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: 1 ... 1314151617(18)1920212223... 42

 
 
Ganesh
21:16 / 22.03.06
It started off with a reference to "a friend", though, which made me wonder to what extent it was introjected belief versus stuff repeated (or even cut 'n' pasted) for reasons other than personal neo-nazism. Like I say, I'd want to at least give someone a chance to answer the What The Fuck Were You Thinking? question before automatic airlock.

And, as I've said, where does this leave us in terms of establishing what's a bannin' and what's not? Zoemancer's post was, to my mind, more of a banning offence than contributions which have previously been deemed anti-Semitic and led to suit-banning. We're left with the likes of VJB's cock-rotting Indians, though, having given him the (extended) chance to respond with the IT WAS A JOKE!!1!! defence. Where are we choosing to draw the line? Who gets a chance to apologise/explain? When do we simply ban outright? I'd rather we didn't simply point to examples and say "well that's a bannin'", but venture an explanation as to what constitutes an outright banning and what doesn't - and why.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
21:56 / 22.03.06
Bear in mind also that zoemancer's screed followed a defence of David Irving- not that I'm saying that defending a spurious free speech argument should be a banning offence, but it does indicate that this wasn't really the first time z had come across these ideas- the scare quotes around "official" (as in "...story of what happened") have been used before by this poster. I don't think ze'd just discovered the concept of Holocaust denial and was just sounding it out, put it that way.
 
 
Ganesh
21:58 / 22.03.06
Okay, fair enough. I'm hoping all of these things - plus an attempt to find out what motivated the more recent thread - were factored into the decision to ban him/her outright.
 
 
grant
22:23 / 22.03.06
Yeah, Ganesh, I like to think I'd be saying something close to what you're saying now, but the post got me at the end of a long night (thus, cranky) and the scare quotes around "'official' Holocaust story" elsewhere didn't please me either.

I'm still with you on the "chance to say what the hell you were thinking" thing -- I like to think persisting in this stuff is the real offense, rather than bringing it up for analysis. Like, I don't entirely get the sense zoemancer was selling a line the way Fetch was. But I'm not convinced he wasn't.
 
 
matthew.
22:24 / 22.03.06
Where are we choosing to draw the line? Who gets a chance to apologise/explain? When do we simply ban outright?

I am personally glad that we banned zoemancer. Some of the seasoned posters were able to correctly predict that this behaviour was going to appear on the board. Holocaust denial was not necessarily inevitable but it clearly followed from Irving-defense. Also, in my experience with Holocaust deniers, and I have met more than one, rarely do they repent and say, "Jeez, guys. What was I thinking?" Not many people do that.

Ganesh, this isn't to sound snarky, but do you think giving zoemancer a chance to defend hir reasoning for posting that "information" would end happily for all members involved? I don't think much good would come from allowing hir another chance to defend hir argument. I also don't think hir motivation is that relevant. Even if it was a joke (!!1!!), ze would no doubt refuse to apologize.

Also, in my short time on the board, I've found Barbelith to be very keen on self-examination. Otherwise known as eleven pages on this and that and hemming and hawing and never really getting anywhere. Why prolong the inevitable (the banning)?

But here's a question for those who know the history of the board better than I do. Has there ever been a case where someone shows clear racism/homophobia/misogyny that has repented and apologized and continues to post on Barbelith?
 
 
Jawsus-son Starship
22:35 / 22.03.06
to be fair to zoemancer, I also brought up the idea of free speech in the Irving thread.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
22:44 / 22.03.06
Yes, as I said, the free speech argument is ONE thing. The scarequotes in "official" is another, especially when followed by a tirade including such gems as how arguing that something is possible just because it happened is bad logic, and that the Holocaust couldn't have happened because the Jews are legendary for being powerful in government...

I wouldn't worry too much, DM.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:48 / 22.03.06
Has there ever been a case where someone shows clear racism/homophobia/misogyny that has repented and apologized and continues to post on Barbelith?

Well, me, for one. Sort of. I've been inconsiderate in particular of issues of race, and have been corrected and talked it through. Right now, hopefully, a metric shedload (c. Mordant Carnival) of people are looking at their views on women on Barbelith.

Zoemancer, however, was clearly not interested in listening to anyone else. See fred, encore above. Are we to believe that at some point he was going to say "Gosh. Where the massive majority of historians and academics failed to perssuade me, some people on the Internet have won me over. No more Holocaust denial for me!" I doubt it.

So, yes. Fake Haus should be banned for stalkiness. Zoemancer should be banned to make it clear that Holocaust denial is not acceptable on Barbelith. We should probably keep an eye on Sauron - suits registered in late 2001 with a Hotmail address are prone to hijacking. Tom, I'd suggest that if Sauron registered with a freemail address we suspend the suit until one of the other Brightonoids can confirm or deny his identity, but we could just wait and see. Vladimir seems intent on reserving the right to make racially hateful statements, and clearly is not able to understand why they might be offensive, so we should probably remove his suit for the protection of non-white people on Barbelith from encountering hate speech, be it ever so hilarious. I do feel bad about this - I wish Vladimir could play with others, and I wish we could make him happier - but that's life. Shadowsac raises similar questions about misogyny, homophobia and the minimising of the severity of rape, and is about as likely to learn from others as Zoemancer on current form. Again, I'd propose a watching brief - if he loses it utterly, he loses it utterly. In the meantime, as long as he is clearly challenged by Barbelith, we can maybe tolerate him as a borderline case, assuming we're OK with dealing with the accusation that we treat dislike of women as less serious than, say, dislike of Jews.
 
 
Ganesh
22:56 / 22.03.06
Ganesh, this isn't to sound snarky, but do you think giving zoemancer a chance to defend hir reasoning for posting that "information" would end happily for all members involved?

I don't bloody know - and neither do you. I think keeping the thread open and/or having a public Defend Your Reasoning would've been detrimental, but I think it might've been possible to confirm Z's motivation via PM, say, which would've avoided the inevitable circus. Maybe that did happen. Like Grant, I think it's the persisting with crappo viewpoints/reasoning that's the airlock crime.
 
 
matthew.
22:59 / 22.03.06
Apologies if you felt offended by my post. Was not my intent.
 
 
Ganesh
23:08 / 22.03.06
Why prolong the inevitable (the banning)?

Because "the inevitable" isn't inevitable - or only subjectively so. There've been numerous cases of people making arsey comments which bordered on (or, as I say, trampled well into) dubous 'ism'ness, but those people proving mature enough to admit to arsey wrongness when given the opportunity to do so.

I've absolutely no idea whether that might've happened in this case. Possibly - probably? - not. What worries me is, we seem increasingly to be comfortable with the idea of banning people from the board pronto, without giving them the opportunity to explain/redeem themselves. It used to be practically unheard-of, and only really happened with one particular individual - and even then, after mucho hand-wringing. Personally, I think we ought to keep banishment as that almost-never contingency, and deal with non-persistent hate-speech as far as possible by judicious deletion and EDUCATION (copyright, Leap). Others disagree, and reckon we ought to be banning more. I think we agree on a need for consistency.

So... if you're claiming that someone being banned is "inevitable", please go on to explain why it's inevitable - and be prepared to explain why other comparable instances of hate-speech don't merit inevitable banishment.
 
 
Ganesh
23:09 / 22.03.06
Apologies if you felt offended by my post.

Merely irritated, thanks.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
23:15 / 22.03.06
Ganesh: That's fair. In this case, in part we're working within the parameters Tom has set - that Holocaust denial is a a bad lot, attracts other Holocaust deniers and the act of entertaining it makes it more likely that people will leave Barbelith. Now, what we could do is suspend Zoemancer's suit and _email_ him - he's a later arrival, so we should have a working email address. However, his behaviour in "David Irving - Guilty as Charged and "Operation Conincidence Driver" have demonstrated that he essentially refuses to engage with people or positions which disagree with him - he ignores them. As such, I doubt that he would find a conversation EDUCATIONAL.

Mind you, I may be cynical.
 
 
matthew.
23:17 / 22.03.06
Thanks, Haus, for making what I was trying to say much clearer.
 
 
Ganesh
23:17 / 22.03.06
Are we to believe that at some point he was going to say "Gosh. Where the massive majority of historians and academics failed to perssuade me, some people on the Internet have won me over. No more Holocaust denial for me!" I doubt it.

I doubt it too. he may have said at some point, "Gosh. Perhaps the friend from whom I've absorbed all this is perhaps talking out of his arse, and I ought not to repeat what he's told me in such a stupidly uncritical fashion". Probably not; you're probably right. If we didn't at least give him the chance, though, I don't really see why we're giving other people the chance to expound on their 'ism' hobby-horses, without even giving them a You Might Be Banned first warning.
 
 
Ganesh
23:24 / 22.03.06
However, his behaviour in "David Irving - Guilty as Charged and "Operation Conincidence Driver" have demonstrated that he essentially refuses to engage with people or positions which disagree with him - he ignores them. As such, I doubt that he would find a conversation EDUCATIONAL.

Mind you, I may be cynical.

Maybe, but probably not. You're probably right. I don't know that refusing to engage with people or positions of disagreement in one particular thread necessarily generalises to an essential inability or unwillingness to do so. Personally, I'm reluctant to get into the habit of assuming irredeemable shitness from a handful of irredeemably shit posts. I'd tend to fasten on "persistent" as an element of bannable trolling (as in Hawksmoor), and I'm not sure a particular position or tendency was adequately demonstrated to be "persistent" in Zoemancer's case.

Again, I think you're probably right, but I don't think Zoemancer's banning was "inevitable" and I don't think he was "essentially" unable to see where he was fucking up. He was probably irredeemable, but not definitely so. I'd have preferred to confirm the "definitely".
 
 
Tom Coates
02:11 / 23.03.06
What I've said to him so far in e-mail is that he's been suspended pending a discussion about him being banned. My correspondence with him so far has not been enormously helpful though. If you'd like me to give him the opportunity to write a response to this thread which I'll publish on his behalf, then that would be completely acceptable. I'm still up for general discussion around this stuff, although I'm REALLY suspicious of the 'it's free speech' arguments he's currently employing.
 
 
matthew.
02:35 / 23.03.06
Cheers, Tom. That's a sensible middle-ground between my position and Ganesh's. I think the elephant will be... pleased with this direction. zoemancer will also be less likely to spout bullshit if ze knows that Tom, the Big Man, is going to have an active role in this.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
03:46 / 23.03.06
I think that sounds reasonable. I also don't hold out too much hope, though...
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
04:10 / 23.03.06
Sounds fair, if only to provide a little closure.
 
 
Ganesh
06:13 / 23.03.06
I'm just pleased you're having an email discussion, Tom. From the sound of things, though, it's not especially constructive. My point was that he should be given the chance to apologise and say, "I was a bit stupid to repeat that guff, wasn't I?" before being punted. If what he's coming out with is more akin to a spirited defence of what he wrote, then I'd say he's blown his chance already.
 
 
Tom Coates
07:01 / 23.03.06
Okay. Here's the e-mail from the guy in question - he's been directed to the thread, so I can only assume that he's read your views:

I will start with a quote:

Without deviation, without exception, without any ifs, buts, or
whereases, freedom of speech means that you shall not do something to
people either for the views they express, or the words they speak or
write.
--Justice Hugo L. Black

This is a strongly held belief of mine and I can never be persuaded to
believe otherwise.

Having said that as I stated in my previous email to Tom, despite
popular opinion I am not a racist nor do I condone the killing of or
oppression of any human being whether they be Jew, Gentile or other
based on their race, culture, sexual orientation, gender, belief
systems, class or religion.

My posts regarding Holocaust Revisionism and David Irving were simply my
views on those subjects as of present. Will they change? Possibly...my
views change constantly based on new information or realizations I
perceive. As a matter of fact I am not entirely convinced by the
revisionists but I do seek the truth and my posts were intended to
create a debate whereby the truth would make itself known.

As I also stated to Tom, I was completely surprised at my being banned.
I was under the impression that Barbelith was a free speech zone. It is
my understanding now that my idea of free speech does not exactly mesh
with the popular idea of free speech on Barbelith. Fine.

I do enjoy being a member of Barbelith and have found the conversations
and topics being discussed there to be of great interest and would like
to continue being a member. If that requires that I keep my Holocaust
Revisionism views to myself from now on then so be it, it's not that
important to me.

If my continued membership requires that I get on my knees and beg for
forgiveness and betray myself then I guess I will bid you all farewell
for that is not in my nature to do.

I don't think its required that we all like each other and I know there
are people on Barbelith who can't stand my take on things as much as I
can't stand theirs but such is life and the juxtaposition of viewpoints
only makes for more dynamic conversation as far as I am concerned.

I personally think Barbelith needs a pooka over on the edge to keep
things lively. I can't help but be that pooka it's just who I am at this
point in time but I do agree to do a better job of coloring within the
lines.

Don't think of me as just the wacked out Nazi apologist that you assume
I am. I am a 33 year old guy who lives in Austin, Texas. I work for a
living to support my wife and 6 year old daughter as well as my 86 year
old grandma who is originally from Bury St. Edmunds. Any of you live
near that town? I have been hoping to go visit my relatives there
sometime this year.

I cry, I bleed red blood, I bumble and rush into things and stick my
foot in my mouth too often. I am dead terrible with directions. In
essence I am just another shmuck like all of you trying to make sense of
it all. I am human, I am not this evil bastard persona that you have
reflected on to me.

I'm done. Do what you will. Should you decide to give me the boot, I
would like to say that I enjoyed my time with you all whether you liked
me or not and that I wish only the best for you crazy people.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
07:15 / 23.03.06
Taking the position that Irving's arrest was a violation of the principles of free speech would have been one thing--I disagree, and that passionately, but it's not actually the same as being a Holocaust denier oneself.

However, I'm going to take it from the huge howling silence on the subject of his Headshop post that he is in fact a confirmed Holocaust denier, with all that this implies (including, for example, a belief in some global Jewish conspiracy ect). No attempt to engage, no attempt to clarify, just a slew of self-serving self-pity. Particularly sickening.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
07:32 / 23.03.06
Tricky. _Theoretically_, if he undertakes not to mention his views on the Holocaust evah again, it should be possible to let him back in. However, frankly, even if he manages that, and manages to avoid blathering about any other conspiracies involving t3h Jews - which I doubt will be achievable - what benefit are we actually getting from having him around to balance the risk that he will again make Barbelith a toe-curtlingly unpleasant place to be, esp. because he doesn't actually seem to have an understanding of what is and isn't going to cause offence? What value, exactly, has he added so far? What value could we expect him to add in future?
 
 
miss wonderstarr
07:39 / 23.03.06
My posts regarding Holocaust Revisionism and David Irving were simply my
views on those subjects as of present... If that requires that I keep my Holocaust
Revisionism views to myself from now ...

I thought they were his friend's ideas? He can't feel that strongly about freedom of speech if he took that side-winding "it's not me, I'm just voicing someone else's opinion" route.

Also, it's interesting that a couple of people who've been called up on their behaviour recently seem to see themselves as a necessary resistant provocation, a voice that dares chat back, a jester or pooka, a playful spirit.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
07:47 / 23.03.06
Rather than a breath of fresh hegemony.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
07:59 / 23.03.06
Oh, the whole "I'm a mesoamerican trickster god" excuse is absolutely standard. The interesting thing is, Barbelith doesn't actually need a mesoamerican trickster god, or rather it doesn't need the role to be played by somebody who then tells us alll at the first opportunity that they are a mesoamerican trickster god.

This is what I identified in Shadowsax as "LLBIMG syndrome" - the belief that one is a clever iconoclast, when one is actually behaving like a dim reactionary.
 
 
illmatic
08:00 / 23.03.06
For a starter, the quote is bollocks. If someone's speech causes huge offense to you, you have every right to tell them to shut up. I think that's the crux of the issue here - inability to recongnise or acknowledge that expression of a point of view is deeply offensive to some people. In this instance, those whose families and relatives were murdered - why do some people find that so hard to get?

What value, exactly, has he added so far? What value could we expect him to add in future?

IMO, nothing, except by accident.
 
 
illmatic
08:17 / 23.03.06
It is my understanding now that my idea of free speech does not exactly mesh with the popular idea of free speech on Barbelith.

I think the difference here is free speech that exists in a social vacumn vs. free speech with a comprehension of consequences. The former is the equivalent of walking into a nearby synagogue and tell the congregation that they are a bunch of liars, adn expecting to walk out scot-free.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
08:25 / 23.03.06
I think it's that callousness that gets me, in both VJB's and zoemancer's case. The idea that this is all some kind of intellectual game, that no-one is going to be affected emotionally by it. Names for sets ("The Jews", "the locals", "the skirts") like pieces on a board game, not real people with real adrenal glands and real tear-ducts who might be really reading right now.

Man, at least Laila was genuinely divorced from reality and believed that hir targets were all coldblooded lizards. These guys don't even have that excuse.
 
 
Jawsus-son Starship
08:47 / 23.03.06
Oh so he's from Texas...

Why don't people realise that being band from the 'lith is not the same as being marched out behind the chemical shed and being shot. It's not removing his free speech rights, it's protecting innocents who do not need to hear horrible ideas and views.

PS _ Does any one else want to hear this guys opinions on the Zionist conspiracy? Or skull measurements?
 
 
illmatic
08:48 / 23.03.06
The idea that this is all some kind of intellectual game, that no-one is going to be affected emotionally by it.

... and this in itself shows a huge unawareness of history, to me. I can sort of understand why it happens, on the internet, not being faced with the reality of a person in front of you, but I still find it a bit staggering.

I am thinking of creating an imaginary "5 Other Conservations I don't want to be having on Barbelith" but have restrained myself so far.
 
 
assayudin
09:02 / 23.03.06
PS _ Does any one else want to hear this guys opinions on the Zionist conspiracy? Or skull measurements?

(Since I'm a noob and all I feel a little above my station throwing this out, but not that far I guess.)

No. I don't. And having read the original post I have to say I don't buy the Devil's Advocate ploy or the Loki gig or whatever. I think he posted something that was not just offensive, but sickening and full of racist/anti-Semetic garbage and got called on it. The rest is back peddling.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:07 / 23.03.06
Why don't people realise that being band from the 'lith is not the same as being marched out behind the chemical shed and being shot. It's not removing his free speech rights, it's protecting innocents who do not need to hear horrible ideas and views.

I heart Desperate Math. I think it's tricky that we have to draw a line and say on the one hand that these are statements which some people on Barbelith may think are horrible but which are not going to be edited or removed, and on the other that these are statements which are, in the eyes of Barbelith, not acceptable to publish and will be, but the existence of such a line has, really, never been in question.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
09:17 / 23.03.06
Yeah, I didn't realise the whole internet was less than six thousand people big. Some of you guys must be buying a hell of a lot of Viagra.

As for the "I'm a trickster god" defense--gee, I must have missed Coyote and the Greedy Single Mother, Anansi outsmarts the Elders of Zion, and the stanza in the Lokasenna where it is revealed that banging Indians makes your dick drop off.
 
  

Page: 1 ... 1314151617(18)1920212223... 42

 
  
Add Your Reply