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 >

Woman-Friendly Barbelith - commentary and analysis

  
  

Page: 1 ... 23456(7)8910

 
 
Ganesh
22:56 / 16.04.06
Ganesh, logically that aint a great post because G for Gundetta is male and unless he's started identifying as female ("no") it would be a little odd if he did support the idea that this is a girls vs. boys issue.

Logically, Nina, I'd suggest that what Flyboy said is more relevant than whether Flyboy identifies as male or female. He said I was asking "female posters" to "do the work" for me, and I don't understand why he chose to highlight gender by saying "female posters" instead of "other posters". This is of more concern to me than Flyboy's genital configuration, chromosomes or online identification.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
22:59 / 16.04.06
I can't see why Flyboy chose to emphase "female posters" other than to imply that I - a male-identified poster - was unfairly calling upon female-identified posters to "do the work" for me.

He was being cocky with you. That's his perogative but he wasn't emphasising a gender divide unless he was assuming that all of the men on the board were attempting to justify SS's behaviour and since he's male he couldn't actually be making that specific point. If anything he was highlighting a problem that he perceived with you. That's the question you should be asking, if he was attacking you, not all of the male posters on barbelith.

Again I say that Flowers has explained that his word usage was confused and that the intention you are applying to his post was not intended. That's why I think you're fixating because you are deliberately refusing to register his explanation.

And yes, it is a lot of work to summarise the reasons for wanting someone excluded from the board but, frankly, it fucking should be. I don't think it's workshy or unfair or any variety of 'ist' to ask that members wanting someone banned lay out their reasons in a separate thread, and invite the community as a whole to comment.

That's a fair point but on the flip side if you're going to make any comment on SS's behaviour at all you have a responsibility of equal proportion to read the majority of SS's posts, not a small number that we have defined for you. That's because of the tipping point idea that as you properly state you have condoned. Anything we give you as a reason for banning has to be taken in accordance with the other posts that he has written and whether you think they take the impetus for banning away.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
23:22 / 16.04.06
By the way Celane and Flowers both posted after you had placed these two comments, both unrelated to the subjects of the posts you were responding to in this thread. Flyboy's feminism comment was placed after your first comment on gender lines. They were responding to you bringing the issue of boys vs. girls up.

it's worth pointing out that the reaction to ShadowSax has not split along gender lines: those engaging constructively with him (or even defending him) have not all been male-identified, just as those calling for his banishment have not all been female-identified.


I don't think this is a straightforwardly gender-based situation, with "female posters" complaining and male-identified posters refusing to listen

Ganesh, you feel that you need to make this a distinct point a number of times in this thread, certainly the second comment is in direct response to a point I made that had no suggestion or implication with regard to gender lines at all. Since you are so vocal on this issue can you tell me why you made these two comments about gender lines and the response to SS as a gender-based situation? It would certainly clear up any fixation on the boys vs. girls issue that you appear to be presenting.
 
 
Ganesh
23:27 / 16.04.06
He was being cocky with you.

"Cocky". I don't think that constitutes an explanation.

That's his perogative but he wasn't emphasising a gender divide unless he was assuming that all of the men on the board were attempting to justify SS's behaviour and since he's male he couldn't actually be making that specific point.

That's crappy logic, Nina, and I don't understand why you keep telling me Flyboy identifies as male. It's not relevant here. Flyboy suggested that I was getting "female posters" to "do the work" for me, when he could have said "other posters" or "other moderators" or even "Nina and Mordant". He chose to highlight you and Mordant's gender identification and, in doing so, brought (online) gender into the discussion. Why did he do this?

If anything he was highlighting a problem that he perceived with you.

If so, perhaps this "problem" should be explored? I ask again: why did Flyboy specify the gender of the posters I was allegedly imploring to "do the work" for me?

That's the question you should be asking, if he was attacking you, not all of the male posters on barbelith.

He brought gender into the discussion, with the implication that I was expectant that "female posters" do work of which I was avoidant. If this is some sort of arcane personal thing to do with Flyboy's perception of me (does he imagine I routinely get 'females' to do my work for me?) then I'll be very surprised. He highlighted gender - "female posters" - and I cannot see why he did this. I'm not sure how many times I'm going to need to reiterate this.

Again I say that Flowers has explained that his word usage was confused and that the intention you are applying to his post was not intended.

And again I point out that I have acknowledged his 'confusedness' in suggesting that women = complainants and men = apologists in the ShadowSax debacle. I have no idea how confused someone would need to be to write

I'm very aware of the charges levelled against Barbelith for being more accepting of misogyny than say, racism, I'm also aware that discussion of this has been a few 'oh shit' posts in the womens thread while over here men are trying to justify it.

but I do think it's reflective of gender-dichotomous thinking, whether accidental (through 'confusion') or not. Pointing this out, in connection with Flyboy's "female posters" is not faulty logic, and I resent your statement that it is.

That's why I think you're fixating because you are deliberately refusing to register his explanation.

And I think that "fixating" is a sort of gender-neutral equivalent of suggesting that a woman is being "hysterical". You're attempting to invalidate the points I'm making on the shaky grounds that Flyboy is being "cocky" or possibly attacking me personally (in an incredibly abstruse way) and that Flowers has said "oops". Don't attempt to invalidate this, Nina, because other posters (Miss Wonderstarr, Tuna Ghost) also thought Flyboy and Flowers were introducing the dimension of gender into a discussion where it was not warranted. It is not simply a trick of my own "fixated" mind.

That's a fair point but on the flip side if you're going to make any comment on SS's behaviour at all you have a responsibility of equal proportion to read the majority of SS's posts, not a small number that we have defined for you. That's because of the tipping point idea that as you properly state you have condoned. Anything we give you as a reason for banning has to be taken in accordance with the other posts that he has written and whether you think they take the impetus for banning away.

I'm assuming, then, that if you "make any comment" on any other poster's behaviour "at all" then you have read "the majority" of their posts? I assume you've clicked on their profile, noted the Number Of Posts and counted them off, one by one? "Majority" being, what, 90%? 95%? 99%?

My point: we freely comment on the behaviour of others, and frequently we haven't read "the majority" of what they've posted on Barbelith. I don't for a moment think you tally some imaginary percentage before reckoning you've earned the 'right' to comment on another poster's behaviour. There'd certainly be no way of checking. I read what I read, and assuming someone who wanted ShadowSax banned made a case for this in a separate thread then yes, I would take the matter seriously enough (because they had) to endeavour to acquaint myself with the majority of his contributions.
 
 
Ganesh
23:41 / 16.04.06
By the way Celane and Flowers both posted after you had placed these two comments, both unrelated to the subjects of the posts you were responding to in this thread. Flyboy's feminism comment was placed after your first comment on gender lines. They were responding to you bringing the issue of boys vs. girls up.

G for Gundetta
(prev. Callsign: "Flyboy")
02:58 / 15.04.06
Ganesh, why not read the Fathers 4 Justice thread, where the case already exists, rather than asking female posters to do the work for you?

Ganesh
03:06 / 15.04.06
I don't think this is a straightforwardly gender-based situation, with "female posters" complaining and male-identified posters refusing to listen. That's why I think a more inclusive discussion needs to take place. Strange as it may seem, it's not simply me refusing to "do the work".

it's worth pointing out that the reaction to ShadowSax has not split along gender lines: those engaging constructively with him (or even defending him) have not all been male-identified, just as those calling for his banishment have not all been female-identified.

(In response to Flowers: )

Ganesh
11:10 / 15.04.06
This is exactly the kind of reductive, divisive crap I'm keen to avoid, Flowers. Astounding as it may seem, the ShadowSax debacle really isn't a game of Boys Against Girls.

I'm not at all sure what comment of Celane's you're talking about. I'm referring - again - to Flyboy's "female posters".

Ganesh, you feel that you need to make this a distinct point a number of times in this thread, certainly the second comment is in direct response to a point I made that had no suggestion or implication with regard to gender lines at all. Since you are so vocal on this issue can you tell me why you made these two comments about gender lines and the response to SS as a gender-based situation? It would certainly clear up any fixation on the boys vs. girls issue that you appear to be presenting.

A) Please don't tell me what I "feel", Nina.

B) I have made this "distinct point" several times because you and Flyboy have apparently failed to understand the implications of Flyboy's and Flowers' choice of wording. You're pushing me to repeat myself; I'm repeating myself. Flyboy suggested that I was asking "female posters" to "do the work" and I queried - and continue to query - his need to specify "female posters". Flowers characterised the ShadowSax situation as women = complainants, men = apologists. Flowers has subsequently apologised for his choice of wording. Flyboy, presumably as a result of inherent 'cockiness', has not, and apparently cannot see the problem.

I'm bringing these points up because I think you're doing me a disservice in dismissing the issue as my "fixation" - although, in continuing to push me to repeat myself, it's certainly becoming wearisome. I, and at least two other posters, felt that Flyboy and Flowers' choice of wording 'gendered' the discussion of whether ShadowSax should be banned. I can't really explain things more than I already have done.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
23:49 / 16.04.06
Ganesh you made a "boys vs. girls" comment in relation to Flyboy's post. Flyboy didn't make a boys vs. girls post. If anything he confirmed the opposite because he was male commenting on female posters points and your suggestions. I can't answer any of your questions above because I am not Flyboy. Presumably he felt that you emphasis on the idea of gender lines was indicative of something.

I do think it's reflective of gender-dichotomous thinking, whether accidental (through 'confusion') or not.

Possibly but when someone then states that the intention for the statement to be gender-dichotomous was not intentional it is no longer relevant to an argument about people placing boys vs girls statements in this forum. Flowers apologised and explained his intention, the reason for his mistake and his actual meaning. Thus his post should be taken with the caveat placed on it, not as a primary example of something entirely different.

(Miss Wonderstarr, Tuna Ghost) also thought Flyboy and Flowers were introducing the dimension of gender into a discussion where it was not warranted.

They have not brought the point up numerous times before and after the incidents that you are quoting.

then you have read "the majority" of their posts?

Yes, if I suggest that someone should be banned I have read the majority of their posts. I did not enter the recent discussion on the banning of Vladimir because I felt I was unqualified to comment. When I wrote behaviour I should really have specified banning but since you are unwilling to listen to people's amendments of their mistakes I expect that you will not take this into account.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
23:57 / 16.04.06
I can't answer any of your questions above because I am not Flyboy.

Well then, perhaps we could leave this increasingly abstruse discussion until he gets back, eh? I think the law of diminishing returns has kicked in rather.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
23:59 / 16.04.06
And Ganesh:


Ganesh
02:38 / 15.04.06

Incidentally, it's worth pointing out that the reaction to ShadowSax has not split along gender lines: those engaging constructively with him (or even defending him) have not all been male-identified, just as those calling for his banishment have not all been female-identified.

Your first post on this subject is at 02.38 on the 15th before your response to Flyboy or Flyboy's original comment. That's what I'm asking you about. The point exists before anyone else brings it up for you to respond to.
 
 
Ganesh
00:02 / 17.04.06
Ganesh you made a "boys vs. girls" comment in relation to Flyboy's post.

I made an "it's not a case of Boys vs Girls" comment after Flyboy's post, because it seemed to me that his specifying "female posters" introduced this as an implication.

Flyboy didn't make a boys vs. girls post.

He said "female posters".

He mentioned the gender of you and Mordant.

He suggested that I was asking "female posters" to "do the work".

Why.

Did.

He.

Do.

This?

If anything he confirmed the opposite because he was male commenting on female posters points and your suggestions. I can't answer any of your questions above because I am not Flyboy. Presumably he felt that you emphasis on the idea of gender lines was indicative of something.

Let's not presume. Let's let Flyboy answer.

Possibly but when someone then states that the intention for the statement to be gender-dichotomous was not intentional it is no longer relevant to an argument about people placing boys vs girls statements in this forum.

Conscious intention it may not have been, but I think it's still relevant in that it had an effect, particularly on Miss Wonderstarr. I accept that it was not Flowers' conscious intent to suggest that women = complainants, men = apologists.

They have not brought the point up numerous times before and after the incidents that you are quoting.

They haven't been told, by you, repeatedly, that they're "fixated" and thus forced to reiterate their arguments. Perhaps they'll comment when next they're online.

Yes, if I suggest that someone should be banned I have read the majority of their posts. I did not enter the recent discussion on the banning of Vladimir because I felt I was unqualified to comment. When I wrote behaviour I should really have specified banning but since you are unwilling to listen to people's amendments of their mistakes I expect that you will not take this into account.

You seem to know the contents of my head rather well, Nina. Frankly, I don't believe that you consciously count off every post someone's ever written before commenting negatively on one of their posts - but neither of us can prove this either way.

I'm going to step away from this now, because the discussion - which I'm afraid I'm perceiving as your attempts to invalidate what I've said - is making me intensely angry.
 
 
Ganesh
00:13 / 17.04.06
Oh fuck it. One more post before bedtime.

Your first post on this subject is at 02.38 on the 15th before your response to Flyboy or Flyboy's original comment. That's what I'm asking you about. The point exists before anyone else brings it up for you to respond to.

If we're talking more general references to gender rather than "Boys vs Girls" (which phrase you initially claimed I'd generated from the ether rather than as a response to Flyboy's "female posters") then yes, that's the first time I commented on that, as a potential complicating factor in any discussion of ShadowSax's posting.

I made that comment because I noted that discussion of ShadowSax's more recent comments had originated in the Women-Friendly thread:

Nina
(prev. Nina Skryty)
01:47 / 15.04.06
Now look Shadowsax has now called a woman who may very well be a rape victim a possible "immoral attention whore." Can we please talk about this in this thread and decide what we want from barbelith in this context because the fact that he's only being treated as a moron is really beginning to do my fucking head in.

Your post, particularly your "in this thread" made me concerned that discussion of ShadowSax might be framed in terms of a split along gender lines. I pointed out that, as far as I could see, this wasn't the case - and that the fact that female-identifying posters had constructively engaged with ShadowSax complicated the issue and merited further discussion. Flyboy's subsequent "female posters" comment remains somewhat inexplicable to me, and I await his response with interest.

Goodnight.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
00:17 / 17.04.06
Quick question: so someone is, then, drawing up the so-far theoretical Poster X Should Be Banned Because... thread? Before we get lost in the fray, I'd like to know if that's the plan, or if someone is in fact currently working on it or planning to do so.
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
00:19 / 17.04.06
And you know this isn't the case how? Because gay or straight people haven't voiced it? Fatuous point, perhaps, but I'm not sure it's possible to suggest that things are relatively rosy in terms of gay experiences of Barbelith simply because gay people haven't started a Homophobia 101 thread.

I'm not saying that I think things are 'relatively rosy' in terms of gay experience. Not at all. I'm suggesting that ignoring recent emotive debates and dynamics around a specific issue is not helpful when asking for that issue to be brought up, whatever that issue is.

It kind of dooms the exercise* from the start if, say, I start a thread asking for a poster,in this case Shadowsax, to be banned on grounds of ongoing 'drip-drip' mysogyny etc and we all pretend that we don't have a huge bunch of very recent associations and reponses to the word 'mysogyny' (and I'm sure I'm not the only person who's typed that word so many times that it's starting to look strange).

The word mysogyny is now a locus for alot of conflict, emotion and discussion. On this thread, concepts like 'sex wars' are already being thrown around.

Pointing out the context does not work against the need for a 'banning thread' to be started for one reason only, that the thread starter sincerely wants a poster banned. Starting the thread without acknowledging the context does a disservice to anyone participating in it. That's all I was trying to say, in response to your and Celane's posts.



*The exercise in this case not being 'me getting my view agreed with', but an open and constructive discussion of the issue. If people are unaware of or unwilling to site someone's behaviour in the contexts in which it has taken place, we're not going to get very far.

Especially if we're trying to work out whether to do something as serious as ban somone. The issue there is whether the poster's posting behaviour has transgressed the 'norms'/limits of acceptable behaviour on Barbelith. How are we meant to judge this in a vacuum?

If we're pretending that the recent turbulence over mysogyny isn't at all a factor in our responses, we're minimising the chances of the discussion being had on fair grounds, to Shadowsax or those starting a thread.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
00:22 / 17.04.06
They have not brought the point up numerous times before and after the incidents that you are quoting.

Ah, yes, well, I had planned to but I've been drinking. Not really in the frame of mind to get into thinky word-scrappery. Plus I didn't think anyone was really paying attention to me anyway.
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
00:34 / 17.04.06
Another point, I'm deeply uncomfortable with threads determined by binary gender. And I'm deeply glad that no-one appears to mind that I'm posting here.

Thing is, these threads make me deeply uncomfortable partly because I don't feel I identify as strongly as female as the thread seems to demand, nor do I wish to, but neither do I identify as male. Put simply, I don't id very much with the categories, and the way they work.

I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only person in this situation, nor even the most fluid/unplaceable example.

Id entity's wonderful post captures the worth of these threads, especially the WI'd one (Its notable that in both threads, particpants are questioning their worth/workability/. This is a very good thing):

The way I see it, if it's true that non-female-identified posters tend to dominate discussion around here, and it is, and if it's true that discussion of feminism and sexism on barbelith in particular tends to be derailed by people who just don't get the core concepts, and it is, then it's valuable to have a thread where that sort of derailing will be limited.

Id's delineation of the worth ot these threads is the most convincing one I've heard thus, and I'll requote the corresponding description of this thread, with which I heartily agree. If these threads are going to exist at all, this, I'd say, should be the working behind them:

If this thread serves the purpose of giving us a chance to practice our allyship skills, then it will do good; if it ends up pulling the discussion in the WFB thread off track, that will be bad. If it becomes a forum wherein the lot of us are sitting around complaining about how hard-done-by we all are because womenfolk are taking our jobs and our children and being counseled by scheming lawyers to lie about being abused in order to get attention and to add insult to injury now they won't let us in their thread, then we should shut down barbelith as a lost cause. But I don't think there's actually a lot of danger of that so long as we keep challenging ourselves.

Ie, the threads themselves do not inherently encourage adversial/'versus' thinking, it's the way in which they are used that can do this. And is doing.

The problem being that since these threads and the ongonig discussions emerged out of a highlighting of widespread and pretty simply-delineated mysogyny in our culture, (our being Bsrbelith and our other spaces) it's difficult to immediately mount a pluralist, for want of a better word, Queer, response to it.

That's assuming that people want such a response.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
01:32 / 17.04.06
They have not brought the point up numerous times before and after the incidents that you are quoting.


I agreed with Ganesh that Flowers' comment (about "men trying to justify it") was unhelpful and inaccurate, and I also accept that Flowers qualified that comment, so yes we should view that comment as including that caveat and correction, except if we're asking why Ganesh and I (and perhaps others) responded in a certain way to the original post.

Re. Flyboy's post, I responded thus:

The insistence on stressing (I would say, creating) gender divisions in the response on this issue - like the challenge above, "why are you getting women to find the threads for you", rather than just "other people," "other posters" - seems entirely unnecessary to me.

so you can see my reaction was again, similar to that of Ganesh. He seems to be still concerned with that same question ('why specify getting women to do a job for you... not the more neutral "people", or "posters", or "Mordant and Nina"') and I understand that. To my mind, the debate above has not really settled that question.

The truth is that I'm reluctant to make a fuss on this thread because I'm wary that, in an argument, someone could try the trump response "well you would say that, you're not a woman", which would painfully undermine my sense of self on here, and which I am not really (yet) confident enough to counter.

I think that's a telling point about how safe a space this is for everyone, as well, but it is a different issue.
 
 
matthew.
01:55 / 17.04.06
Is it really conducive to creating a safe place and/or banning SS if we argue over who thinks the SS debacle is split by genders? Reading over the prominent SS threads, there seems to be many posters of indiscriminate gender and explicit gender who take issue with him. I see very few posters defending him (save for two instances of me defending him, but I take back everything I say; apologies for my lack of judgement)

I was going to type "Does it matter who complains about him?" but I don't think that will help.

Are people concerned that if a female identifying poster complains about a male identifying poster, that said complaint will not be taken seriously by the community as a whole? If so, then why?

I think Ganesh is trying to make the banning system more rigourous and make it follow a strict set of guidelines. Shall we then try to follow these and then just fucking do it!?
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
07:06 / 17.04.06
Tuna Ghost Quick question: so someone is, then, drawing up the so-far theoretical Poster X Should Be Banned Because... thread?

Yes. It's being drafted. It's like LotR, it takes a while for the pieces to be put in to place and we're waiting for the pirates and an Oliphant-wrangler.

If it doesn't work the back-up plan is It's a Barbe-Royal Knockout! for SS's soul.
 
 
Ganesh
07:12 / 17.04.06
Kinda flippant, Flowers: this is arguably about an important aspect of board policy rather than any sort of game or this "Oliphant" indulging in wrangling for the sake of wrangling. I look forward to the ShadowSax thread, though: are you planning to start it, rather than Flyboy or GGM?
 
 
Ganesh
07:22 / 17.04.06
Pointing out the context does not work against the need for a 'banning thread' to be started for one reason only, that the thread starter sincerely wants a poster banned. Starting the thread without acknowledging the context does a disservice to anyone participating in it. That's all I was trying to say, in response to your and Celane's posts.

Good - because I rather read the suggestion that a female-identifying poster shouldn't start a ShadowSax Ought To Be Banned Because... thread because it might 'gender' subsequent discussion as a fairly ready example of context working against the need for such a thread. I see it as fairly pivotal that Ban Poster X threads should be started by someone who genuinely wants Poster X banned, because passing the duty on to another poster who feels less strongly about the situation for reasons of potential 'gendering' would, IMHO, obscure the dynamic of such a thread.

I don't think general board context should be ignored, but I also don't think it should be a means of excusing someone who is saying "I want so-and-so banned" from being the one to unpack their assertion in its own thread.
 
 
Jack Denfeld
07:41 / 17.04.06
Has Shadowsax posted recently? He may have taken my advice and up and left. If he did leave someone should still do the ban thread just so we have a rough draft kind of thing for future ban reviews.
 
 
Ganesh
07:45 / 17.04.06
If he did leave someone should still do the ban thread just so we have a rough draft kind of thing for future ban reviews.

Agreed - although I'm doubtful that ShadowSax has upped and left.
 
 
Mourne Kransky
08:23 / 17.04.06
we're waiting for the pirates and an Oliphant-wrangler

I thought the point was to find a way to deal with ShadowSax effectively rather than allow him to rumble on, pissing people off? Ganesh has proposed practical suggestions for achieving this goal but we've had pages of argument instead, impugning his motives. It's the issue of whether and how to ban that needs wrangling, not the Oliphant.

Perhaps posters might put some of their energy into dealing with that core issue, rather than explaining repeatedly that what was said in previous posts didn't mean what the proverbial Man on the Clapham Omnibus would have taken it to mean.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
08:49 / 17.04.06
Another point, I'm deeply uncomfortable with threads determined by binary gender. And I'm deeply glad that no-one appears to mind that I'm posting here.

Well, "male response" is an increasingly useless title - this thread is clearly not gender-exclusive in any way, nor was it ever purposed to be. It was originally conceived as an overflow pipe so that male-identifying posters who had to share their views did not do so on the Female-IDing thread, which I thought was a pretty sorry state of affairs, and has subsequently been retooled as a parallel rather than parasitic thread. I'd suggest a topic title change if noone minds.

The female-IDing thread I can see an argument for, although we've already come up against how one defines female-IDing - possibly "with experience of experiencing being perceived as a woman, and currently identfying as a woman", full of holes though that is. I suppose it continues for as long as its contributors find it useful., or until someone asks for it to be locked with a reason that convinces enough moderators and is not then reversed (which I think is unlikely).

Both of these, I think, are good places to challenge misogyny, as is the rest of the board.
 
 
Ganesh
08:56 / 17.04.06
I'd suggest a topic title change if noone minds.

I think someone else actually suggested this upthread. I don't think anyone will mind: the "male response" part is, I think, merely serving to confuse people as to who can and can't reasonably post here. We seem to have got the hang of using this thread to expand on points made in the Women-Friendly thread, and it ought perhaps to be made explicit that this one isn't intentionally gender-exclusive in any way.
 
 
Saturn's nod
09:01 / 17.04.06
Yes, here and here at least.

Mordant Carnival:"...how about "WFB comment" or "WFB companion"?"
 
 
Ganesh
09:06 / 17.04.06
Thanks, am464. Do you want to make the necessary alteration, Haus?
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
09:19 / 17.04.06
Ganesh Kinda flippant, Flowers: ...I look forward to the ShadowSax thread, though: are you planning to start it, rather than Flyboy or GGM?

Nope, because not only do I think they'll do a better job than me but I also think the only important thing is for the thread to be started by someone who passionately feels that Shadowsax should be banned, which at the moment I don't. Not because I like or in any way support him but because I'm worried that he 'feels' like a misogynist, so I'm hoping others will be able to find enough actual evidence. Maybe I'm being unnecessarily charitable, but when he says he called someone an 'immoral attention whore' he wasn't doing so to advance any agenda but had just chosen his words badly and apologises I believe the former as it's something which I do all the time.

I hope those that are working on this do find more evidence, my memories of the F4J thread are more that he argued with Haus and didn't engage much with the people trying to refute him.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
09:22 / 17.04.06
It's like "This Life", having three people take three days to prepare a case against someone.
 
 
Ganesh
09:25 / 17.04.06
That's fine, Flowers. You just seemed particularly aware of the 'drafting', making me wonder if you'd decided to start the thread.
 
 
Jack Denfeld
09:26 / 17.04.06
Yeah, change the title, I kinda noticed I fucked the whole thing up like two posts or so into the thread. Summary's fucked up too.
 
 
Ganesh
09:28 / 17.04.06
Yeah, change the title, I kinda noticed I fucked the whole thing up like two posts or so into the thread. Summary's fucked up too.

Haus has put both changes up as moderator actions, and I've agreed 'em. Should be altered soon.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
09:36 / 17.04.06
Jesus unglaublich Christ. Ganesh, I said "asking female posters" because you had, well, asked a couple of female posters to do something. To be honest "female" was the least important part of the sentence - what I found most baffling, and still do, was your insistence that X was the best way of doing something, something you agreed there was probably a case for, coupled with a complete refusal to do X yourself.

I don't think the division here is between male and female posters at all - I'm not clear how miss wonderstarr IDs, and I hardly think my own identification is as irrelevant as you claim - although no doubt individual gender identification has and probably will continue to be a factor of some sort in each person's responses etc etc.
 
 
Ganesh
09:45 / 17.04.06
Ganesh, I said "asking female posters" because you had, well, asked a couple of female posters to do something.

They're also moderators, and British, but you didn't feel these factors to be worth mentioning. Why say "female" if it's not especially germane to discussion?

To be honest "female" was the least important part of the sentence

Why is it important at all? Why mention it?

what I found most baffling, and still do, was your insistence that X was the best way of doing something, something you agreed there was probably a case for, coupled with a complete refusal to do X yourself.

If you're talking about starting a separate thread on banning ShadowSax, I have a "complete refusal" to start this thread because I don't feel sufficiently strongly that he should be banned. I was tentatively in favour of this, but have explained above that I'd like to see a more formal discussion.

If you're not alluding to this, then I don't know what you're talking about.

I don't think the division here is between male and female posters at all

Difficult for me to understand why you specified "female posters", then. Help me understand, won't you?

I'm not clear how miss wonderstarr IDs

I'm not certain why you're not clear. I thought Miss Wonderstarr had been fairly explicit about IDing online as female, wishing to be considered a woman and referred to as "she".

and I hardly think my own identification is as irrelevant as you claim - although no doubt individual gender identification has and probably will continue to be a factor of some sort in each person's responses etc etc.

Okay - so you're a male-identified poster telling me I'm getting "female posters" to "do the work". You still haven't explained why you felt it necessary to refer to Nina and Mordant's gender here.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
09:51 / 17.04.06
Jesus unglaublich Christ. Ganesh, I said "asking female posters" because you had, well, asked a couple of female posters to do something. To be honest "female" was the least important part of the sentence

To say "asking female posters" was of course accurate, but it seemed loaded, whether you meant it that way or not. It seemed significant to people reading that comment who were concerned that some were splitting the discussion into female-accusation/male-justification. You can understand that, perhaps, even if it was far from your intention: that if Ganesh was dismayed at the construction of a male/female split in this debate, your implication (in his eyes) that he was lazily asking women to do the drudge work had certain connotations.

I hope I am representing what Ganesh felt here. I read it in that way, anyhow.



- what I found most baffling, and still do, was your insistence that X was the best way of doing something, something you agreed there was probably a case for, coupled with a complete refusal to do X yourself.

Sorry but that doesn't follow for me. Ganesh has consistently suggested that someone who feels especially strongly about Shadowsax's offensiveness and about the need to ban him should present the evidence. Ganesh has said he is borderline and open to persuasion either way on the issue. Hence he is not the best person in his opinion to present the case for banning.

Again, I hope I represent him right, and this is also how I see it.



I don't think the division here is between male and female posters at all - I'm not clear how miss wonderstarr IDs,

I think it's been made clear several times that I identify as a transsexual woman on Barbelith. What difference that makes to my response I don't know. My response is, I assume, also shaped by many other equally important factors such as age, education, relationship with other posters - factors that I believe also shape everyone else's response on here (particularly the last, actually).
 
 
Ganesh
09:53 / 17.04.06
... what I found most baffling, and still do, was your insistence that X was the best way of doing something, something you agreed there was probably a case for, coupled with a complete refusal to do X yourself.

Assuming you're talking about banning ShadowSax and my suggestion for laying this out in a separate thread, I'm baffled that you're baffled. I've explained, here and in Expectations of Barbelith my reasons for believing this to be a more useful way of handling the process of deciding whether someone should be banned than the current ad hoc situation. If you disagree with those reasons, engage with them in the Expectations thread.

Equally, I've explained within this thread that yes, I was broadly in favour of banning ShadowSax, or at least could see a possible case for this, but I'm now pretty firmly of the opinion that that case needs to be made explicitly by someone who opines more strongly than I that he should be excluded. This is the basis for my "complete refusal" to take a firm "ban ShadowSax" stance: I want a more explicit, inclusive discussion first.
 
  

Page: 1 ... 23456(7)8910

 
  
Add Your Reply