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

Underground > Conversation >

How to fight a dog [PICS]

Page: 1 2(3)4 5

07:52 / 23.01.06

You know what else I'm sick of? Having to lard every single post I make anywhere on any fucking subject with 57 layers of qualifiers because if I don't it's read and responded to as an absolute statement.

You know what? I have almost no sympathy for that sentiment. Which is to say. It's part of sophisticated, grown-up communication, attempting to communicate clearly and succinctly exactly what you mean rather than vomiting out lazy, poorly thoughtout, hyperbolic and/or unexamined statements that do not bear the weight under examination.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

07:57 / 23.01.06

1) Lectures about how you would deal with an INSANE WOMAN always seem to involve getting in someone's personal space. It just kind of sticks in the mind and floats on top. Didn't mean to imply that anything of the sort was going on here, just trying to convey a flavour of discomfitude.

Also not trying to imply that I am being forced to read the thread, but you are sort of having a public discussion on a public messageboard. People are going to read it and, possibly, get squicked out.

2) I don't think there's anything wrong, in principle, with discussing how you'd defend yourself against an assailant--male, female, canine, whatever. Further, if someone's actually talking about a personal experience when through no fault of their own they had to defend themselves against an attacker and did so successfully, that's by and large a Good Thing.

I just get squicked out by enthusiastic fantasies of eye-gouging, tongue-ripping, and dog-breaking ect. Which seems to be some of what's going on here. I get similarly repulsed on those occasions when I hear women talking in loving detail about the infliction of gory wounds on blokes (because of course the imagined victim has a penis and must therefore have done something), if that's any help.

I guess it's less anything in any one specific post than a sort of overload effect created by many such posts. Like too much chintz in a small parlour.

3) The payoff? %Oh, getting to flaunt my moral superiority and call you guys wifebeaters.% The payoff is much the same as the payoff I got for making a sort of GAHHHHH! noise one time when I trod on a slug with my bare foot. I mean, nobody heard me and it certainly didn't matter to the slug, but it helped relieve my feelings at the time. Sort of a gut reaction thing, you know? Like the "words that set your teeth on edge" thread, only with eye-gouging.

ONLY NICE THINGS

08:05 / 23.01.06

I sit halfway between these two positions, I think. What I think MC is complaining about, actually, is more that her position is being misunderstood, which I can sympathise with. The mention of our mate Personal Computer Hell does put me in mnd of the claim elsewhere that people only complain about racism or sexism which one does not personally feel to be a worthy topic of complaint in order to advertise their own "right-on" qualities - that is, that there cannot be a reason for an attitude that is not your attitude except for one of self-interest or self-promotion.

08:07 / 23.01.06

I think the whole "I don't like the topic, but I won't lock it yet" kinda stoked the flames.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

08:07 / 23.01.06

It's part of sophisticated, grown-up communication, attempting to communicate clearly and succinctly exactly what you mean rather than vomiting out lazy, poorly thoughtout, hyperbolic and/or unexamined statements that do not bear the weight under examination.

So if I state that one discussion in which extreme and graphic violence against a particular target is described in detail and justified by placing the blame entirely on the target reminds me of another such discussion, that's hyperbole. Fine.

Actually I thought pretty hard about that post, stepped away from the keyboard, deleted and re-wrote it a couple of times, and I've been prepared to explain what I meant when people have asked me about it. I still say that this thread, whilst having certain merits as I've outlined above, sucks.

08:14 / 23.01.06

I still say that this thread, whilst having certain merits as I've outlined above, sucks.
Maybe, but a lot of the Conversation threads suck. I've made 1,234 sucky ones myself. Hell, I just made one like 3 minutes ago, and made several in the past including a favorite cheese thread, a thread that just had one or two lines from a Joan Jet song, a Vampire in the shade in daytime vs human thread, and several threads where I draw a copyrighted Marvel character in a Kindergarten-like style.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

08:21 / 23.01.06

Yeah, but your threads didn't have gratuitous dog-eye-gouging. I suppose I could have just posted "this thread sucks" and had done, but I sort of felt that once I was committed to a this-thread-sucks post I had a certain duty to express the reasoning behind it, as well as to examine the degree of suck and acknowledge any mitigating factors. Kind of wish I'd gone with the basic package now, but whatever.

08:41 / 23.01.06

Huggles, MC. The question is, should the thread be locked and the dog-fighters silenced forever because some Barbelith posters find the topic distasteful?

Less searchable M0rd4nt

08:48 / 23.01.06

Nah, I don't think a lock is that great an idea, unless the thread goes to 20 pages of everyone calling each other cunts or something. I just think that there is room in the discussion for GAHHH.

ONLY NICE THINGS

08:50 / 23.01.06

Well, if that's the question, the answer is almost certainly no. Unless actively trolling or hateful, it's very rare indeed for threads in Convo to be locked - the only real precedent I can think of for something like this was the Barbesnark runoff thread, which the author asked to be locked as it became increasingly a morass of vicious passive-aggression.

As such, this is, I'd say, well under the bar, and I'd probably disagree with any move to lock unless a perspective I had not seen was provided. Whether that will apply to my planned "Fighting children" thread I just don't know...

08:53 / 23.01.06

GAHHH. On all counts.

08:58 / 23.01.06

It's part of sophisticated, grown-up communication, attempting to communicate clearly and succinctly exactly what you mean

To be fair, the other part of sophisticated, grown-up communication is to be charitable when miscommunications arise.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

09:04 / 23.01.06

I'm against a lock. I don't like it, so I'm not gonna read it, or at least if I do I'll know I'm not gonna like it.

09:31 / 23.01.06

To be fair, the other part of sophisticated, grown-up communication is to be charitable when miscommunications arise.

Indeed it is and something that I think we could all do to remember.

It is also something that is facilitated, rather than hindered, by clear, succinct communication that seeks to avoid lazy, hyperbolic and/or unexamined statements that do not bear the weight of examination.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

09:34 / 23.01.06

Discussion a reminded me of discussion b. Not Discussion a is exactly similar to discussion b, and certainly not "This thread is as bad as if you were all talking about beating up women and should be LOCKED AND DELETED!"

09:42 / 23.01.06

I just get squicked out by enthusiastic fantasies of eye-gouging, tongue-ripping, and dog-breaking etc. Which seems to be some of what's going on here.
---
I guess it's less anything in any one specific post than a sort of overload effect created by many such posts. Like too much chintz in a small parlour.

i think that's the thing.
if you dont point to specific examples, it does kinda look like you are accusing me of elucidating enthusiastic fantasies, something i would dispute.
i can understand that the many references to violence and the descriptions thereof adding up to suggest an anti dog vibe.
i do take issue with your suggestion that there are many such posts, those of the enthusiastic fantas[ist] variety, those reminiscent of gleeful exponents of violence towards uppity/hysterical women.

i'd argue that there are less than many.
perhaps none?

to me it seems like it may be all about arguing with an enemy that doesnt exist; a straw man that you have a dislike for and with whom you cherish the opportunity to engage.

i say this to more than just mordant, incidentally.
i am taking issue with a set of ideas and accusations that ze represents as much as i am with hir expression of those ideas.

if someone could point to and explain an occasion of enthusiastic fantas[y] or sensationalis[m] and sadis[m] on my part, that might help.
if not mine, then perhaps someone elses?

oh, and dont worry stoatie. it hasnt really been about harming dogs for a good while now.

09:43 / 23.01.06

it helped relieve my feelings at the time.

i can dig it.
been there, done that, etc.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

09:47 / 23.01.06

That's reminded. As in:

re·mind
tr.v. re·mind·ed, re·mind·ing, re·minds

To cause to remember; put in mind: must remind him to call; reminded her of college days.

I've since gone on to offer elucidation as to what was meant by that post, although I have to say that I think it still bears weight. A lot more elucidation, frankly, than I think was strictly called for, but I understand that certain types of scenario generate a powerful emotional response in the reader and that those emotions need to be handled with a degree of care.

09:49 / 23.01.06

Discussion a reminded me of discussion b. Not Discussion a is exactly similar to discussion b, and certainly not "This thread is as bad as if you were all talking about beating up women and should be LOCKED AND DELETED!"

this is why i asked you the payoff question.
it reminded you of it, and telling us that served the purpose(whether intended) of suggesting a similarity between myself and your co-worker.

i understand you when you say you were just idly sharing your memories, but you might wanna watch the timing next time, if indeed you dont wish to suggest, well, exactly what you said you certainly didnt.

sorta comes over like you meant to make us examine our behaviour with special reference to your misogynist(suspected) colleague.

09:54 / 23.01.06

*ahem.*

Less searchable M0rd4nt

10:01 / 23.01.06

Oh, you know what? Fuck it. I take everything back. It's perfectly okay to talk about breaking an animal's jaws and legs, ripping out its tongue, digging out its eyes, kicking it, punching it, maiming it or killing it. It's wrong to feel uncomfortable with such a discussion and to express that discomfort.

Nobody's comparing anybody to anyone's misogynist co-worker. I've explained what I meant, pointed up the elements that the two discussions shared, and explained to the best of my ability why I chose that example.

And I really don't want to go back over the thread and pull out all the specific items that got my goat because everone's got so damned worked up at the mere idea that there might be anything wrong with the thread that to do so feels like it would be interpreted as attack on those posters. I'd rather forgo the minimal satisfaction and let everyone get on with it at this point.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

10:09 / 23.01.06

Okay, let me rephrase that in a less crap way.

I've got to step away from this discussion. I feel bad for doing so because I've upset a lot of people and I know I ought to engage with them, but I'm afraid I'm already so far out of line it would be a mistake to continue.

10:13 / 23.01.06

i'm sorry to have upset you, dude.

butstill, while we're swearing in each other's general direction;

It's wrong to feel uncomfortable with such a discussion and to express that discomfort.

oh fuck off.
i didnt say your discomfort is wrong.
i said that you might wanna watch telling people that they remind you of people who are quite clearly creepy cunt motherfuckers, as it can suggest(i might argue its pretty obvious that it does suggest) that you think that they are creepy cunt motherfuckers as well.

you didnt mean that, you dont think i am one, etc.

it still sounded like it, and i dont think i was being unfair to pull you up on it.

so yeah.
say and do what you like, but dont expect to be able to liken(or seem to liken.) posters to the arseholes of your experience without resistance from said posters.
i'm touchy about stuff like that, see.

10:14 / 23.01.06

ah.
sory, missed yer alteration.
i've made it worse, havent i?
sorry, MC.

i still loves ya.

ONLY NICE THINGS

10:21 / 23.01.06

Actually, toksik, your Hemmingwayesque "You fight a dog, you gotta be quick. You'll probably lose. You wanna win, here's what you wanna do" first post exemplified what I think is characterising this thread for me - handy advice from the SAS Survival Guide from people who have not so much as scrimmaged with a squirrel. Those who contribute actual life experience (Qalyn), or at least one-remove anecdotage score points. It's the Alan Patridgey vicariousness of the thing that I'm finding rather stifling - "I've never had a fight with a man, but if I did I would disable them with deadly strikes to nerve points, before doing sex with a lady", sort of thing.

10:23 / 23.01.06

I have some sympathy with MC here. But for me it’s more the tone than the content that squicks me out.

Since examples are called for:

if you must fight, you wanna be really damn quick.

go for slowing the animal down or rendering hir immobile.
if you are confident you can grab a foreleg in each hand and yank sideways, then go for it. dogs legs break fairly easily if pulled apart, and some folks will even tell you that they can die from such a break. if you can get the right angle and avoid the ankleful of teeth, go for the head kick. you want to break the jaw just behind the teeth, rendering it useless, and you want to do it very quickly.

This is pretty raw stuff, and written with a kind of authority that feels at odds with an abstraction into the hypothetical. ‘Dogs legs break fairly easily if pulled apart’ sounds like it comes from direct experience. And it’s the little things that feel icky to me. ‘Go for the head kick’ sounds casually familiar. ‘You want to break the jaw...’ is an insensitive turn of phrase.

Jack’s posts come over in much the same way to me. It might not be the stuff of fantasy for either of you, but the way some of these descriptions are written does make them sound familiar and vividly imagined. My point being that these might not be fantasies, but if they were, I’d expect them to come out sounding much the same.

The Natural Way

10:24 / 23.01.06

Don't you dare utter the words 'loves ya' again! We've discussed this already over on the words-as-tinfoil thread......

10:36 / 23.01.06

Jack’s posts come over in much the same way to me. It might not be the stuff of fantasy for either of you, but the way some of these descriptions are written does make them sound familiar and vividly imagined.
What the fuck are you talking about? My post was taken word for word from a site about how to handle dog attacks, and I believe I pointed this out.

10:39 / 23.01.06

Apologies, Jack.

10:43 / 23.01.06

Apologies, Jack.
I'm sorry. This thing's turning into the bad vibes thread.

10:46 / 23.01.06

the leg and jaw break things are both from second hand experience and the ass-finger is prolly from sources much like the SAS survival handbook mentioned(i forget. i feel like i have known about that forever).

i was told by british military friend that he had been taught the legs thing after suffering an attack by a terrorist dog(i know... an attack dog seems like the tool of the oppressor, doesnt it?) where he had used the head kick method. he missed by a bit, suffered a bite to his thigh, and then managed to get it second time around. i have also since heard of the techniques from other sources since.(qalyn's high knee is also a standard for when a dog gets in close)

i assumed that my and my friend's experiences were valid in the context of the question, and that his instructor's advice as to the ease with which a dog's legs break was similarly relevant.
i also assumed that the backstory would make me seem like i was showing off how many cool and edgy people i know, and so just gave the raw information.

i apologise if my matter-of-fact version was too raw.

would it be better if i had said "well, seargent so and so told me that in northern ireland they break their legs"?
i woulda thought that would be worse.

ONLY NICE THINGS

10:52 / 23.01.06

Maybe the only way to win the game is not to play it, lest you look like a Clancey Boy. At least, that's what a lady told me before we did sex.

Besides, we're missing the important question here.

How do you fight a child, which you hate?

10:57 / 23.01.06

If possible you want to go for the fontanelle shot. Brain is surprisingly easy to mash up with a few jabs of the index finger.

11:00 / 23.01.06

well, clearly the same as kareem abdul jabar would fight bruce lee.

use your height advantage, innit.

you might also wanna take advantae of the experience the child may lack, if indeed you have any of your own.
remember; in young children the front of the head hasnt yet become solid as it has in adults. an average 25 year old male will be able to take several hits to the front of the head from all but the strongest of hitters while remaining conscious. an immature male with 'greenstick' bones will not.

is that any help, dude?

ONLY NICE THINGS

11:00 / 23.01.06

Oh, God. That shouldn't have happened.

Page: 1 2(3)4 5