BARBELITH underground
 

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


What exactly does get you banned on Barbelith?

 
  

Page: 1 ... 1213141516(17)1819202122... 42

 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
12:18 / 22.03.06
You got to admit it was funnier the first way.

I'll be around to keep an eye on Conversation all night.

(Incidentally, does moving from "protecting Irving's right to free speech" to "denying the Holocaust" in the space of, ooh, a couple of weeks finally prove the point everyone else was trying to make in the Switchboard thread about locking the fucker up for his toxic ideas?)
 
 
Cat Chant
12:19 / 22.03.06
We had a couple of those a few years ago - people changed their names to things which could be mistaken for Haus (again) and Goodness Gracious Meme (then going under one of the 'plums' suits). The impersonation was limited, quickly discovered/pointed out in-thread, and didn't seem to have any offline repercussions, and I don't think anything was done about it beyond Haus and GGM saying 'that's not me' in relevant threads. So, yeah, impersonation per se certainly not bannable offence.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:31 / 22.03.06
Actually, those suits were also banned, if I recall correctly - they were banned because they had their IPs traced to a particular person, who was operating under a ban. That's probably one reason why this suit is being banned, the stalkiness being the other one.

In general, any attempt to move things from the virtual to the physical without express consent is at best dubious and at worst will lead to banning and in extreme cases reporting to law enforcement.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
12:32 / 22.03.06
Ahhh. That might explain the other fake "Haus" I spotted a few days ago.

And Stoat, you're right. Although, "I have a semi for the ol prankster", would have been (not funny but) more accurate.
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
12:39 / 22.03.06
Yep, those suits were banned, for the reason that Haus gives.

I'd also concur that at the point where on-board suit-hijacking is used to attempt to create IRL interaction without knowledge or consent of other posters is the point where if action is to be taken, and I think it should be, banning is the first and most immediate measure, possibly to be followed by others more connected to the IRL part of the action.
 
 
Cat Chant
12:48 / 22.03.06
Yep, those suits were banned, for the reason that Haus gives.

Sorry to add to the confusion, then - that's my memory at fault (I remembered the person behind the suits as being someone else, who was a bit of a nuisance but never actually banned).
 
 
Quantum
13:51 / 22.03.06
possibly to be followed by others more connected to the IRL part of the action.

Hear hear. Let's consider steps beyond banning.
 
 
_Boboss
14:35 / 22.03.06
yeah, like a barbelith punch-up! if you do put the boot in on some poor fucker in the pub later, please someone get it on your phone and host it so we can have a giggle tomorrow:

'wow, look at flyboy go! do you think he's been holding stuff back?' etc
 
 
grant
15:32 / 22.03.06
willnotrepoststickfightingpicturewillnotrepoststickfightingpicture
 
 
The Falcon
16:21 / 22.03.06
Wow. What a very special day it seems to have been.

Anyway, while we're banning, Vladimir's time-limit I gave him to either edit or reconsider his stance has expired, so it's my dubious pleasure to valet his last(?) words onto the board. As follows:

I appreciate your concern and support, such as it is, but from when I've written the comments in question to this day I maintain that the language and context in which they were framed were so outrageously ridiculous that only those with the maturity of children would not take them for the gags they are, and I can't even fathom the emotional lability has inspired any discussion thereof to this day. I don't begrudge anyone not finding them FUNNY; that's a matter of taste, though amongst those with whom I socialize, which represents a wide range of backgrounds, I am generally considered pretty goddamn hysterical, at least if uproarious laughter is anything to go by. But to believe I was remotely serious, well, that's not something that has much to do with me, now does it? No, I think not. Because the types who would say "bang locals" and "Skirts, hah?" without an immense amount of self-deprecating irony frequent boards like these, do they? Wait, isn't this Byrne Robotics?

I say offensive shit because it needs to be said, not because I invest any belief in it. The ease with which some choose, and it is a choice, to be offended only furthers to my mind that such things need to be said so said types can be confronted with their unease. It's both the essence of comedy and of growth; when you're really good, you get both. I consider what I do something of an exorcism: I neither expect thanks nor am I surprised by disdain for it, but I do hope someone of sense recognizes it for what it is, and it distresses me that those in charge of this board can't be counted amongst that sane minority. I welcome anyone's attempts to armchair psychoanalyze me on the basis of my posts hereupon, but I happen to think I give far less away of myself in pages of rambling jackanapery than do some of your colleagues in a moment of taking themselves a little too seriously.

(I skimmed the recent "Wifegate" bemusedly, not because Haus got his, but because GM took himself so seriously that he refused to see where the joke lay, proof positive that the supposedly enlightened can be just as blindly reflexive about stupid crap as the rest of us. A good lesson to bear in mind when on the other side of that equation.)

There's a quote I recall from SANDMAN, though I'm sure it must be older than that: "It is the fool's purview to speak uncomfortable truths, even unto a king, but at the end of the day, the fool is still a fool and the king is still a king." In short, worry about what actually matters; I am no threat to anyone here any more than they are to themselves.

You have my permission to repost this to your mod discussion. If something further is expected of me beyond this statement, it is likely not forthcoming.


In an initial response, I did point out that at the very least people of Indian heritage would not 'choose' to be offended, but he has apparently chosen not to engage the subject further, so I think that position is untenable.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
16:27 / 22.03.06
I see absolutely no reason not to ban him and his hilarious gags.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
16:32 / 22.03.06
He really is a massive, massive wanker, isn't he?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:33 / 22.03.06
Actually, I'm reconsidering. I mean, I don't quite understand why it _needed to be said_ that banging Indians blah blah fishcocks, but his English is exquisite.
 
 
Ganesh
16:40 / 22.03.06
It's the Sandman quote that gives me pause.
 
 
grant
16:47 / 22.03.06
He really is a massive, massive wanker, isn't he?

Yes.

You can't hear my sighing from here, can you? We're working of the concept of saying sorry as a way not to go into time-out with our three-year-old at home.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
16:51 / 22.03.06
It's all comedy gold, isn't it? I mean, is it any wonder that there's uproarious laughter every time he opens his mouth, when what he's saying is stuff like

amongst those with whom I socialize, which represents a wide range of backgrounds, I am generally considered pretty goddamn hysterical

and that great long wedge of guff about how he's doing us a favour by helping us grow? Dude thinks people explode with laughter when he's talking to them - hell, it must go off like a fucking bomb as soon as he leaves the room.

Incidentally, if you're reading this Vlad (and I don't doubt for a second that you are), I can only presume you've missed some posts when you say

I do hope someone of sense recognizes it for what it is

because quite a number of people have done just that. Yr browser should let you search within a page for words and phrases - have a hunt around for the words "racism" or "prick" and you'll find those posts. Cheers!
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
16:52 / 22.03.06
I particularly like the apparent lack of contradiction between "these were (damned) hilarious jokes, so ridiculous only a child would take them seriously" and "I say what NEEDS to be said, PRITHEE NUNCLE!"
 
 
The Falcon
17:02 / 22.03.06
I still don't get the joke(!!!11!!1!)s?
 
 
Jawsus-son Starship
17:27 / 22.03.06
the guys got me on the floor doing a rofl-copter, but E.59, man, much love to you for;

Dude thinks people explode with laughter when he's talking to them - hell, it must go off like a fucking bomb as soon as he leaves the room.

I've got tears in my eyes.
 
 
Tom Coates
17:41 / 22.03.06
I'm pretty sure that I should be banning the user who wrote the holocaust denial thread. Do people have objections?
 
 
Jawsus-son Starship
17:48 / 22.03.06
instead of banning, can we fire them - out of a cannon - into the sun?
 
 
Ganesh
17:50 / 22.03.06
I'm pretty sure that I should be banning the user who wrote the holocaust denial thread. Do people have objections?

Only really in terms of internal consistency. If we'd also ban those who started threads suggesting Pol Pot didn't really kill all those people or the Rwandan thing was exaggerated, then no, I've no objections.
 
 
Ganesh
17:56 / 22.03.06
Apologies if that sounds snarky or flippant. My point is, this brings us back to the hoary old question of which varieties and intensities of 'ism' aren't acceptable on Barbelith - and if we're prepared to take as straightforward a hardline on someone repeating holocaust denial guff, then we really need to sort out where that hardline begins and ends in terms of other, albeit lesser, manifestations of (potential) hatespeech.
 
 
grant
17:58 / 22.03.06
Did somebody do that?

I'm actually much less concerned with banning/not banning zoemancer than I am with what to do with Fetch's kabbalah research. (In part because it's the kabbalah, after all.)
 
 
Tom Coates
17:58 / 22.03.06
I know we've had debates about these things before, but I can't help thinking that Holocaust denial of such a kind is a much much clearer case of anti-semitism and hence harrassment of board members than the other two examples you've cited. I mean, to actually stand up and support revisionist positions in this example is surely much a solid statement of a decision to support race-hate. It's difficult to be just be ill-informed or clumsy when arguing that millions of Jews didn't die, where you might argue that it's easier in the less well known examples, and that - as such - in the latter case it's more apparently forgivable as a correctable error of judgement rather than a campaigning position.

I think it should be eminently possible for people on the board to have a discussion about the prevalence of revisionist historians, to talk about political uses of the Holocaust from all perspectives after the act and to try and come to conclusions about why such people exist and what the political and emotional complexities of the historiographical situation might be, so I'm not saying that people shouldn't be able to talk about the Holocaust at all in any kind of critical, questioning or interrogatory way, but it does seem clear to me at least that this is just an attack on Judaism and a conspiracy theory of the worst order, and as such it shouldn't be allowed to happen on the board.
 
 
Ganesh
18:30 / 22.03.06
I know we've had debates about these things before, but I can't help thinking that Holocaust denial of such a kind is a much much clearer case of anti-semitism and hence harrassment of board members than the other two examples you've cited. I mean, to actually stand up and support revisionist positions in this example is surely much a solid statement of a decision to support race-hate. It's difficult to be just be ill-informed or clumsy when arguing that millions of Jews didn't die, where you might argue that it's easier in the less well known examples, and that - as such - in the latter case it's more apparently forgivable as a correctable error of judgement rather than a campaigning position.

I don't think that's necessarily true. I'm aware of people who've espoused such positions in the same way as they'd espouse a conspiracy theory (Were The Moon Landings Faked? and so on); it can be naive stupidity rather than a "solid statement of a decision to support race-hate" or a "campaigning position". I think that, if we're going to establish the line that anyone asking crass/offensive questions about the Holocaust is proposing an unacceptable political viewpoint and should be banned outright, where does that line start to waver? I don't think it's as clear-cut as you suggest, Tom.

But a) we've had this argument before, and b) I didn't see Zoemancer's posting before it was removed. I'm therefore going through the motions, to a certain extent.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
18:59 / 22.03.06
What. The. Fuck.

Uncomfortable truths? Uncomfortable truths? I've got your uncomfortable truths right here, you smug, stupid, mollycoddled, dillettentish, self-satisfied, nannied, spoiled, racist-abuse-spouting, female-bashing, navel-gazing, clueless, selfish, narcissistic, ignorant fucking bozo. Sod off and take your tragically petty and flimsy self-justifications with you.
 
 
haus of fraser
19:51 / 22.03.06
If i can add my ten penneth- Tom please ban him. Anyone denying the holocaust with such aggression isn't worth another second of our attention.

Ganesh- i pm'd you and i hope you agree.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
19:59 / 22.03.06
Yeah, Zoemancer needs to go out the airlock. I don't want another Fetch stinking up the Temple.
 
 
HCE
20:02 / 22.03.06
He had me at I am not going to pay attention to any post unless it simply says "Yes".
 
 
Ganesh
20:21 / 22.03.06
Ganesh- i pm'd you and i hope you agree.

Yes, you've PMed me - and I agree up to a point. My concern, as stated, is that I'm unclear on where outright banning begins and ends. If it were me, I'd have deleted the thread and engaged Zoemancer about what the fuck had motivated that thread. Perhaps that did happen and Zoemancer was completely unrepentant in which case yes, airlock. I have, however, known individuals who've repeated that crap not because they have a thought-through anti-Semitic position but because they're (usually) young, stupid and think it's clever/shocking/edgy to say this stuff - and can, with a minimum of effort, understand why they're wrong. Unexamined versus examined, I guess.

As I say, however, my bigger concern is where this leaves us in terms of our response to 'isms' which evoke a less immediately angry response - or which evoke an angry response but which are less widely established in their offensiveness. If posting Why I Think The Holocaust's Exaggerated merits outright banning, I think we need to sort out where outright banning stops. I think it might be worthwhile unpicking this in order to establish the whats and whys of banishment-level offensiveness.
 
 
Jawsus-son Starship
20:42 / 22.03.06
Has zoemancer said anything in response - like an apology, some sign they've repented their stupid ideas, perhaps a suicide note?
 
 
Ganesh
20:57 / 22.03.06
That's what I was wondering.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
20:59 / 22.03.06
In zoemancer's case, though, ze posted a fairly lengthy, detailed screed on the subject. A couple of stupid questions in the "Ah HAH! But what if it was all made up, eh?" line would have been different. This was yards and yards of text.
 
 
haus of fraser
21:06 / 22.03.06
exactly- its all pretty unpleasent stuff- not a misunderstanding but as close to neo nazi propoganda as you can get.

While i appreciate that some people make ill judged comments and decisions I personally found this post really, really offensive- and the first on that has ever made me want the poster ejected as fast as possible from Barbelith.
 
  

Page: 1 ... 1213141516(17)1819202122... 42

 
  
Add Your Reply