

i suppose some of my posts, well, i know some of my posts were intentionally offensive. it's sort of like picking on a sibling who gets all red in the face and starts throwing things after you call him a nerd. so few of the attacks on me have any basis in fact (haus says i'm a misogynist, therefore i'm a misogynist, for instance, or multiple cases where i was misquoted, quoted completely out of context or just misread entirely) that the vehement objections to my presence are taking on the same tone that those objectors are inferring from my posts. it's all rather hypocritical, and, evil scientist, it's one thing to act in good faith in PMs, but i'd barely be someone to speak with you one-to-one and then turn around and call you a jerk after what i thought was a pleasant discourse.

i think once you all calm down, maybe you can start to focus on other things. you'd be hardpressed to find actual reasons for banning me, unless, really, my presence is to be determined by a litmus test of political opinion.

ONLY NICE THINGS

12:52 / 09.03.06

For example, in the lead up to the discussion of racial slurs against gypsies, many claims were made by those defending their right to make such slurs to the effect that those not so keen were "crying", or behaving in a way couched in other descriptive terms of being overwhelmed by emotion, which was identified as a sign of weakness.

Textbook.

Page: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11(12)13 14 15 16 17... 42