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 >

Anger on Barbelith

  
  

Page: (1)23

 
 
Ganesh
00:42 / 06.03.06
I'm starting this thread in response to some recent discussion in the Feminism 101 thread, particularly Nina's comment that certain Barbelith posters are "lauded for... anger" while others are not - the suggestion being, I suppose, that perceived gender plays a pivotal role in how expressions of anger are received by the general community. I agree that there's some truth to this, but I think it's only one factor among several, and I want to examine the issue more broadly. To do so, I'm aware that we may need to refer to specific examples and, in doing so, we risk reigniting those arguments. I'd really appreciate it if that doesn't happen, and we collectively try to avoid simply returning to exchanges of accusation and counter-accusation, flame and counter-flame.

I'm going to suggest a few foci for discussion. Firstoff, there's the issue of gender. I'm particularly interested in those individual posters who've either changed their gender identification or have been assumed to be other than that identification - and whether they've noticed differences in terms of how expressions of anger have been received (or indeed, expressed). Myself, when posting as 'Ganesha' I used to be assumed to be female. I can't remember this in conjunction with angry posts, though, merely that I attracted more compliments from male posters, of a faintly patronising hue...

Aside from gender, there's the old chestnut of 'Barberoyalty'. I hesitate to bring this one up at all, because it's going to take a particular effort of will on everyone's part to avoid the familiar "one rule for X, another for me" disgruntlement (is that a word?) It's a familiar complaint that some posters have, through dint of longevity or familiarity or wit, attained a level of perceived authority that means they get away with expressing anger in a manner which might be criticised in someone without that authority. Jack Fear and Flyboy have been cited as examples of people who are "lauded" for expressing anger. They're male-identifying, but also individuals who might well be considered 'Barberoyalty'.

There's also the manner in which anger is expressed, or the way it's packaged. Alex has made the distinction between anger and wit, satire, etc. - and I think it's probably true that we're more likely to excuse/laud an angry or even cruel put-down which is very funny, even if it may not have been deserved. Funniness is, of course, something of a moveable feast, as is the extent to which a put-down is 'deserved'. There may also be overlaps here with regard to perceived gender: are some forms of humour seen as particularly 'male' in nature (I'm thinking of whoever quoted a friend's 'funny like boys' comment in Feminism 101? For example, Mordant's posts are extremely funny (even some of the angry ones) and Mordant's also not infrequently taken to be male. Is there a connection?

Anger can also be expressed as passive-aggression, and I'd go so far as to suggest that, on Barbelith, passive-aggressors (and, much of the time, I'd count myself here) are probably in the majority. Nina, I'd say, is emphatically not passive-aggressive in her approach: does this overlap or map squarely onto gender (do we expect female-identified posters to communicate their anger passive-aggressively?) and might her more active posting style mean she provokes disapproval from us passive-aggressive types?

That's probably plenty to be going on with for now. Any thoughts?
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
06:22 / 06.03.06
Aside from gender, there's the old chestnut of 'Barberoyalty'. I hesitate to bring this one up at all, because it's going to take a particular effort of will on everyone's part to avoid the familiar "one rule for X, another for me" disgruntlement (is that a word?) It's a familiar complaint that some posters have, through dint of longevity or familiarity or wit, attained a level of perceived authority that means they get away with expressing anger in a manner which might be criticised in someone without that authority.

I have, at times, felt like this is the case. I eventually realized that the "authority" I imagined various posters to be weilding were really just cases of some reputations on the board carrying more weight than others. Most of the time, whatever extra weight is placed on a poster's opinion is deserved, at least in my opinion. If poster X spends more time on the board than poster Y and gains more credibility in other poster's eyes as a result, then that's only natural.

In regard to someone taking advantage of this extra credibility to make undeserved (in the eyes of the "victim") angry comments with impunity, I think this is probably inevitable, but the extent to which this is present on Barbelith is something we could argue about for a while and not really get anywhere.

Jack Fear and Flyboy have been cited as examples of people who are "lauded" for expressing anger. They're male-identifying, but also individuals who might well be considered 'Barberoyalty'.

I would disagree with the idea that they are "lauded" for expressing anger. It just gives me the picture of a bunch of posters thinking "I know I should be outraged at [random insensitivity], but I just bring myself to express it...oh thank god Jack Fear's righteous indignation has made itself manifest! Well done, sir!".

Speaking as someone who has been on the receiving end of both the above mentioned posters' expressive ire, I would say that any lauding largely came from a combination of their eloquence/wit and percieved...I guess "justness" is the word...of their postition. Or so it appears to me, having viewed it from a couple different angles during the course of my barbelith membership.

As a result (maybe this is threadrot, apologies if it is), whenever I see someone post something that strikes me as obviously and purposely offensive, I find myself waiting for one of the more...aggressive...posters to make a comment, rather than do so myself. Partly because I'm just not as sensitive to that sort of thing as others (if I do make a comment, it will come from whatever sense of obligation towards board policy I feel at the time, rather than personal satisfaction), and partly because it's often funnier and generally more amusing to watch someone like Mordant Carnival or Flyboy do it. They're better at it, and I think through their wit or even the level of their anger they make a greater impression on anyone else watching than I could.


Anyway. Getting back on topic, one may ask "Tuna, when dealing with anger directed at you from other posters, or expressing anger at same posters, how much, if at all, does gender factor into your final judgement on the matter? How about the 'barberoyalty' deal?"

Naturally, I'd like to say that gender simply doesn't factor in but the recent threads on sexism and the views expressed therein have made me think twice about that (as I imagine it has for several posters).

I recently asked myself if I would be as comfortable expressing anger at Flyboy as I would be with expressing anger at Nina, assuming the theorectical justification for expressing the anger was the same in both cases. The answer turned out to be "no". And some of the reasons why (that is, why I would not feel as comfortable expressing anger publically, as opposed to merely feeling angry) do not cast me in a good light, not at all.



Damn. It took me like forty-five minutes to come up with all that and I can't even tell if it'll make any sense to anyone besides me.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
18:09 / 06.03.06
As well as 'Barberoyalty' there's also the infamous and equally illusory 'London clique', I have issues with some people's style and how they've reacted to other posters and have expressed it both in cyber and realspace, but I'm also going to give those of them who are part of 'the incestuous loved-up London clique who rules above in darkness' because we can talk it over when we meet in the pub to plot our domination over the rest of the board.
 
 
sleazenation
21:56 / 06.03.06
Um- what are you trying to say there Our lady?
 
 
iconoplast
22:05 / 06.03.06
I think there's the written equivalent of a silent 'e' in the middle there, only it reads 'more leeway'.

Then again, /I/ give the London clique more leeway, because people I respect give them leeway and have met them and are capable of physically striking them if they get too offensive.
 
 
*
23:10 / 06.03.06
I am moving, in general, from a more passive-aggressive expression of anger to a more active, assertive one, and in that process I've had to make a few mistakes. Sometimes I overcompensate for my tendency to be passive, and then I can be more angry than I intend to be. Sometimes something which I think adequately expresses my feelings of anger doesn't come across at all clearly to the other person.

In a conversation with someone who was very angry not too long ago, I found myself making the calculated decision to yell to get their attention off their own issues and onto the larger problem, which worked possibly because I don't think I ever had yelled at anyone in this person's presence before. But on the boards, while there can be an immediacy to posting, there is not always an immediacy to reading. For instance, in a recent thread, a poster made what could have been construed as a jab at another poster, and, receiving no response, moved on, as did the rest of the thread. When the other poster returned, they were angered by the jab and posted a response which probably seemed proportional to them but disproportional to the rest of the participants. I think people understood as a whole where that reaction came from. There was no confusion as people tried to figure out why the offended poster was suddenly angry about it some pages later, because of the understandings we have about how messageboards function. This is not to say that it is easy to integrate belated offense with the current discussion.

I look with greater respect on posters who are able to let their feelings sit for a period of time, and then post that something has offended them, the reason why, and their considered request for an apology/avoid the situation in the future. But I am also aware that this comes in part from a tendency of mine to admire people who are very emotionally controlled (which is not always healthy). In addition, quiet anger can be invisible on message boards. It's important to let people see what kind of response they've provoked, in some instances, and that may require posting angry.

Seems kind of hit or miss. I don't like it. Surely I can do a better job than that.
 
 
matthew.
23:41 / 06.03.06
As well as 'Barberoyalty' there's also the infamous and equally illusory 'London clique'

I've always imagined some sort of dark cabal plotting in a red plush booth in the corner of some lavish pub somewhere across the globe from me and my laptop.
 
 
eddie thirteen
01:13 / 07.03.06
But I am also aware that this comes in part from a tendency of mine to admire people who are very emotionally controlled (which is not always healthy).

Word, in re: that which has been stated parenthetically. Probably because my own anger sometimes unsettles me to the point where I become rantingly psychotic, I have long had an admiration for people who don't let their emotions ever get the better of them that I am only lately (more due to events in the small amount of my life that takes place off the internet than anything related to Barbelith) beginning to realize is probably misplaced. Or at least it's an admiration that I now realize has been much less discriminate than it really ought to be. Keeping one's cool at all times sometimes means nothing more than one is a bastard whose pulse rate never rises. At least you know where you stand with someone who doesn't hold anything back (even if that awareness only prompts you to get the hell away from them -- which, actually, is pretty valuable, if indeed the hell away from them one should be got). A lack of emotional engagement with a subject, to me, could indicate that the speaker is being deep and thoughtful and composed -- but it could also mean that the speaker is less engaged with the subject than his/her own efforts to seem deep and thoughtful and composed (just as an angry person may be more interested in finding a target for his/her anger than usefully engaging with the subject at hand).
 
 
grant
02:14 / 07.03.06
I'm going to ask you to take that back, eddie.
 
 
eddie thirteen
02:43 / 07.03.06
No. No. No!

Well, maybe...

Wait. Wait...no. Okay, no. The answer is no. It's no.

Dammit.

Wait. Are you sure? I mean, I'm not married to this position or anything, man. I could totally retract it, if it would mean that everybody would think I was cool and stuff. That's important to me. It...

Damn.

What we were talking about again? Oh...oh.

Now it's all coming back to me. Listen, Grant, these are deeply-held beliefs; if you think it's really that easy to disabuse me of them, insights that have come to me after years of intensive self-examination, serious reading of the works of several of the world's major philosophers and, dare I say, rhetors, and in a multitude of languages besides, you, my friend, have another think coming. Do you honestly believe I'm so malleable -- that your "way with words" could persuade me to perceive truth as falsehood, right as wrong, Uwe Boll as Martin Scorsese? I'm not so easily broken, nor so easily dissuaded. As Voltaire opined --

Oh, shit, it's Beastmaster 2! Hang on, yo, I'll be back.
 
 
*
03:18 / 07.03.06
I see we've got thoughtful thread fatigue.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
15:14 / 07.03.06
I've always imagined some sort of dark cabal plotting in a red plush booth in the corner of some lavish pub somewhere across the globe from me and my laptop.

As I have always lived in London but never been invited to a Barberoyalty meet, I tend to imagine a dark cabal plotting in a red plush booth across the bar from my red plush booth.
 
 
Mon Oncle Ignatius
18:14 / 07.03.06
[pointless threadrot]

As one of the London Barbeproletariat, I've found the hard benches and thin beer at the dive opposite Finsbury Park Station really good enough for the like of us, guv. We know our place and we like it there. Anyhow, the plush is all patched and the grand public houses are all ownded by shoddy lifestyle magazines now anyway.

Damn, this is making me nearly-irate, thinking about those damn blue-Barbebloods throwing their crumbs of disdain down for us lesser mortals to snuffle up from the rushes on the floor....

Ack. Sorry. I came over all weird there for a while.

[/pointless threadrot]

Anyhow, back to the topic. I've found the best way never to get angry with people on Barbelith is to not get into arguments too often. If there's any possibilty of reacting to what someone says and the way they say it which is likely to be intemperate on my part, it usally works to reconsider whether what I was saying in the first place was wrong or not, then reply with that in mind.

But I do try to stick to the less controversial topics anyhow.
 
 
Dead Megatron
19:09 / 07.03.06
In that very thread (Feminism 101) I feel I was both the victim of unnnecessary anger one time (I'm talknig to you, Haus) and was also responsible by one equaly - actually, much worse - unnecessary anger outburst (sorry, alas), and I can tell you that: it contributes nothing to the debate. Calm, patient argumentation is much more constructive.

and, in the barberoyalty subject, let me quote Monty Python:

WARTHUR: Please, please good people. I am in haste. Who lives in that castle?
WOMAN: No one live there.
ARTHUR: Then who is your lord?
WOMAN: We don't have a lord.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.
ARTHUR: Yes.
DENNIS: But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting--
ARTHUR: Yes, I see.
DENNIS: By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,--
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: But by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major--
ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
WOMAN: Order, eh? Who does he think he is? Heh.
ARTHUR: I am your king!
WOMAN: Well, I didn't vote for you.
ARTHUR: You don't vote for kings.
WOMAN: Well, how did you become king then?
 
 
Dead Megatron
19:22 / 07.03.06
ok, more seriously now (for a moment I thought this was Convo, sorry), I get the feeling there isn't much of a "barberoyalty" as there is a "barbeseniority", i.e., more ancient posters seem to have a better understandment of the "rules of the game" and often show little or no patience with "newbies" who can't help but to bring in outside world prejudices and attitudes. And you know what: they (the "barbeseniors", I mean) are not always wrong, you know: some of us could use a good spanking.
 
 
eddie thirteen
19:57 / 07.03.06
I see we've got thoughtful thread fatigue.

BIG time. I see myself participating in a lot of Britney and K-Fed conversations in the near future. There's a reason why I'm not in grad school.
 
 
Mourne Kransky
20:05 / 07.03.06
Anger isn't something to avoid. It is a vital and necessary thing. What's problematic is how we deal with it and the fact that we cannot control its source and strength.

I get absolutely furious sometimes with some posts. I can remember only one time (I think) when I went ahead and posted in grumpy fury. IRL, I can be volatile but have learnt with a lifetime's practice to think before I speak or shout or punch. Only when I'm well pissed does this resolution desert me.

So, as far as Barbelith goes, I get spitting mad and I have a good rant to Ganesh, then probably don't post anything. What would be better would be to post something measured, once the fury abates. Presently, I tend to stick to gentle posting in The Conversation, where those variables are easier to tie down. I think a lot of good, thought-provoking stuff never sees the light of day for fear that some mouthy poster is going to take offense at it. If we all avoided expressing anger, failed to confront, and never offernded anyone, we'd still be living in caves, worshipping fire.

I need to express anger more systematically but, like the majority of people, I don't deal well with it and tend towards the passive-aggressive route. I have taught other people how to be positively assertive but I have a long way to go myself.

One thing that is apparent to me, though, is that I don't get angry in a vacuum. I get angry because somebody does or says something that offends or upsets me so much that I get up a head of steam about an issue I care about. A lot of the time though, I am carrying anger for other people. Someone posts intemperately, I read it, and Hey Presto! I'm in Mr Angry mode. That's not my anger. It's an introjection from elsewhere. But it feels the same and that can be infuriating or can be intoxicating.

Whatever, I always have responsibility for expressing my anger.

I sometimes enjoy other people's anger. Haus, Mordant and Jack Fear are very good at expressing focused and purposeful anger, with wit and verve. Others erupt commonly or post very abrasively with less panache. Sometimes it works well enough. Sometimes less happily.

I think the Barberoyalty thing is a red herring. If I've read someone's posts for five years, I'm obviously going to be less likely to misunderstand their gist or tone but there are people posting here who've barely said one thing I agree with since 2001. Doesn't mean we can't be civil. Doesn't mean it's the War of the Worlds if we do disagree.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:10 / 07.03.06
I feel I was both the victim of unnnecessary anger one time (I'm talknig to you, Haus)

I wasn't angry with you, Dead Megatron. I'd like to say that I was surprised that you had decided to ignore the careful debunking of the canard that there was a passle of feminist man-haters out there claiming that all heterosexual sex was rape, so that you could talk more about your winky, but if I did it would be a cheap rhetorical trick: I wasn't surprised at all.
 
 
Dead Megatron
20:15 / 07.03.06
I wasn't angry with you, Dead Megatron

I believe you weren't, but your USE OF CAPITAL LETTERS made it "sound" like you were. My mistake.

In my defense, the debunking was posted while I was busy writing the question, so I did not see it until it was too late. Anything after that, I have no usable apologies, but I like to believe I've learned my lesson since.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:31 / 07.03.06
Which, incidentally, has a lesson within; it's very difficult to speculate with confidence as to the motives of others. Many people on this board have enormous trouble analysing and expalining their own emotions in a manner comprehensible to themselves and others. As such, it's a stretch to assume that we are always accurate in our assumptions about other people's motivations, especially when we are in the middle of a board-spanning discussion about whether we look down on certain forms of emotional self-expression. I think we've talked about the fundamental attribution error before - the tendency to describe other people's behaviour in terms of the kind of person they are rather than the circumstances they are in. Perhaps there is a related thread on how other people's actions often seem to demand explanations in terms of emotion, because we lack access to the process of motivation and cogitation that led to the action, and because emotion is a handy shorthand for "a thing that makes people behave in a way that I find irrational". For example, in the lead up to the discussion of racial slurs against gypsies, many claims were made by those defending their right to make such slurs to the effect that those not so keen were "crying", or behaving in a way couched in other descriptive terms of being overwhelmed by emotion, which was identified as a sign of weakness. Secret_goldfish did something similar with ponygirls, if I recall correctly - ah yes, here we go:

So what are you getting your knickers in such a twist for?

Same principle, I think...
 
 
eddie thirteen
20:56 / 07.03.06
I concur, I...think, even though I am slightly ashamed to admit that I had to read that four times. I think that something like this was one of many (garbled) points I was trying to go for last week, actually. I'm at least a little gratified to see that even a coherent expression of this notion is somewhat hard to follow (at first glance, anyhow). Of course, by saying this, you're falling into the same rhetotical trap that I was, in that you can't propose the notion without also speculating as to what's going on in the minds of others (so perhaps the "perhaps" qualifier is more important than I initially thought). Hmmmmmmm.
 
 
Char Aina
21:00 / 07.03.06
I'm aware that we may need to refer to specific examples and, in doing so, we risk reigniting those arguments. I'd really appreciate it if that doesn't happen, and we collectively try to avoid simply returning to exchanges of accusation and counter-accusation, flame and counter-flame.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:06 / 07.03.06
Fortunately, with a bit of application, it's possible to draw examples entirely from those who are no longer active posters on Barbelith, therefore allowing for specific reference without the danger of reigniting conflicts.

Eddie: Yes, very good point, and one that rather drives a truck through the validity of the whole exercise. Perhaps it is better to think in terms of internalised models - that whether or not this can be identified successfully in others, one uses the possibility that it exists to guide your own behaviour - that is, one pauses before telling somebody that they are just being crosspatch.
 
 
*
23:35 / 07.03.06
If we all avoided expressing anger, failed to confront, and never offended anyone, we'd still be living in caves, worshipping fire.

GNRRGGH. CAN'T WORSHIP FIRE. STONE GET ANGRY.

I also often enjoy other people's anger, in that it sometimes leads them to heights of witticism which are never quite reached, it seems, unless the wit is at someone else's expense.

If I perceive someone as reacting angrily to me, it often makes me less likely to dismiss what they say than if they wrote a post with the same content but without the emotional tone. I've sometimes attempted to use anger to that same effect without being critical about whether it would necesarily affect others the way it does me.

Very good points here, all. I'm not quite doing the right kind of thinking for this thread, so I'll come back to it later.
 
 
Jack Fear
00:47 / 08.03.06
Let me get back to this, and not just because it cites me by name: it must be notd that, even in a "best case" scenario, such as Flyboy's or mine (where we are "lauded" for expressing anger), a consistently angry persona cuts both ways.

We are "lauded" only inasmuch as a plurality of posters either (a) agree with the point we're trying to make, or (b) find our wrath amusing.

But from personal experience I know that when I find myself going against the current of the conversation, the history of anger in my presentation is invoked to dismiss the substance of my argument: Oh, grumpy old Jack Fear, he hates everything. Look at the grumpy old man, isn't he funny. He doesn't mean any harm, it's just his way.

(Can I think of specific examples? Sure. So, probably, could you.)

And, again from personal experience, I've similarly written off some of Flyboy's arguments when he's reacted with predictable vehemence to one of his hot-button issues.

Admittedly, the issue here might not be the anger itself, but the (over-)familiarity of the response—i.e., less the fact that I'm angry than the fact that I'm (seemingly) always angry. And when the inevitable beatdown comes, sometimes it gets applause in the way that a favorite band playing an old hit does. And sometimes you just roll your eyes and say, "The same old shit again? Christ, hasn't he got any new material?"
 
 
elene
08:33 / 08.03.06
Well, I'm angry with Z in this post. I'm furious at his attitude. In fact I'm shouting at the very end. And everyone else is being really sensible about it. I expect that post won't be commented on, which is sensible, but does that mean something?

I agree with Jack Fear that [he and Flyboy] are "lauded" only inasmuch as a plurality of posters either (a) agree with the point we're trying to make, or (b) find our wrath amusing. I usually do both.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
09:39 / 08.03.06
That doesn't read particularly 'angrily' to me, Elene. Now Flyboy's post further down, on the other hand...
 
 
elene
09:54 / 08.03.06
Yeah, Grandma, we're building up steam slowly. Poor Z. No not poor Z! I'm pleased lots of people are posting, and angry.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
12:42 / 08.03.06
elene- other than the actual content of your post (which was clearly angry, and with damn good reason) the tone doesn't come across so- it seems a very reasonable articulation of an angry sentiment. Not shouty, not to me, anyway.

This is something I've been thinking about for a few days- the other night I was in a fairly foul mood (I was drunk, I was tired and I'd just had some quite upsetting news) and on re-reading, every post I'd made in that period seemed to me to be unpleasantly grumpy. I apologised for this, and then got a couple of really nice PMs from people telling me they hadn't got that impression at all, which was good as it hadn't been the one I'd intended to give.

This being a text-based medium, there's always a fair amount of grey area between what is actually angry and what is perceived as angry, either by the poster or by those who read their posts.
 
 
elene
13:11 / 08.03.06
Hi Stoat, thanks. I'm glad it didn't come off all mad, but I was, and still am angry. I only wanted to point out that I was angry here as an example, but now there's like seventy examples to choose from so it's a bit redundant.

Yeah, I read about your trouble and sympathise, a lot. I didn't think you were grumpy either though. Chin up!
 
 
m
17:07 / 09.03.06
I think the Fathers for Justice thread has some real great examples of how angry posting can really bring out the worst in posters. For example, compare Shadowsax's responses to alas's cool and measured posts to Haus's more cutting and sarcastic posts. When alas posts, Shadowsax always seems to engage a little more in the way that everyone is calling for him to, whereas every time Haus posts, Shadowsax lashes out in increasingly stupid ways.

Alas (now my favorite poster on the board) also sums up the situation in the So If We're Banning Anti-Semites thread in a very direct way without sacrificing any of the strength of his/her argument. If someone would like to add links to the two aforementioned threads I would appreciate it.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
07:53 / 13.03.06
alas in the 'Bannable behvaiour' thread (previously 'So if we're banning anti-Semites...')

The F4J thread.

Yes, I am a big alas fan myself and I do see the difference in Shadowsax's responses to hir as opposed to more confrontational posters. However, is it really either fair or realistic to ask everyone else to shoulder the responsibility for trying to coax appropriate behavior out of hostile and prejudiced posters?

You know what? I'd love to. I'd love to be able to take my rage off the boil sometimes; I'd love to be cool, calm and collected, stacking up cogent arguments, studies and surveys into an impenetrable fortress of rationality and logic. I'd love to somehow extinguish the lava-pit of pure anger gurgling away just below my ribcage, rise above it, not feel it anymore. But I can't. I can step away from the keyboard, I can make a cup of tea and watch a couple of eps of Homestar Runner; I can even sleep on it. But when I come back to a thread containing, say, a big heap of misogynistic shit, I'm going to get angry all over again and my approach to the poster is going to reflect that anger, because for me this isn't some theoretical chin-stroking word-game, it's about my fucking life. I admire the hell out of anyone who can maintain a cool detatched manner in the face of stuff like this. I can't.

The only alternative would be to avoid ever posting to any thread that made me angry. Never engage in any debate regarding anything I give a shit about. Stick to pictures of fluffy kittens. I don't see why I should, though. I don't see why my emotional response to a topic, assuming that I can support that emotional response with rational argument and appropriate evidence (and am not simply demanding people accept my veiws because I'm shouting), somehow invalidates what I have to say.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
08:30 / 13.03.06
When alas posts, Shadowsax always seems to engage a little more in the way that everyone is calling for him to

Actually, no he doesn't. He simply doesn't engage in a slightly different way. He still refuses to acknowledge anything that does not sit with his worldview, ignoring facts and statistics in favour of another tirade, be that about his resentment of the easy ride he appears to see women and homosexuals getting, or the rough deal our society metes out to rapists - not comments that anyone forced him to make, lest we forget, nor "lashing out".

So, although I am happy to join in with the alas heart party, in this case I believe her to be mistaken. Given that we have been having a lot of discussion of whether Barbelith privileges "rational", or rather rational-sounding posts over ones which betray emotion, it seems particularly unfortunate that Shadowsax is being praised not for actually engaging, but rather for failing to engage in slightly better-formed sentences.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
09:18 / 13.03.06
Indeed, and in the meantime, however good alas' intentions, ShadowSax has now been given the impression that enough "progress" has been made that he can stop defending anything he's said in the past, which essentially seems a great way to make the people who still might be angry about some of things he's said (which he's never retracted and how feels he's been granted absolution for and the right not to have to explain), to make them seem like the unreasonable ones for refusing to let it lie.
 
 
Lurid Archive
11:49 / 13.03.06
Shadowsax is possibly a bad example here, since he doesn't respond particularly well on certain issues, even when presented with alas outstanding contributions. That said, I think that alas posts have been valuable independent of shadowsax, in that they respond to ss as if he were an eloquent and coherent poster with obnoxious views. Personally, I am far more interested in alas careful arguments than in watching Haus poke shadowsax. Thats because, with all respect to Haus, I don't really need ss to be shown up; the posts speak for themselves.

More than that, I think that shadowsax's responses to alas make it much clearer how little he is prepared to engage, as opposed to his responses to Haus. This is because shadowsax (and plenty of others) are wound up by Haus style. This is immature, perhaps, but in some sense can give an...ethically challenged...poster an excuse for some of the more questionable things they come out with - it was the red mist wot done it.

Besides, I'm sure there are examples of posters that can profitably be reasoned with, even if they present rather questionable views at times. The younger Toksik and Dead Megatron come to mind as examples here (no offence intended to either of them).

So, while I don't think that we should require established posters to be calm, I think it often has benefits. I don't blame anyone for getting angry in the situations we are talking about and it *is* unfair, in a sense, to ask people to be calm and reasonable when the person they are responding to is a weak or offensive poster. But then, the posters I am talking about who I respect are capable of contributing at a significantly higher level than those they respond to, so to my mind there are different scales in operation.
 
  

Page: (1)23

 
  
Add Your Reply