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 ... 21 22 23 24 25(26)27 28 29 30 31... 42

10:58 / 18.07.06

I can see why you might feel like that Flyboy. I do not share Dragon's point of view and I find some of the wording of those views a bit...(what's your word?)odious. I think it's important that he understand why it isn't acceptable to put his views in those terms.

I also think it's important to try and explain why I feel like that to him, or that I give others the space to do so since I am a bit rubbish at things like that. Although Dragon has not responded to Alas's post, he does seem to be remaining polite and has engaged with this thread too.

I worry sometimes that people with Conservative views are pushed off the board for holding those views. I said a racist thing in the past because I didn't understand that using the term 'red indian' was racist. I learned not to use that term and I am still a board member. But I'm not a conservative. If I had said a racist thing in the context of a discussion about immigration, as Dragon has done, would I then be potentially bannable?

It feels a bit like Dragon is not wanted because he is Conservative, and that the racist thing he said is a good reason to get him to go.

I know people have explained to him why certain words are unacceptable, and he did try to find some common terminology. Is that not, in some ways, just the same as me trying to find the right word for native american?

It seems that we sometimes have double standards; those we apply to people who tend to generally share our views and those we apply to people who don't.

11:03 / 18.07.06

But yes, I did use similar language during the Shadowsax Affair - because as now, I felt then that there were people who seemed to be of the opinion that what mattered most was that Barbelith not be beastly to the person with blatantly odious views.

Then, at the risk of being beastly, I suggest you work on your people comprehension skills - or, rather than dropping semi-opaque statements from time to time, explore this in more depth elsewhere, with input from those of us to whom you are referring.

ONLY NICE THINGS

11:03 / 18.07.06

While marginally less typographically taxing than typing DINGDINGDINGDING, Jack, calling me "son" is still far more about your desire to self-represent as that great American cliché of the truth-speaking mountain man than it is this discussion. Please get past this; it's undignified.

11:12 / 18.07.06

It's less typographically taxing than "you patronizing shitheel," too, which is why it won the coin toss. Still: message sent, message received.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

11:34 / 18.07.06

I really don't mind having conservatives on the board- probably an oversimplification of his views, but a reasonable analogy would be somebody like Slim, with whom I reckon I disagree on most things, but who is willing to debate his point, and contribute to an interesting and fruitful discussion.

It's when discussion becomes impossible that things go wrong. I think in this case it's a bit early to say- so far it's not been too hopeful, but hopefully Dragon will take this on board (sorry for talking like you're not here, Dragon, but it's a bit hard to phrase these things otherwise without it looking like I'm not addressing anyone else) and we can get with the discussing. Refusal to accept, for example, that "illegals" is an unpleasantly loaded term is providing something of a stumbling block here.

ONLY NICE THINGS

11:35 / 18.07.06

Oh, I think that might have been more honest, Jack, if rather unlovely and bit Warren Ellis. Now, where were we? Oh yes, the question of what exactly gets you banned on Barbelith:

Although Dragon has not responded to Alas's post, he does seem to be remaining polite and has engaged with this thread too.

I think, Olulabelle, you may be mixing up "engaged with" and "posted to". Dragon has certainly posted to this thread, but I would not say he has engaged with it. Likewise, his posts to the thread he started - here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here are remarkable for their lack of engagement. In only one case does he give a direct response to a question - my question about whether he has visited Europe. In other cases he either starts an entirely new tangent (Barbelith as a country), talks about receptions of his use of language rather than opinions about the actual subject, responds with a rhetorical question or quotes another member before embarking on a largely tangential point. This may simply be inexperience with the message board as a medium - first users can often get a bit excited - but right now the ongoing discussion is actually largely taking place in spite of rather than because of his contributions. And, frankly, if you cannot muster the resources to respond to alas, one of the kindest, most careful and most helpful of us, it's a good sign that you are out of your depth and should probably paddle for shallower water ASAP; quo vide, again, Shadowsax.

Regrettable Juvenilia

11:40 / 18.07.06

For fuck's sake, Jack. Anyone who is not being wilfully disingenuous or just plan thick could recognise that the issue of whether Dragon had actually physically visited Europe was not really what Haus was getting at - the point is that Dragon's opinions about Europe are a load of bullshit. Are you disputing that? And what are you doing to win hearts and minds? What makes your posts in that thread so much better than anyone else's in that regard?

Ganesh, I don't really want to revisit the Shadowsax thing at this point - Our Lady brought it up but I don't think it's necessarily relevant to the discussion.

Olulabelle, with the best will in the world, people have already pointed out that the reaction to Dragon has as much to do with his posting style as it does to his views themselfs. (Cross-post with Haus above.) The fact that so many of the "conservatives" who show up on Barbelith are also incapable of engaging with an opposing viewpoint or even stringing a rational argument together is either a coincidence or an indication of something else, but it's the latter quality that tends to get them in trouble.

12:15 / 18.07.06

I know, but I can't help but want to give him the benefit of the doubt.

12:24 / 18.07.06

the issue of whether Dragon had actually physically visited Europe was not really what Haus was getting at - the point is that Dragon's opinions about Europe are a load of bullshit. Are you disputing that?

Nope. Might've been better to just say so outright, though, rather than dancing around it in a way calculated to make Dragon feel small. It's the difference between corecting someone's misconceptions and mocking hir ignorance.

As I've said before and will doubtless be forced to say many times again: It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it—that's what gets results.

Regrettable Juvenilia

12:27 / 18.07.06

You've said it before, yes. I have yet to see you demonstrate it with any consistency.

12:33 / 18.07.06

Oh, I admit that I am prone to failure, and that sometimes my anger gets the better of me. But I still think that civil discourse—interrogation of concepts, not condemnations of individuals—is an ideal worth shooting for, even if I don't always hit it.

12:36 / 18.07.06

("Congratulations, you're a xenophobe!" being a particularly egregious violation of that principle. Mea culpa.)

ONLY NICE THINGS

12:55 / 18.07.06

Nope. Might've been better to just say so outright, though, rather than dancing around it in a way calculated to make Dragon feel small. It's the difference between corecting someone's misconceptions and mocking hir ignorance.

Not my intention, I'm afraid, nor particularly terpsichorean in conception or execution. First up, I was simply seeking to establish that "Europe as we know it" was a complex statement when the "we" contained both Europeans and non-Europeans. Second up, I have yet to see any convincing evidence that Dragon sees ignorance as a bad thing:

Nothing wrong with the standard of education in the US insofar as only teaching English goes, in my opinion.

14:00 / 18.07.06

FWIW (and I don't propose taking too much time over it), I think that Jack's interpretation of Haus question wasn't entirely off base. I saw the attempt to get a response, and look at europe in a slightly more complex way.....but it was also, when taken directly, irrelevant and belittling and I didn't think that Dragon would be able to cope with that on my first reading (he did cope, by ducking under my expectations and ignoring the point). *shrug* It seemed to me to be a controlled anger response from Haus. Just saying that my reading of the exchange had something in common with JFs. Good faith yet differing interpretations are possible, after all.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

14:32 / 18.07.06

Flyboy- Me think my reading am great. Might I suggest you start the 'Trial of Dragon' thread so we can move on? I'd also quite like you to call me stupid to my (electronic) face rather than dance around it.

14:46 / 18.07.06

I was put off by things like this question in the lab, rather than political affiliation. I had to resist 'justfuckinggoogleit' as a response. It just seems that the posting style contributes little Barbelith hasn't seen before, and it's certainly making me more irritable. Maybe dragon will adapt to the board and become a respected poster, maybe he'll dig his own grave and continue to ignore other posters.
Is writing posts but not reading responses a reason for banning? I don't think so, but if only it were. I'd address you directly dragon but I don't think you'll respond so what's the point?

Regrettable Juvenilia

14:46 / 18.07.06

I've no interest in starting a 'Trial of Dragon' thread - see previous posts which state why. Nor do I want to call you stupid - in fact I'd put in a moderation request to rephrase the bit about reading comprehension, which obviously hasn't gone through. In the absence of that, I'd still appreciate if you could explain to me exactly how you reached the conclusion that I was suggesting that no-one could disagree with me unless they are evil racists themselves.

ONLY NICE THINGS

15:27 / 18.07.06

On the plus side, he has managed to get through that Lab thread yet without mentioning that Islamic science is unsophisticated and incompatible with western science...

16:19 / 18.07.06

I was put off by things like this question in the lab...

Egad! Somebody asking a stupid science question in a thread called "Stupid Science Questions"!

Of all the bloody cheek!

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

16:25 / 18.07.06

I have to admit, much as I'm not posting in any of the threads due to the fear of going mental, I actually agree with Jack Fear on that one.

16:51 / 18.07.06

Absolutely. It's a good science question too. Shall we not dislike people for doing exactly what the thread asks? I'd really, really like it if it stayed OK to ask questions like that in threads like that.

Plus anyway, Google may be your friend but it doesn't always mean it's right. Not saying that Barbelith is right, either, just sometimes asking your peers can be just as enlightening and a bit more interesting.

16:54 / 18.07.06

I'd say it's more than okay, it's the thread's remit, fercryeye.

Really not sure what Q was on about there.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

17:07 / 18.07.06

A lot of the time I ask dumb questions on here which I could Google for... I'd just rather hear the Barbelith answer sometimes.

17:43 / 18.07.06

The fact that so many of the "conservatives" who show up on Barbelith are also incapable of engaging with an opposing viewpoint or even stringing a rational argument together is either a coincidence or an indication of something else, but it's the latter quality that tends to get them in trouble.

I can understand your frustration at Dragon for not bothering to reply after the efforts made to show the error of his views, his refusal to reply to them only weakens his own arguments further. You should not feel that your posts were wasted as a great many people still read and learn from them, even if they do not or cannot reply.

I expect most of the people who read barbelith are non-members and so do not have the option to comment, but still can learn and appreciate the points made and can conclude who has made the most sensible points in these arguments.

I hear views like Dragons, all the time in the media and from people in meat space, it’s the counter arguments that I hear on barbelith that gives me the language and the strength with which to deal with them.

Yes views, when offensive or ill-thought out should be challenged, but banning people for holding these views is not going to make them go away in the real world. I understand that we should not let these suits get out of hand, and run the risk of making barbelith a platform for hate speech, but I have more that enough faith in the posters here to deal with that when it happens.

ONLY NICE THINGS

17:45 / 18.07.06

Best guess? Quantum has been pushed to the edges of his tolerance by the Islamophobia and refusal to engage with the content of threads and his thus lost objectivity. It happens. Let's not let it distract us from the topic, which is "What exactly does get you banned on Barbelith?"

18:44 / 18.07.06

Ganesh, I don't really want to revisit the Shadowsax thing at this point

In that case, I'd appreciate your witholding the reductive little digs at those whose approaches you disagreed with at that time.

Regrettable Juvenilia

18:52 / 18.07.06

It wasn't intended as a dig - hence the use of the past tense. I felt that then, I don't necessarily maintain that now.

18:56 / 18.07.06

Fair enough, then - but your "beastly" comment didn't make that especially clear. Perhaps better avoided altogether until such time as it can be mutually explored in more depth.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

15:55 / 19.07.06

Flyboy Does Dirt I'd still appreciate if you could explain to me exactly how you reached the conclusion that I was suggesting that no-one could disagree with me unless they are evil racists themselves.

It was your little thing, both in this thread and the Shadowsax one (and possibly in arguments with/about Dead Megatron? I'm not sure on that one), of posting as though you held the opposite view to the one you hold, that you believe it vitally important that abhorent ideals should be allowed to be stated unchallenged on Barbelith (which no-one has ever argued for). I then see this, rightly or wrongly, as you trying to force a position on anyone that disagrees with you in whatever argument it is and that, by implication with your other posts attacking whoever the bad person is in that case, anyone who disagrees with you is doing so because they share the same values as whoever the bad person is. Therefore, because Shadowsax was a misogynist, I believe that you are accusing me of being a misogynist if I don't agree with you calling for him to be banned with equal fervour.

I'm not explaining this very well am I? At least I can blame it on the heat. Your use of language (which I've often wondered if it's influenced by much reading of music journalism?) doesn't go in for qualifiers and tends to read to me as quite absolutist, quite this is the way things are. Being a gutless liberal I'm quite open to the idea that this is all my interpretation, certainly when I attempt something similar I tend to end up looking ridiculous a short time later.

Does the above make any kind of sense?

16:54 / 19.07.06

Is this the one you mean, Flowers? I think what's really important is that we bend over backwards to make the openly racist feel welcome and accepted, even if it means we don't challenge their views with any particular vigour.

07:09 / 20.07.06

perhaps just after that as well?

Oh, it's very easy to see where they're coming from, I agree. elene, for example, is coming from a position that Dragon is not an extremist and that there is a danger that Europe might be swamped with immigrants.

07:17 / 20.07.06

i didnt come here for that, though.

i was wondering how
It wasn't intended as a dig - hence the use of the past tense. I felt that then, I don't necessarily maintain that now.
and
But yes, I did use similar language during the Shadowsax Affair - because as now, I felt then that there were people who seemed to be of the opinion that what mattered most was that Barbelith not be beastly to the person with blatantly odious views.
can be said to consistent.

'as now, i felt then that' makes me think you in fact do maintain that now, as does your limited denial 'i don't necessarily maintain that now'.

care to elaborate on how you do feel?
i would appreciate you saying who you feel thinks that, more so if you said why and provided examples.

Regrettable Juvenilia

07:28 / 20.07.06

"As now, I felt then" = "as I feel now about this situation, I felt then about that situation".

Regrettable Juvenilia

07:31 / 20.07.06

And Our Lady... I don't really know how I can help you. If I sarcastically say that I believe we should all make a big effort to be nice to/about X, all it means is that I don't believe we should all make a big effort to be nice to/about X. That you interpret that as meaning I think everyone who disagrees with me agrees with X is your own issue.

07:51 / 20.07.06

care to elaborate on how you do feel?
as opposed to how you dont necessarily feel?

Page: 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25(26)27 28 29 30 31... 42