BARBELITH underground
 

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


Is something wrong with Barbelith?

 
  

Page: 1 ... 1314151617(18)1920212223... 24

 
 
---
00:18 / 09.04.06
Hey,

I think I ended up partly using the argument to get at some of the things that I think are wrong with the site, and that's why it went on for so long. Yeah, I went over the top with it myself and dragged it out too much, but after I'd spent about 2 hours messing around with posts and then woke up with a hangover to find that Ganesh had said that I was using sometype of argument, I felt that trying to be honest had just got me nowhere. I'd already apologized a few times about how I'd messed the post up, but then it looked like things had gotten worse. If I'd just left things after what Ganesh had said, then that would've maybe left me being seen as someone who didn't really care about what I was trying to explain.

It might not seem so serious, but if you were in the same position, and had apologized and tried to explain what you'd done wrong, wouldn't you think it was a little serious that it was starting to look like you could have problems with gay people? I take things like that seriously, that's all, especially with some people that post here being gay, and I'd hate for them to think that I had problems with them, and would easily prefer not to post if that was the case. Ganesh for example : I think he's cool, and have done ever since I first started posting here, so when I saw his post in the Barbannoy thread, it felt like everything I'd written must have seemed fake or something, and I was pretty gutted because I'd tried to explain my errors as much as I possibly could.

Maybe I can message him and ask what the problem was with how I'd tried to explain what I'd done wrong, or if he was basically just pissed off at my first post in the V thread, and anything that I'd written after that didn't matter.

Actually you took it to both Policy and Conversation, to loudly protest how you are DEFINITELY NOT ANTI-GAY, whilst steadfastly refusing to examine why your (and Felix's) posts might be problematic to some.

I did eventually examine my post and Felix's though, and I also apologized and explained why I'd wrote what I had done in the V thread, and that's what my problem was. It didn't seem enough that I'd already explained and apologized, and that's why I ended up here. As for ending up in Convo, I admit that I was pissed of with what you'd written, so I posted in the Barbannoy thread because I was annoyed, but hopefully that's been sorted out now.

Anyway, I guess I messed a big amount of that up, agreed, and sorry for dragging it out. I prefer to avoid all the drama, but right from when I first posted, I was more interested in the bigger picture of how people sometimes get unfairly treated with mistakes in their posts, but Felix managed to sort things out by the looks of it. My main problem was, and still is, what happens to people who can't explain things as well but have done things out of the same type of error, because it's something that I think can be a problem around here. I'm fine with accepting that I messed that up anyway, but I hope that one or two of the things I wrote in my last post further up (the bar being raised too high, for example.) can be understood a bit.

Finally, even though I have problems with some things around here, it doesn't mean that I want to carry on this discussion myself for ages, because I'm not sure how much I could help in this area. I'm basically happy that I've given my own view on it, and hope that some of it can be understood. The only reason I've carried this on is because I think that the main problem is related to the way that a lack of awareness in peoples posts can sometimes result in them getting judged/flamed/etc if they're not able to explain themselves as well as some people would want them to, basically meaning that some posters want people's mistakes explained to too high a standard, and it can really confuse and alienate the people who are trying to explain the problems, because they're not able to do it well enough for it to be accepted. Things appear to get over analyzed aswell, something that I'm equally guilty of here after thinking of how much I've written since friday.
 
 
eddie thirteen
03:26 / 09.04.06
Well, listen, Jack. Either (a) you're being treated unfairly by people who want to reply to what they want you to have said, regardless of whether you actually said it, because it gives them the opportunity to strut around and look cooler than, or fashionably irate, or the ever popular etc., or (b) you're genuinely being misunderstood.

If it's the first one, then why should you care about whether someone like that would "accept" you? To be blunt, the desire to be "accepted" seems a little desperate and misplaced to me. Because let's pretend for a moment that every single person on Barbelith thinks you are Lucifer...so? How has your life changed?

And if it's the second one, then your subsequent posts will eventually make it clear to whoever that you're really not such a bad guy after all.

And then they give you a pony.
 
 
---
03:46 / 09.04.06
If it's the first one, then why should you care about whether someone like that would "accept" you? To be blunt, the desire to be "accepted" seems a little desperate and misplaced to me. Because let's pretend for a moment that every single person on Barbelith thinks you are Lucifer...so? How has your life changed?

Well then I'd probably be banned and wouldn't be able to post in the Temple, and the other few forums that I post in, and that'd suck quite a bit. I'm not bothered about being 'accepted', more of not being totally misunderstood, so that I can post without people having a negative view of me and trashing anything that I write in the Temple or wherever. All I really do is occasionally post in 4-5 forums here, and nowhere near as much as I used to do. If I can still do that without any continuing problems then I'm good.

Like I said aswell, I blew this up too much anyway, but if things settle down with this from now on I'm fine. I've pm'd Ganesh aswell, so he might be able to help me with the last couple of things I'm wondering about if he replies to me, so everything should hopefully be ok, and apart from what I asked Ganesh about, I have no problem with any of this anymore.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
11:10 / 10.04.06
Nobody ever gave me a pony.
 
 
grant
11:18 / 10.04.06
Er, I thought that's what you called that thing I... did for you.
 
 
---
18:16 / 13.04.06
'nesh, are you ok with me yet? I didn't get a response by pm, that's all, and I still keep thinking about this whenever I visit the site and it's making me feel really crap. :/ (deserved, I know.)

Maybe it's partly because I've cut down smoking this week and I've felt crap anyway, but I still feel bad about all this and after pm'ing twice and not getting a response, I didn't know what else to do but post in here.
 
 
Ganesh
18:49 / 13.04.06
You PMed me afterwards and told me not to bother. Will bother, though, over the weekend. Don't worry: I'm not gnashing my teeth, rending my garment or otherwise venting bile over you. Chill.
 
 
---
19:08 / 13.04.06
Ok, cool, and thanks for letting me know. Yeah I said not to bother in the second pm because I could easily see where I'd messed up, but I've just being imagining you being pissed off over the last few days so I thought I'd ask here.

Thanks again anyway, I feel way better now.
 
 
---
21:13 / 13.04.06
Referring to what I was going on about with my ranting about people being misunderstood, it might be kind of happening again, but I've made sure to stay out of the actual problem this time :

http://www.barbelith.com/topic/24225/from/105#post574719

Anyone have any ideas? I'm not sure how misunderstood he actually is, but there's mention of a language problem aswell here, with him being French and English not being his first one...
 
 
*
22:38 / 13.04.06
I am finding it a little hard to understand Sam, but not, I think, in a way that obscures his central point— a point, by the way, that he might not have made if not for a misunderstanding in the first place.

I think we can be critical of the stigma that people cast on those who have or whose circumstances increase the risk of having HIV, while still being concerned about risky behavior. Having unprotected sex is a dangerous practice according to all conventional information we have about the disease. Having unprotected sex with someone whose livelihood depends on hir willingness to have unprotected sex with many many people is particularly dangerous practice. We can acknowledge that and still have compassion and fight stigma. One problem with a certain poster's long ago "cock drop off" comment was that it played on and reinforced stigma for the sake of humor. I don't believe that's a problem with Sam's central point. He was, however, taking the general "you" in this sentence:

If that's what you're after you'll find that commercial sex-workers in most large Indian cities can be found who will oblige you, as many of them are more concerned with being able to afford their next meal than the longer-term danger of AIDS or simply aren't aware of the dangers of unsafe sex due to lack of education.

to refer to him specifically. If someone suggested to me personally that I should have unprotected sex with a commercial sex worker of any nationality, this might be my response:

No, thanks. On the grounds that it's risky, which is the same grounds Sam mentioned. I support sex workers' rights, and I feel that unfortunately there are many places where the sex workers are even more at risk than they are in the US due to their economic and social conditions. I would neither compound that risk for them nor take it on for myself while I can help it.

So I would say that if it were more obvious that trouser's referent for "you" was "people who might go into the Osho center looking for easy unprotected sex", and not "you, Sam Tempest, whom I am posting at right now," Sam might not have said the things people are finding so troubling.

Where I start to get concerned about your response, Sam, is here:

%Which is certainly a bit sad for people who have AIDS, but we could do special Thursdays for them%.

That is flippant, and you seem to think that putting %'s around your sentence absolves you of responsibility for it. That's not the case. Usually in order for sarcasm delimiters to make a sentence (relatively) harmless, you need to be clear that you mean the opposite of what you say inside them, or that you are representing a position you wholly disagree with. That's not how you're using them, and so it's not clear that you're doing anything with them other than trying to escape responsibility for certain sentences by putting %'s around them. As it stands, I still hold you responsible for being flippant about HIV in a way which I find upsetting.

I did not experience anger like Mordant expresses, but that doesn't mean her anger is unjustified. I'll wait to hear more feedback.
 
 
Sniv
23:07 / 13.04.06
Ah, but I suppose it's a good thing all this circle-talking and nonsense was limited to the rather-daft-but-actually-quite-interesting humatons thread isn't it? You've got your crazy statements and sizzling put-downs leading to some sort of consensus with Sam being told on more than a few fronts that he is flatly wrong, all in the same self-contained thread. Seems like a good case of Barbelith TCOB to me. Coulds and silver linings, or somthing like that.
 
 
Ganesh
23:30 / 13.04.06
Barbelith TCOB

It's late, and my drink-befuzzled brane in't getting it. Wha?
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
03:42 / 14.04.06
It's late, and my drink-befuzzled brane in't getting it. Wha?

"TCOB" = "Taking Care Of Business" in Elvispeak.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
07:52 / 14.04.06
I've been in PM conversation with Sam Tempest (a poster who I still believe has his heart in the right place) and thrashed out a few things. I don't think, though, that I was unjustified in being offended by comments such as "Sure, some will come only to score. But they will need to adapt, and at least do some of the classes, if they want to hook up with that cutie in the orange sari. And it is likely that the gals in there will be attracted mainly by the spiritual side of the thing" (my emphasis), which whiffed strongly of Western-sex-tourist, or by what seemed to me to be an indefensibly callous attitude to AIDS sufferers.
 
 
illmatic
08:03 / 14.04.06
Side note - cutie in the orange sari. I think ST was refering to the dress code in Osho's ashrams (everyone wore orange head to toe and tended to Indian dress) i.e. said "cutie" would be a fellow student, could be from anywhere in the world. Not a HOT INDIAN BABE in her kewl indigenous dress. Don't know if that helps?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
08:05 / 14.04.06
It does, but I was not alone in my reading of that phrase.
 
 
Quantum
10:02 / 14.04.06
I have been PMing Sam with a bit of advice (and fascinating stuff on lucid dreaming too- thanks Sam!) and advised him on mentioning ESL (that's English as a Second Language in case 'nesh is still befuddled) because I think a lot of the misunderstanding is due to irony-blindness. As Id says, Sam took the 'you' as personal, look at the 'I'm not a sex tourist' bits- nobody is saying you are Sam, just that you should be careful with the language you use.
Well intentioned poster accidentally offending, rather than the beginnings of a trollstorm (thankfully). Well apologised I think.
That said, I did want to weep at the 'sex-to-entice-people-to-enlightenment' theme, which Evil Scientist thankfully trashed almost immediately.
 
 
alas
12:09 / 14.04.06
( Not a HOT INDIAN BABE in her kewl indigenous dress. Don't know if that helps?

But still a "gal" being seduced by all that kewl spiritual stuff, which, ya know, chicks dig... Maybe that not-colonialist-but-sexist implication is unintended too, but yuck.)
 
 
trouser the trouserian
13:22 / 14.04.06
Getting both laid and enlightened for a few rupies, how can you beat that? ... Sure, some will come only to score. But they will need to adapt, and at least do some of the classes, if they want to hook up with that cutie in the orange sari. And it is likely that the gals in there will be attracted mainly by the spiritual side of the thing"

I must say that I found these comments to be highly offensive - both sexist and racist, so when Sam followed up with:

I was thinking this was a kind of marketing ploy. You know, 'You'll score, and you won't need a condom'.

I must admit that my intention, in replying, was to bring out the 'realities' of the "travel to an exotic location and score" theme that I was reading into Sam's post (and probably influenced by just having read a research paper on western sex-tourism in Goa about an hour earlier). Though I was aware that Sam's "you" in the above sentence was probably not self-referential, the "you" in my reply certainly was aimed at Sam specifically. I was angry - and it seemed to me that despite Sam's use of the general "you" in his comments - that he was more than a little attracted to the whole idea.

Illmatic - I did read the "cuties in orange saris" comment in the same way that Mordant did, and I did assume (a) that Sam wasn't implying a student of any nationality but an exoticised Indian one (and most likely female) and (b) that he probably wasn't aware of the orange dress code adopted by followers of Osho.
 
 
Sam T.
14:58 / 14.04.06
I guess it is kosher for you all meta-loving people if I jump in a discussion about me.

He was, however, taking the general "you" in this sentence to refer to him specifically.

That's right. Thanks for putting the finger on it, things are now starting to make a whole lot more sense.

As for the the % %, you're right too, I didn't feel I was using them the right way either. It's not sarcasm per se.

What would you call, a certain form of humor, which will take a premise, preferably a fatally flawed one emotionnaly, and then, with all the utmost logical care and a total seriousness, will expand on it?

Preferably, stay as 'matter of fact' and practical as possible, and never, ever, in the whole exposition, question the central flaw.

Extra points when you try to accommodate things up by showing a little displaced compassion. Try to patch things up, like, you know, special AIDS thursday nights. But never question the total absurdity you totally missed in the beginning.

Keep pushing until you arrive at a situation which is entirely logical when followed from the premise, and outrageously lacking in empathy towards everything which is fair and good.

Then, comes the best part. You wait for reality to catch up. It always do. I wish it wouldn't. Maybe a few time it doesn't, but it is only because someone thought of something even more bloody lacking.

There is always a cold hearted idiot somewhere which will meticulously replicate in real life what you had put together, if you wait long enough. You might think they heard you talking, so you're keeping the best ones for yourself, but it works just the same in the end.


I guess that in a way, it can very much remind you of this

I'm afraid I too, also got a kind of sick desperation in my laugh.


In real life, when you try to pull this kind of thing with people that don't know you, you're already playing with fire. On the internet, it probably looks like juggling with flame throwers with a maniacal grin on your face.

I'll try to refrain from it. I promise. I'm already better, and I must thank you all for that. All those conversations did me a lot of good and managed to shake off some of this despicable attitude towards life.

Because, as funny as I think it is, it is really desperate, and a way to protect oneself from the crude absurdities of life by anticipating on them.

And Mordant, what you said is one of the most moving thing a stranger did told me since a long time.
 
 
Sam T.
16:36 / 14.04.06
(a) that Sam wasn't implying a student of any nationality but an exoticised Indian one (and most likely female) and (b) that he probably wasn't aware of the orange dress code adopted by followers of Osho.

Wrong on both counts. (Except the female thing, but I swear to God it was a non-descript european)

I was thinking Krishna orange, didn't know Osho used the same.

I'll get to the rest later, thanks for your interest.
 
 
Sam T.
16:53 / 14.04.06
The center I was imagining when writing could have been anywhere.

You must have been biased by that sex-in-Goa thing you just read.

Be logical. There are enough sex workers in India, as you pointed out.

No need to spend 1250 rupies to get into a center which I'm pretty sure is full of american and europeans anyway, and then try to go out with a girl, where you can simply walk down the main street and pay two of the 'locals' to follow you to your hotel for the same sum of money. (I don't know what the prices are, it is just an image).
 
 
Jawsus-son Starship
14:39 / 26.04.06
Examples of "Intrusive Moderation" in threads;

The Howl thread being locked as it is viewed as a "Car Crash".

The Freakonomics thread being moved around the boards even though I'd expressed a desire for it to remain where it had started, and then being informed that the thread would be locked and a new thread should be started for each topic.

So I personally view these as two examples of intrusive moderation. Is this good enough Haus and Flyboy?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
15:01 / 26.04.06
Gotta disagree with you there, I'm afraid. The Howl thread had devolved into a discussion of Ginsberg's sexual interest in boys, and as is pointed out in the closing post, we have a thread for the discussion of such things in the Switchboard. The poem that the thread was supposedly about never really got a look in. Ergo, lockage.

The Freakonomics thread is a slightly more complex case, in that I don't think the move to Books was such a great idea (and in fact I was the one who proposed we put it back in the Switchboard). However, I think the lock was ultimately fair. The book covers such a wide variety of topics and the thread rambled so much that breaking everything down into seperate threads (say, "Freakonomics: Crime and abortion" and so on) is a reasonable idea.

I'm sorry if you feel that was intrusive moderation. To me it looks like the kind of regular janitorial/filing work that the mods do all the time.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
15:09 / 26.04.06
Yeah, nobody's saying "don't discuss Freakonomics"- just that if you don't want to discuss it as a book, hence its rightful home being Switchboard (we agree on this) it's gonna get awful messy trying to talk about each argument in the same thread. Personally I agreed the request, and saw it as "asking DM if ze'd like to start multiple threads" rather than "telling DM we don't wanna talk about this shit". I'd like to see those threads, if you'd like to start them.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
15:12 / 26.04.06
Mathlete, sorry, not DM.

Maths always confuse me.
 
 
*
15:12 / 26.04.06
Math, none of that was about stifling discussion. It was all about better organizing it (even if, in one case, it may have had the opposite effect). Do you feel discussion is being stifled or do you dislike the organization system? Separating those two issues may be a good idea, because some people will tend to react to claims of intrusive moderation as if you'd said OMG CENCERSHIPP WTF!93! Not entirely fair, but understandable, given the number of times it's happened— some of them, I believe, from you.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
15:17 / 26.04.06
The poem that the thread was supposedly about never really got a look in.

Indeed. This was partly because Shadowsax never really said anything about the poem in any meaningful sense in the first post, but also because it was immediately derailed by someone - oh hang on, it was Mathlete - bringing up the issue of Ginsberg's sexuality.

If anyone wants to start a thread that actually discusses Howl or any other work by Ginsberg, I will be all for that.
 
 
Jawsus-son Starship
15:17 / 26.04.06
No, when I said intrusive moderation I didn't mean censorship, just moderation that was intrusive to the discussion i.e. the freakonomics moves/lock. But I don't ever really feel censored, sometimes a little insulted, but never censored.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
15:23 / 26.04.06
In all fairness Math, for someone who doesn't like to see his threads interfered with, you were remarkably quick to drag the 'Howl' thread off-topic at (literally) the first opportunity. Shadowsax can't speak for himself any more, but I'd imagine he was pretty frustrated at seeing his (presumably sincere) attempt to have a discussion about a particular poem by Allen Ginsberg, not even his work in general, never mind his life, derailed into a blow-by-blow account of Ginsberg's (alleged) sexual preferences.

A similar thread might begin;

'Discuss the influence of Salvador Dali on Twentieth Century Art and Literature.'

Only to be followed by;

'That Salvador Dali, I hear he couldn't even get it up'

Discussion on male impotence duly ensues, with links to relevant websites.

And as for what you might have said in a thread about 'Alice In Wonderland' - Really it does seem as if you are a bit confused about the differences between fora, specifically, in this case, Books and The Switchboard.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
15:28 / 26.04.06
(X-post, there, with everyone from Darque Lorde down - I was making a sandwich while I was writing it, honest ...)
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:38 / 26.04.06
Predictably, I stand by my actions there, and think that the moderators who agreed my proposals did the right thing - the Howl thread started badly and just became an embarrassment, and it seemed unfair that anyone who actually wanted to talk about Howl would have to wade through the winkies. The Freakonomics thread was already becoming incoherent, after a poor start - one might have wished that whoever proposed the move to Books mentioned it in-thread first, and the same for whoever moved it _out_ of books again, although that I think is less of an issue. Moving it to Books was not in itself a bad plan, as it was presented not as a set of political discussions but as a book, and the limitations of discussing a half-dozen political ideas with totally different subject matter were already becoming apparent with only two of them in play.

So, no, I don't think any of that was intrusive, in the way I think you mean - they were all attempts to do the best possible with incoherent threads. Intrusive like surgery, not intrusive like a burglar.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
15:56 / 26.04.06
(Ah. I thought I had posted to the Freakonomics thread before I asked for the move, but now I see I didn't. My bad.)
 
 
foolish fat finger
20:18 / 08.06.06
the Howl thread started badly and just became an embarrassment

I saw the best threads of my generation, destroyed by O/T posting...
 
 
foolish fat finger
11:45 / 09.06.06
here is my two-cents;

1. Locking threads creates resentment. Participants are liable to feel slighted. Resentment is a seed that breeds trolls.

2. I do not subscribe to the opinion that anyone else knows better than myself/oneself what I/one ought to be discussing.

3. there are members here, both male and female, who see fit to dump their anger onto other members. This breeds resentment and insecurity.

4. Some members seem to be of the opinion that some members or some threads are more worthwhile than others. This idea creates division.
 
  

Page: 1 ... 1314151617(18)1920212223... 24

 
  
Add Your Reply