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 >

Is something wrong with Barbelith?

  
  

Page: 12(3)45678... 24

 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
08:53 / 19.10.05
Yes, because when you say to a troll that you find what they are saying offensive they always turn into John Le Mesurier and start going "I'm most terribly sorry, I'll leave at once". Banning IP addresses doesn't work if the troll is on dialup does it? When the gates have been open in the past we found that strangely we did not necessarily attract like-minds, we got people who seemed to think that because we were named after a Grant Morrison comic that we should all be in favour of empty-handed insurrection, morons that seemed to think that the situation Jack Frost was in in issue 1.1 was the end of the road, not the beginning.

Barbelith Mods are not here to define policy, except in their status as users, like everyone else. The problem increasingly is that we can have any number of these threads but it all rests with Tom, who is both semi-detached from Barbelith and limited in what changes he can actually make to the board wrt coding.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:42 / 19.10.05
Notwithstanding, terms and conditions are a very good idea, and one that is consistently proposed and never acted on. I have some free time coming up, and would be happy to have a go at drafting something. It doesn't matter in particular whether people agree with them, or even read them - it simply saves time that would otherwise be wasted arguing whether it's OK to spam the board, or whether people who have been banned should be alllowed back on, that sort of thing.
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
11:20 / 19.10.05
Yeah, again, if people would be happy with it, I'd be up for helping put a 'terms and conditions' together. Something tangible to start from, even if it then needs editing/adapting .

I guess we're talking something that is part code of conduct, part mission statement?

And gawd, I've completely missed a couple of the examples listed here of appalling misogyny. I think there needs to be some kind of minimum acceptable, because, as others have said, otherwise the acceptables just drift downwards, people who don't want to have to have an argument on every thread drift away and Barbelith becomes somewhere where bigotry is acceptable.

And I take the point that someone upthread raised about bigotry existing in the real world, but surely again, people in the real world work to combat and challenge it where they can, instead of giving up space to it and retreating.
 
 
Evil Scientist
11:30 / 19.10.05
It's been mentioned upthread that some newcomers feel a little intimidated when they start a thread and then get criticised, etc, by the veteren posters. I've only really noticed this once in my case (since joining earlier in the year), but no harm was done.

Perhaps one suggestion that could be made to potential joinees is that they spend a little time lurking on Barbelith before they join. I lurked for about a year and a half on here simply because the site wasn't taking new members for a while. Reading old and new threads gave me a sense of what standard of behaviour was acceptable, and also gave me an idea of how people would react if I did something they didn't like (I suppose it also helps that I'm thick-skinned, surly, and somewhat arrogant).

I'm personally feel that the Elder Ones have earned the right to be critical of new posters by simple fact of tenure. They've been here quite a bit longer than others, and they're also part of the reason people are drawn to the site in the first place. However, new comers should realise that just because a veteren's having a pop at them it doesn't follow that they are automatically in the wrong.

Barbelith has an extremely small troll population when compared with some boards I've posted on in the past (the Newsarama politics thread springs to mind, never have I been called a commie f**k so many times in a week). But given that the internet can be a tough place to police at the best of times I'm not sure what else can be done to improve security. The Moderators do a good job at maintaining the quality of the site. Most of the population are extremely good at dealing with those who espouse hateful behaviour and making it very clear where the majority here stand on such behaviour.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
11:45 / 19.10.05
Perhaps one suggestion that could be made to potential joinees is that they spend a little time lurking on Barbelith before they join. I lurked for about a year and a half on here simply because the site wasn't taking new members for a while. Reading old and new threads gave me a sense of what standard of behaviour was acceptable, and also gave me an idea of how people would react if I did something they didn't like.

See, this is why my question to 'riding' above is sincere: since people have to specifically ask for registration to post on the board, I don't understand why this isn't already happening. One depressing conclusion might be that it isn't happening because a given amount of time spent lurking on Barbelith and browsing threads fails to convey the impression that Barbelith does not welcome outright sexism, racism and homophobia. And of course there are people who, while they do not engage in those kinds of speech themselves, believe other should have the right to do so (free speech, etc). There are also those who disagree on the definitions of what constitutes sexism, racism and homophobia (the debate gets even muddier if we start to discuss class-based prejudice).
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
11:55 / 19.10.05
I'm all for the terms and conditions thing- as Haus says, even though it may be subject to change, it actually gives us something concrete to point to when needed, which would make tackling racism, homophobia et al a damn sight easier- "you agreed to this, if you don't like it, you shouldn't be here" would be much more effective than pages and pages of back and forth as to why whatever was said was out of order.

I do think the "subject to change" bit is important- even among the non-trolls of us there is often some disagreement on exactly WHERE the line should be drawn. But of course, we can't move the line unless we actually HAVE a line to move.

I'm also in agreement on the "people should lurk" thing (though yes, as Petey says, it doesn't seem to be doing the trick so far- I fail to see how it NOT happening would make things worse, though)- my only problem with that is that I personally might feel a leeetle bit uncomfortable with trying to get too heavy-handed about recommending it, cos I just jumped straight in and started posting when I joined.
 
 
Smoothly
12:04 / 19.10.05
Perhaps one suggestion that could be made to potential joinees is that they spend a little time lurking on Barbelith before they join.

I think that is one very good reason not to smash the current registration system with a big hammer, imperfect though it is. At the moment, the delay in getting people registered creates a shield against those with little or no investment in the place before they begin posting. The fact that a small but significant proportion of applicants don’t respond to follow-up emails that normally take just a matter of days to send out, demonstrates that although we do get some fairly casual, relatively uninterested and uninitiated new users, a side-effect of this system is that it offers some protection from those with only a very short-term interest in the place (throwaway trolling being a potential problem along with the more sustained kind). Point being that while the flaws in the process are obvious, some of the benefits are less so. I know it seems unfair when so many of us joined without that rigmarole, but as someone else said, the place is different now.

I’m all for some codified T&C too – just to short-circuit some of the more routine disputes - and would be up for helping in any way that I could be useful.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
13:18 / 19.10.05
AAAAARGH Fuck, I just lost an ENORMOUS post.

It was about the big unresolved question, the elephant in the room: "Does/should Barbelith have core values that include being feminist pro-queer, and anti-racist?"

I think a lot of the Wiki takes the form of guidelines rather than hard and fast rules, but a decision has to be made if you're going to convert those kind of guiding principles into something more solid. And I do think that's a good idea, because it doesn't matter how long or how little people lurk for, they can always claim they thought Barbelith would have a sense of humour about their casual racism/homophobia/sexism, or that we're censoring them in a way that would make Grant Morrison sad, no matter how long they lurked for, if they haven't seen anything that clearly states otherwise.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:22 / 19.10.05
"Does/should Barbelith have core values that include being feminist pro-queer, and anti-racist?"

I'd amend that to anti-misogyny, anti-homophobia/transphobia/biphobia etc, anti-racist. Nobody on Barbelith has to be feminist or pro-queer, but I think they should understand that giving vent to misogyny, homophobia or racism will have consequences. Anyone who disagrees with that should, IMHO, probably not be wasting their time posting on Barbelith when there are so many other message boards built with their comfort more in mind.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
13:26 / 19.10.05
Ha - well originally I had framed it as you amended it, then decided I wanted to take a more pro-active stance!
 
 
Axolotl
13:31 / 19.10.05
I think Haus is correct there. People can have opposing views (within reason) but what they shouldn't be able to do is throw around terms of abuse without being slapped down.
 
 
Smoothly
13:38 / 19.10.05
If we’re going to turn guidelines into something more solid, then we’re going to have to decide what counts as racist, homophobic etc. Simple in certain instances, granted, but did we ever reach an agreement on ‘cunt’ qua misogyny, for example?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:44 / 19.10.05
Or bitch, for that matter. Probably borderline, but if addressed to a female-identifying member of Barbelith pretty clearly unacceptable. If used to describe a woman/women generally, I'd say also. In the British usage addressed to a male-identified viictim, tricky - hard to enforce, as well, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be enforced.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
13:55 / 19.10.05
Has 'cunt' ever been used in a misogynistic way on Barbelith? Or are we saying that it's intrinsically misogynistic?

I think there's a danger here of getting so tied up with this kind of thing that the idea of writing out a set of terms and conditions will simply be abandoned again. I'm sure that's what's happened in the past. There has to be an element of playing it by ear, of people being expected to possess some common sense.
 
 
Axolotl
13:56 / 19.10.05
Would their usage be bannable offences though? That would seem to me unnecessarily harsh.
 
 
grant
13:56 / 19.10.05
There, yes. Something concrete. I'm now picturing a "terms of abuse" entry on the wiki. Not a dictionary, but a definition of what a term of abuse might be. This could go on the same page with a definition of "safe space," which I think would keep references to that page on the right track.

----

I think I might be a poster who doesn't have a problem with an isolated instance of bigotry/dodgy joke-telling, as long as it's called-on in-thread (You see what you just did there?). Key word being *isolated*. I don't believe our bygone Elder of Zion friend kept his beliefs confined to one post. I can live with one post with a rebuttal. I don't even need an apology, as long as it doesn't happen again, and doesn't spread to other threads.

I can't say I've followed the Vlad thing enough to know if this is the case there.

-----

Ganesh is super swell -- elephants really do never forget.

Having that any-name-at-all area back on the board would be a lot of fun.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
14:04 / 19.10.05
It was the Q&A/Help forum, wasn't it? I think that could be of use anyway - might make Policy slightly more focused.
 
 
grant
14:13 / 19.10.05
Yeah, and "Help" included dating advice and problems with schoolwork, if I remember correctly.
 
 
babazuf
14:15 / 19.10.05
I'm genuinely curious, riding astride on hiccups - why did you apply for Barbelith membership? Were you unable to find other message boards which seemed like they might be more receptive to "political incorrectness"? Or did you think "My winning ways will soon convince them that a bit of the old Nuts magazine mentality never did anybody any harm, and those stuffy feminist types will loosen up and come round to me"?

Ad hominems abound! Tut tut.

I applied for Barbelith under the impression that it was a forum dedicated to the exchange of ideas, regardless of how un-PC or troglodytic they may be. Am I about to be proven incorrect?

Frankly, I don't see how a hatred of Germaine Greer translates to one being sexist or misogynistic. Simply because I heavily dislike the woman has absolutely no bearing at all on my views on the women's liberation movements - I merely have issue with her support of an agenda which seems to be, at heart, as equally bigoted as the males she is in fact targeting with her invectives.

You know what guys? I don't like Mother Teresa either. Gasp! She was a hypocrite, a thief (1.2 million dollars US, approximately), and she supported the regimes of Indira Gandhi, Jean-Claude "Baby-Doc" Chevalier and Enver Hoxha. And I also don't like John-Paul II! Due to his opposition to birth control in sub-Saharan Africa (some Catholic aid workers actually going so far as to tell local communities that condoms cause HIV) it is projected that he will be indirectly responsible for more deaths than any other person on the planet.

However, because it is politically incorrect to dislike Mother Teresa and John Paul II, does that automatically make me a bad person? Because that would suck.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
14:19 / 19.10.05
Have we got a link to that thread about the use of the term 'political correctness' in the wiki? I can't help feeling, reading the above, that it should probably be there if it isn't already.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
14:25 / 19.10.05
However, because it is politically incorrect to dislike Mother Teresa and John Paul II, does that automatically make me a bad person? Because that would suck.

Sorry, what? Has anyone here ever told you it is wrong to dislike those people?
 
 
babazuf
14:30 / 19.10.05
I'm being labelled a sexist and a misogynist for disliking Germaine Greer. Why stop there?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
14:34 / 19.10.05
Randy: somebody's already provided one in this thread, which has presumably been ignored.

I don't see any ad hominems before this point, riding. It's worth noting that what's been objected to isn't your disagreement with and dislike of Germain Greer in itself. I'm sure many people would agree with that. Had you expressed your dislike of Greer and her work in a fashion that didn't involve talking about kicking the shit out of her, juxtaposed with telling us in the same post that you're looking for pretty girls in short skirts, I doubt I would have been so inclined to wonder what you're doing here. Had you responded to criticism of the same with an explanation of where the form(s) of feminism you support differ from Greer's, rather than invoking "political correctness", you'd likewise have been doing yourself a favour.

All that stuff about Mother Teresa and John Paul II, while quite right, does is demonstrate that your definition of "political correctness" is as shaky and arbitrary as everybody else who ever invoked it as a way to defend their own obnoxiousness.
 
 
Axolotl
14:36 / 19.10.05
Without agreeing entirely with Petey's assessment of your character, I'd like to point out that in his original post he clearly states that disliking Germaine Greer alone was not enough to condemn you as a sexist in his eyes. It was that plus other posts that led him to his (possibly erroneous) conclusion.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
14:41 / 19.10.05
I didn't actually use the term "sexist" either - I cited it as an example of sexism. It's not quite the same thing - see many many discussions about the "how dare you call me racist?" issue.
 
 
Axolotl
14:46 / 19.10.05
Fair enough, and a good point. That quotation about racism being a behaviour, not a characteristic should almost certainly be in wiki (if it isn't already).
 
 
babazuf
14:52 / 19.10.05
I don't see any ad hominems before this point, riding.

Casting unfounded aspersions upon the quality of my character via imitation and covert criticism would constitute an ad hominem in my eyes, Petey.

It's worth noting that what's been objected to isn't your disagreement with and dislike of Germain Greer in itself. I'm sure many people would agree with that. Had you expressed your dislike of Greer and her work in a fashion that didn't involve talking about kicking the shit out of her, juxtaposed with telling us in the same post that you're looking for pretty girls in short skirts, I doubt I would have been so inclined to wonder what you're doing here.

I've read your posts around and about Barbelith a fair bit, Petey, and you strike me as an intelligent individual. Why then do you insist on taking the most absolutely literal interpretation of my words in what was a non-serious thread? I understand that there was no way that you could know that I would not kick the shit out of anyone at all (which is true), but it is hardly an unfair assumption that my response to a non-serious thread is going to be exaggerated and similarly non-serious.

I also refuse to be a martyr simply because I enjoy pretty girls in short skirts. I'm nineteen years old, Petey. Visual titillation at the sight of a nice set of legs is par for the course at this point. I understand that some of you will feel as if I am objectifying women for my own gratification, and this is true. Often ignored however is that men are also objectified by women - I'm moderately easy on the eyes, and it's something that I am used to (even expect) by now. Objectifying a person's looks is not a belittling or derogatory gesture against their intelligence, education, worth or merit as an individual, as far as I'm concerned. It's simply the purely aesthetic appreciation of another human body.

Had you responded to criticism of the same with an explanation of where the form(s) of feminism you support differ from Greer's, rather than invoking "political correctness", you'd likewise have been doing yourself a favour.

Were the thread a serious one, I would have. Given the context of the thread however, I believed that a glib, throwaway comment would hardly need qualifying. Evidently I was wrong.

All that stuff about Mother Teresa and John Paul II, while quite right, does is demonstrate that your definition of "political correctness" is as shaky and arbitrary as everybody else who ever invoked it as a way to defend their own obnoxiousness.

Political correctness was always a shaky concept. I may as well co-opt it and make use of it against those that would attempt to damn me with it.
 
 
babazuf
14:54 / 19.10.05
I didn't actually use the term "sexist" either - I cited it as an example of sexism. It's not quite the same thing - see many many discussions about the "how dare you call me racist?" issue.

Granted. My apologies.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
14:55 / 19.10.05
Or you could read the thread that, I now realise, you were linked to earlier.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:56 / 19.10.05
I think Flyboy has already linked to it above.

I applied for Barbelith under the impression that it was a forum dedicated to the exchange of ideas, regardless of how un-PC or troglodytic they may be. Am I about to be proven incorrect?

Well, yes. This thread has already done that. For example, exchanging the idea that the Holocaust didn't happen is not allowed on Barbelith. More generally, if you want to exchange "un-PC" or troglodytic ideas, there may be better places to do it. In this case, personally, I don't see a desire to kick the shit out of Germaine Greer as more offensive than any other violent fantasy about women, so YMMV. Likewise, of course he wants to meet pretty girls in short skirts - he's on the Internet, isn't he? The fact that he has leapt to frame the issue in terms of political correctness is a bit of a worry, conversely, but there we go.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:00 / 19.10.05
Tell you what, hiccups - head off, read the lengthy discussions of political correctness on Barbelith, come back and show some more developed understanding. We'll go from there. Right now you're using it to mean "whatever I think other people don't want me to say for reasons I disagree with" - disliking Mother Theresa and JPII can just as easily be framed as highly "politically correct" - they are religious figures, anti-contraception, anti-abortion, anti-Liberation Theology.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
15:30 / 19.10.05
Why then do you insist on taking the most absolutely literal interpretation of my words in what was a non-serious thread? I understand that there was no way that you could know that I would not kick the shit out of anyone at all (which is true), but it is hardly an unfair assumption that my response to a non-serious thread is going to be exaggerated and similarly non-serious.

Dude, you're misunderstanding my objection. I don't seriously worry that you're going to physically assult Germaine Greer. There's just something about a bloke saying "I'd like to kick the shit out of that famous feminist author" that rubs me up the wrong way. It's your choice of rhetoric that disturbs me, not the idea that you'd actually act on it. If you're honestly at a loss as to why, then, well - did we ever have a Feminism 101 thread? If not, maybe we need one.

I also refuse to be a martyr simply because I enjoy pretty girls in short skirts.

But again, as I said in my first post on the subject, my objection (which in itself hardly makes you "a martyr") was not based simply on that comment. It's the juxtaposition that I find nauseating. And that kind of juxtaposition tends to arise from, and hint at, underlying attitudes such as the following...

I understand that some of you will feel as if I am objectifying women for my own gratification, and this is true. Often ignored however is that men are also objectified by women - I'm moderately easy on the eyes, and it's something that I am used to (even expect) by now. Objectifying a person's looks is not a belittling or derogatory gesture against their intelligence, education, worth or merit as an individual, as far as I'm concerned. It's simply the purely aesthetic appreciation of another human body.

Yeah. Okay, so, ignorance of existing power relations, willful or otherwise, check. Could you tell me which feminist writers you are a fan of - the ones you'd like to make a nice dinner for, rather than kick the shit out of, metaphorically speaking?

Were the thread a serious one, I would have. Given the context of the thread however, I believed that a glib, throwaway comment would hardly need qualifying. Evidently I was wrong.

Given the context of this thread, you might have wanted to explain yourself a bit more thoroughly than just to say "I wasn't aware that suppressing political incorrectness was conducive to the free exchange of ideas" - but again, it's not the glibness that's the problem as far as I'm concerned. It's how instinctively you reach for the "political correctness" defence, which seems to further confirm what I'd already suspected.

Political correctness was always a shaky concept. I may as well co-opt it and make use of it against those that would attempt to damn me with it.

Who has damned you with it? Who said "riding on hiccups shouldn't have said that because it's not politically correct and Barbelith should have political correctness as one its shared values"?
 
 
*
15:30 / 19.10.05
Also, Petey and RAOH, this thread is about the board, not about Petey and RAOH. That's why I linked to another thread; so you can take it somewhere the fuck else and not rot this one.

To get somewhat back on topic— I think a mission-statement/Terms of Use agreement when joining would be useful, and I think it could be relatively easily worked into the existing registration process, if people want to keep that. I think a quick quiz on the TOU as part of e-mail checking could work too, with questions like "What constitutes a bannable offense?" and "Is there anything in the TOU you think needs improving? what and why?" The email could be form, so the checkers don't have to make the questions up every time, and it's not so much to analyze the responses as to make sure we get responses which reflect that people have read the Terms.

This would:
-make sure people know what's expected of them
-give them an opportunity to respond in a slightly more nuanced way than clicking an "I agree" button
-give us an opportunity to point them back to the terms if they screw up
-give us proof that they agreed to them in the first place
-possibly give us something we can return to and compare to current posts to see if someone is being suitjacked

This would not:
-stop a determined troll
-make registration easier on either the registrants or the checkers
-necessarily lead to registration being contingent upon idelogy— although it could grow in that direction, if we're not careful
-make the Barb instantly back into the Shining Star of Messageboardom which it apparently was in the Golden Era

It might or might not:
-make new members feel more confident in speaking up. Some people feel better if there are good concrete guidelines to start with, and some people will just be intimidated by the process.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
15:38 / 19.10.05
Also, Petey and RAOH, this thread is about the board, not about Petey and RAOH. That's why I linked to another thread; so you can take it somewhere the fuck else and not rot this one.

This discussion is indeed not about me or riding, nor is it entirely about "PC". It is about (among other things) whether Barbelith has or should have core values, and I think this kind of disagreement may usefully illustrate the different arguments about that. With that in mind I will keep it "the fuck" here until I am persuaded otherwise.
 
 
babazuf
15:42 / 19.10.05
I am reading it, and I understand completely what you are trying to achieve. However, I can't help but dislike how my opinion of Germaine Greer and my unrelated comment on the aesthetic qualities of pretty girls in short skirts in a thread that was inherently light-hearted have catalysed a firestorm of all sorts of negative buzzwords.

After thinking about it, I actually think what's truly irritating me hasn't anything to do with Germaine Greer at all, and more to do with how this debate even materialised:

If you (in the plural) want to challenge or clarify my views before you label me whatever the hell you want to label me as, fine. If you want to call me a fucking retard for thinking that, that's also fine. But frankly, posting that I am advocating misogyny and sexism without asking me to explain why I said what I did, in a thread that I am not even part of, seems a smidgeon counterproductive. How am I supposed to defend and explain myself if I don't even know I am being criticised? How are you propagating an open and critical environment of discussion if the argument is inherently one-sided?

Political correctness seems to be the often-necessary linguistic effort to acknowledge and right old wrongs. And yet, how effective is it if un-PC opinions and groups are marginalised instead?
 
  

Page: 12(3)45678... 24

 
  
Add Your Reply