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 >

Shadowsax: discussion of possible disciplinary action

  
  

Page: 123(4)56789... 14

 
 
Evil Scientist
10:07 / 18.04.06
My main experiences of Shadowsax were his posts in the F4J thread and the unhelpful rot he "contributed" to the Sensitive R..... and F101 threads. I haven't read the Duke Lacrosse thread but will check it out today.

I've mentioned a few times that the board's continued tolerance of Shadowsax seems strange considering that other recent proponents of hatespeech have been drop-kicked out of the airlock as soon as possible. So unsurprisingly I am pro-banning.

It has been pointed out to me by several veteren posters that it's hard to define exactly what we consider to be "overt" misogyny, and I do agree that it's going to be tough to draw a line in the sand where Barbelith says "This far, no further!". Still it's something we need to do, and soon.

Shadowsax has been repeatedly asked, both in public and on PM, to change the way he presents his opinions. He's shown no inclination to do so. He doesn't seem to give a hoot that his posts are extremely offensive to female posters.

Quite frankly, I don't feel that him agreeing not to engage on threads that could stimulate his misogyny should be considered grounds for letting him stay. Zoemancer essentially said he'd be happy to shut up about Holocaust denial and the consensus was still (quite rightfully) to eject him.

Tom, for the record, I do personally feel that Shadowsax is attacking women with his posts.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:09 / 18.04.06
From the same post:

can we write a book about boys being the aggressors and have to worry about what we call the boys or would we be more concerned about the victims of their aggression?

Once again, we have Shadowsax fixating on the unfairness and irrationality of concern for the victims of male sexual aggression. Since I have yet to find out a way to be sexually aggressive towards feminism, I think this helps to clarify Tom's question about whether his issues are with women or with political viewpoints.
 
 
Ganesh
10:44 / 18.04.06
I think Tom's question maps onto my own vaguer ruminations on the subject of when abrasiveness/rudeness shades into harassment, personal attack and hate speech. I'm finding this thread helpful in terms of deciding where, on that continuum, ShadowSax's output lies.

Also:

Just as an aside: after some previous experiences on the board, I'm a bit nervous of moving on the basis of existing members threatening to leave - not because I want them to leave, but because it could become quite an easy lever to push, and I think we need to be a bit more disciplined than that.

I'm glad Tom said this, because it was worrying me slightly too. As a psychiatrist using to dealing with parasuicides and a long-term poster who's had spells away from the board in the past, I'm aware that "Poster X goes or I go" is open to manipulation. Not saying that's happening here, but I wouldn't necessarily want threats to leave to become a primary factor (numerically-expressed or otherwise) in determining whether a give poster ought to be banned.
 
 
Ganesh
11:08 / 18.04.06
I do agree that it's going to be tough to draw a line in the sand where Barbelith says "This far, no further!". Still it's something we need to do, and soon.

Within the next six days - assuming we're still going with a Monday 24th working deadline.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
11:16 / 18.04.06
It's going to be a long thread for someone to go through doing the vote-count, by that point.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:19 / 18.04.06
I agree, but I think one can apply a slight twist to that and think of it in terms of the overall quality of discussion. So, something like.

Shadowsax not only makes offensive statements, bbut reduces thhe quality of discussion on Barbelith. He does so by making statements which either have to be challenged (leading to threadrot) or ignored (leading to a perception that such statements are par for the course on Barbelith). Both of these conditions make it more likely that people who would add more comments of interest to barbelith, and would be a greater benefit to and more engaged with the community, will not want to join and that people already here who are a greater benefit to and more engaged with the commnity will withdraw. People who say that they will reduce or have reduced their involvement as a direct result of either the flamewars or the apparently tolerant silence can be used as examples of this principle, which is by necessity rather fuzzy.

However, I don't think the principle itself is invalid. One of the arguments we make about banning people like the Fetch is that we don't want Barbelith to be known as a place where his beliefs are allowed to spread.

Shadowsax, I think, is interested in the coommunity primarily because an avowedly feminist board would have kicked him almost immediately, but most boards do not have enough feminists to insult. From that perspective, it becomes quite a tempting proposition for those who want both to share their issues with women and to impact on women while doing so.
 
 
Tom Coates
12:10 / 18.04.06
So I think one of my problems with some of this stuff is that I don't see any reason why any particular branch of feminism itself shouldn't be open to question - many are in fact - and I definitely don't think that feminism as an intellectual territory should be one that is dominated by 'men can't understand' comments - that seems to me to be cheapening the territory considerably, and I can completely see that underlying some of this individuals more grotesque statements are some territories that do tend - at least in other arenas - to be out of bounds but I believe possibly fruitful.

For example, while not for a moment wanting to suggest that women are having an easy time of it, I do agree that the idea of masculine identity as being equally constructed and now perhaps more restrictive than female identity is a territory worth exploring. Note I'm not saying that there's no power disparity, just that men are more locked into their (stil normally powerful) roles than women are in their (still normally less powerful) ones. I also think that there's been a troubling trend in advertising to mock men in ways that you quite rightly couldn't do so easily about women and it seems to me that increasingly advertising and marketing and the like are about subjugating everyone to impossible to attain goals rather than just women. Most of the spam I get now is concerned with male feelings of anxiety and inferiority - impotence, strength, viagra and I think that's worth exploring as a territory.

I'm still convinced by the validity of feminism as a philosophical enterprise, although I think maybe it now needs to be abstracted out in more directions to look at power relationships across gender and about generating models of the world which are supportive of men and women, and proliferate gender positions and ways of operating in the world, as well as fighting the real-world constraints that force people of different genders into massively different lifestyles and limit their individual freedoms one way or another.

I do not want to defend Shadowsax - he seems to me to be massively generalising and blaming feminism for ills in the world in ways that are frankly ridiculous - and in the process he seems to be suggesting that women need to be somehow put back in the box they've escaped from and to start fulfilling their biological responsibilities again. This seems to me to be a way of undermining the right of women on the board to speak as equals, and hence something to be fought against. I suspect that one of the reasons this one has caused anxieties is because at a philosophical and political level, we really don't want there to be particularly holy cows that are not up for debate and interrogation - but that this gets very difficult when it overlaps with a fundamental principle of the board that everyone here is able to talk and argue and debate without being harrassed or attacked. Particular tenets and approaches and employments of feminism should be as open to exploration as Marxism or Capitalism or Queer theory. The idea that women (or gays or Jews or whatever) can be attacked on board as a group and misrepresented etc. should not be open to exploration...
 
 
HCE
12:25 / 18.04.06
Lady, I do not think that my post is off the topic of whether Shadowsax should be banned. I said that I think he should not, and gave a description of what I thought should happen. Or that, that is what I meant to do. If it isn't what happened, please suggest a way I can make that clearer.

Tom, I don't think a discussion that covers the ground you described with regard to feminism can take place while people who speak abusively of women can post freely.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:32 / 18.04.06
I really hate to say this, Tom, but I think that moves off the point. I don't think we have a huge problem with feminism being discussed and tenets of feminism being subjected to critique - there's a chunk of discussion in the Feminism 101 thread, and the idea that current conceptions of gender do neither many favours is one with a fairly long history on Barbelith.

However, the only form of feminism Shadowsax has so far sought to criticise is the imaginary sort - the sort that controls the judiciary and the Executive, that encourages women to falsify claims of abuse, that causes unnecessary fuss about and unfairly penalises the perpetrators of sexual and physical assault, that tells women that they have a right to child support and the sole right to decide whether or not to have abortions... this isn't about feminism. It's about women. I don't think it's profitable to compare what he is doing with any progressive or rational critique of feminist philosophy, any more than his comment:

funny about the palestinian thing via nazi supporters. what is the argument against "FREEING" palestinians. funny how quick it is to fall in line with the normal opinion and move away from the uncertain side because of some shady characters. nevermind that we're talking about apartheid in israel against the palestinians, that zionists also call for mass murder based on race.

can profitably be described as an analysis of the Arab-Israeli conflict, or his comment:

gay is very very hip. except to tom cruise. it's almost like coming out isnt even a story anymore. i think if you're famous and you havent come out yet, you pretty much missed the boat. there was about 10 years there where coming out would really get you the headlines. now, not really, i dont think. i think for actors and musicians, it can further one's career because for them, it's all about headlines. but for politicians it's more iffy. it's hard to waffle on issues when you're so clearly one way or another. i'm surprised you dont see more completely sexually ambiguous politicians, they would appeal to a lot more people.

Is a worthwhile contribution to ongoing discussion of gay rights and the persecution of gay people in Africa.

Fred: For the record - assuming that your preferred solution is not possible, would you rather he were banned, not banned or would you prefer not to register an opinion? I'm still uncomfortable with the idea of banning him myself, but part of that is the selfish idea of Barbelith as a board able generally to sort out its issues by dialogue. I'd like there to be a range of possible options, but at present there aren't.
 
 
ShadowSax
13:38 / 18.04.06
Do I go backward or forward here? Should I respond to each accusation separately or just give a summary overview? Essay? Simple responses?

As a lead-in I'll say just a couple of things...

A long time ago, when I was editor of a small newspaper in upstate NY, we used to get press releases all the time from politicians who, in addition to describing every single one of their proposed initiatives as being "historical" ("this historic measure, designed to lessen the tax burden for residents of whatever township", etc), also found it necessary to tout things like "my record on crime", "my consistent opposition to crime," etc. I bring this up because I think a lot of what led to this tone of thought towards me seemed to be my refusal in the F4J thread to specifically and directly and personally denounce things like rape, child molestation, and domestic abuse. To me, this is akin to someone demanding that they will not engage in a debate with me unless I declare for all to hear that I am opposed to cannibalism. Something as abhorrent as rape, in my mind, it goes without saying that it's a high crime. It, literally, goes without saying. And it was insulting to me for people calling me an idiot and other names (Haus, I'm talking about you) to also demand that I meet their semantic standards of argument, that I first acknowledge that domestic violence is bad, m'kay, before I can say anthing else, before they will deign to talk with me. In fact, it seems to me that the inability for some to recognize that I can be opposed to feminism while also apposing rape and domestic abuse says more about those people than about me.

I'm not sure whats got people so up in arms about the lacrosse thread. If it was the use of one word, one that I explained, that was even put into proper perspective by another reader of the thread, then thats just silly. You're overreacting. I'm not attempting to defend rapists, I'm just offering other points of view. That this banning talk has apparently been launched by that thread is surprising to me. I understand that much of the misreading of my lines is because of first impressions, but theres nothing I can do about that. The first impression is there. I'm not going to ask to be banned or change my name after 30 days or other such bother. I dont hide behind internet names. I'm not going to fit my personality into a community. I'll do my best to respond to questions or comments within the forum, and I will try to better shape or frame my arguments when presented with a reasoned response.

In general, I find the people who are so vehemently frothing at the mouth about me to be rather narrow-minded. I realize thats, like, the worst thing to say around here. I'm not going to "make any friends" like that. I dont know what else I can say except for the specific things I did say in f4j and in the Duke thread, and in other places, and it seems that more people want to quote the word "whore" than the sentence "rape is a very big deal and i think it's appropriate that rape victims are granted latitude and the benefit of the doubt (as i've already stated), and it's also appropriate that rape is treated as seriously as the legal system treats it." or "see what you mean; my intention was not to connect the group with the victim but to invent a group that might be more sympathetically identified with. i can see how that was misunderstood."

So thats all for now. Please understand that I cant possibly respond to a hundred posts about this word or that word, particularly when trying to sort thru the misquotes and wrong contexts and plain wrong impressions would take me months and years that none of us has. I'll reply as much as possible, respectfully, to respectful questions, without trying to overlap posts, etc.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:49 / 18.04.06
semantic

Hot dog! I just won a five hundred dollar bet.
 
 
ShadowSax
13:51 / 18.04.06
Hot dog! I just won a five hundred dollar bet.

you're paying too much for hot dogs.
 
 
ShadowSax
13:59 / 18.04.06
(id)entity): You know damn well that the word "whore" refers to sex workers. You probably know that some sex workers' rights advocates are reclaiming the word from its negative connotations. Sex workers are by and large good people who deserve better than to be associated with "the worse [sic] possible kind of attributes to apply to a person." For another thing, whether you perceive someone as having somehow "compromised" "something of their soul" for "nothing but greed of money or fame or infamy or whatever" is entirely made up in your head because there's no conceivable way of actually demonstrating that to be evident in the really real world. It's invective, and as such you can't use it as the basis of a premise like you did in the Newsflash thread.

so i cant call dick cheney a pimp for halliburton? are you familiar with metaphor? it's not a language game.
 
 
Evil Scientist
14:11 / 18.04.06
Okay Shadowsax, to ask you a direct question (or two).

Considering that a wide cross-section of Barbelith have weighed in on this, do you believe that any of the claims that your posts are misogynistic to be valid? If not then why, in your opinion, are people making these claims?

If someone's comments are offending other posters then do you feel they bear any responsibility as a member of this message board to re-frame their arguments and opinions in ways which will not cause offense? If not then why not?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:22 / 18.04.06
so i cant call dick cheney a pimp for halliburton? are you familiar with metaphor? it's not a language game.

Two things here, I think. First up, I think it's pretty obvious that calling Dick Cheney a pimp and calling a woman working in the adult industry a whore are pretty different things, in terms of the metaphorical distance. You're better off going for "attention whore", which I think is stronger - I can certainly believe that you cannot instinctively recognise a situation in which it is inappropriate to use metaphors of prostitution to describe women. That's the AP English bit. The SocSci 101 bit is where an awful lot of people, including t3h feminists, feel that the role of pimp is an exploitative and morally compromised one (and therefore rather a good fit for Dick Cheney).

For reference, was that your template for a respectful response?
 
 
Cat Chant
15:20 / 18.04.06
Should I respond to each accusation separately or just give a summary overview?

Honestly, Shadowsax, it might be useful, depending on how much time you have and want to put into this, if you responded to each accusation separately: not
respond[ing] to a hundred posts about this word or that word, but stating clearly, in a list, what you feel you have been accused of and what your response to those accusations is. (I'm putting the onus on you, here, just because there's only one of you, as opposed to the multiple posters who have raised multiple different reactions to and problems with you).

Tom, I've been trying to think of a way to respond to your last post, but all I can really say is that I hugely agree, I think it's highly on-topic, and it pretty much sums up my feelings about this debate. I'm worried that the way our response to ShadowSax has been framed sometimes feels like we risk putting forward a set of feminist principles with which every poster on the board must agree. I'm pretty sure no-one really thinks that's the question at stake, but I think the carefulness of your response makes it clearer that the problem with ShadowSax (and I apologize for talking about you in the third person, ShadowSax, it's just grammatically impossible to talk to both you and Tom directly at the same time) is that the way he presents on/engages with the board makes it harder, rather than easier, for many or most of us to have genuine disagreements and discussions about feminist and/or sex/gender-related issues.
 
 
ShadowSax
15:36 / 18.04.06
Considering that a wide cross-section of Barbelith have weighed in on this, do you believe that any of the claims that your posts are misogynistic to be valid? If not then why, in your opinion, are people making these claims?

people are making these claims because they are taking comments out of context, and because it's easier to stereotype me into a predetermined personality than to actually read what i'm saying. and also because people are ganging up. just like i may never convince many of you that i'm not a misogynist, many of you can never convince me that you havent come to the conclusions you've come to because of a kind of mob mentality.

If someone's comments are offending other posters then do you feel they bear any responsibility as a member of this message board to re-frame their arguments and opinions in ways which will not cause offense? If not then why not?

it depends on what is causing offense. if something is causing offense because it is taken out of context, then the responsibility lies with the reader except to the extent that the writer wants to clarify things. "causing offense" is far too broad to discuss in these terms. if i'm being considered for banning because i've caused offense, then go ahead and ban me. i'm pretty sure that all grownups can handle being offended a few times here and there.

haus, you're far too snarky for me to respond to. you may believe, and others may agree, that i'm not responding to you because i'm incapable of sustaining an argument, but your endless need to insert snarky remarks and insults makes me completely disinterested in dealing with you. not because you dont possibly have good points to make or good questions to ask, but because you dont pretend to make any investment in you worthwhile in any way.

but stating clearly, in a list, what you feel you have been accused of and what your response to those accusations is. (I'm putting the onus on you, here, just because there's only one of you, as opposed to the multiple posters who have raised multiple different reactions to and problems with you).


i'd rather address specific questions instead of guessing what the misconceptions are. that starts to get way too many steps away from anything objective.

i do find that many of my comments make it harder, instead of easier, to engage with people. however, many dont. and i've also found that the ONLY points i make that people want to engage in are about feminism or similar topics. no one disagrees with me about the sopranos, no one is fighting about my take on hemingway, no one seems to think that by my criticizing eugenides i'm somehow anti-greek. it seems that i have a strong opinion about one thing, and many people are fixated on that. i cant help that. i think i've demonstrated a willingness to engage in reasonable conversations (with alas on F4J, for instance), and i certainly have never used the bullshit spambot troll language that haus refers to, or the feminazi rhetoric that people have associated with me for no reason other than because it fits the stereotype theyve defined for me. i dont go around inserting opinions into every thread where feminism may be relevant, and i dont skew other threads towards any narrowminded interests.
 
 
Ganesh
15:44 / 18.04.06
people are making these claims because they are taking comments out of context

Everybody? Has everybody here who's linked to posts of yours taken comments out of context, or do you think any of your critics has a more valid point?
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
15:45 / 18.04.06
miss wonderstarr It's going to be a long thread for someone to go through doing the vote-count, by that point.

Perhaps a seperate 'yay or nay votes only' thread started Saturday/Sunday morning?
 
 
Jawsus-son Starship
15:51 / 18.04.06
I don't think a yay/nay get rid of Shadwsax thing would work. I mean, it'd hardly be representative of every single users opinion about the matter, seeing as only (rough guess) 50 (if that) people have actually commented on him in this thread? Perhaps simply asking Tom to vote yes/no, and leave it at that?
 
 
ShadowSax
15:51 / 18.04.06
Everybody? Has everybody here who's linked to posts of yours taken comments out of context, or do you think any of your critics has a more valid point?

it's hard to tell at this point. honestly there is so much crap being flung that i cant keep track. i'm sure that some points i've made could be attributed to a bad person, to someone who doesnt value women. but the anger with which most counterpoints were made caused me to step back and decide that those people werent worth dealing with. as much as my tone or style has led to misunderstandings, the same can be said for most others as well.

i dont think anyone has a valid point for banning me unless i'm being banned for offending people, no. but, thats just an opinion. as are most points that people are making for banning me. opinions.
 
 
electric monk
15:56 / 18.04.06
i dont go around inserting opinions into every thread where feminism may be relevant, and i dont skew other threads towards any narrowminded interests.


---------------------------


...the anger with which most counterpoints were made caused me to step back and decide that those people werent worth dealing with.

But no step back for self-examination, huh? That's a shame.
 
 
Ganesh
15:58 / 18.04.06
Perhaps simply asking Tom to vote yes/no, and leave it at that?

Well, that's what's going to happen anyway: Tom will make a decision, but is likely to take community opinion into account. If only fifty people post to this thread, then I'd estimate that that's at least forty more than had stated an opinion before this thread, so Tom will have access to a wider, hopefully more representative, cross-section of the views of Barbelith members than might otherwise have been the case.

I also don't really see the point in a yeah/nay thread. It's not a quantitative vote so much as a qualitative discussion.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:59 / 18.04.06
i think i've demonstrated a willingness to engage in reasonable conversations (with alas on F4J, for instance)

It has already been said in this thread, but Shadowsax's response to alas did not actually treat her arguments as worth responding to, instead being lengthy rambles in which the evidence she carefully put together was dismissed as unreliable, usually because put together by feminists, who lest we forget lie, often in court. It's worth reading alas' final post to the F4J thread, here.
 
 
ShadowSax
16:00 / 18.04.06
monk, my last comment on the Duke thread, which you linked to there, was specifically relevant because of where the quote came from that i was commenting on.

But no step back for self-examination, huh? That's a shame.

just because i didnt say that i stepped back for selfexamination doesnt mean that i havent done that. your demands are curious. just because i attack people who make false accusations, doesnt mean that i dont value people who make valid accusations. and just because i said that i stepped back from conversations with people because they were too angry for me to want to deal with doesnt mean that i havent stepped back for self examination. why are the two mutually exclusive unless otherwise noted?
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
16:03 / 18.04.06
Math Says: Greek = Chic I don't think a yay/nay get rid of Shadwsax thing would work. I mean, it'd hardly be representative of every single users opinion about the matter, seeing as only (rough guess) 50 (if that) people have actually commented on him in this thread? Perhaps simply asking Tom to vote yes/no, and leave it at that?

Sorry, but 50 people on the board willing to make the effort to express an opinion must outweigh 5350 people who don't want to. I'm not sure whether there's any point going on with this, SSax doesn't even seem to understand why this thread is concentrating on his opinions with regard to women.
 
 
Ganesh
16:05 / 18.04.06
just because i didnt say that i stepped back for selfexamination doesnt mean that i havent done that.

I suppose there's just not a great deal of evidence so far that you have. Not yet, anyway. So far, you've commented that those criticising you have taken things out of context, and that shit has been flung, but I'm still waiting to hear whether you think anyone in this thread is valid in their criticism of what you've said on Barbelith and/or how you've said it.
 
 
Jawsus-son Starship
16:08 / 18.04.06
Sorry, but 50 people on the board willing to make the effort to express an opinion must outweigh 5350 people who don't want to.

Strongly disagree, which is why I also strongly disagree with the idea of moderators being able to decide whether people are blocked/banned from the site. At what point does each 'lither stop being equal and become more worth while to the whole group? when they post every day, or every hour, or every minute?
 
 
electric monk
16:13 / 18.04.06
Exactly, Ganesh. Thank you.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
16:13 / 18.04.06
No, it's when they become part of the Barbe-Clique and get taught the secret handshake. Math, we've danced this dance already.
 
 
Jawsus-son Starship
16:15 / 18.04.06
No, it's when they become part of the Barbe-Clique and get taught the secret handshake. Math, we've danced this dance already.

not my point, but thank you for mocking me instead of trying to discuss my opinion for it's respective merits/problems, it was tres helpful.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:16 / 18.04.06
It's worth noting that 5350 is the total number of suits registered since 2001 or thereabouts. The actual number of members of Barbelith who have posted, say, 50 times or more in, say, the last six months is much smaller, and 50 therefore a much larger proportion.

Incidentally, Math, you were asked to substantiate your last set of claims about the Barbelite - any chance you could do that before moving on to the next set?
 
 
Jawsus-son Starship
16:21 / 18.04.06
Incidentally, Math, you were asked to substantiate your last set of claims about the Barbelite - any chance you could do that before moving on to the next set?

well there's a text book case of somebody insulting Shadowsax as soon as he posts in this thread, belittling him instead of responding to him. No ones pulled you up on that, have they? or is that not the same thing? I'm not sure, but I know it wasn't helpful.
 
 
Ganesh
16:26 / 18.04.06
ShadowSax: I'd like you to comment on your posting within the Fathers 4 Justice thread. Putting to one side the content of the discussion, have you any comments to make regarding your style of posting, the way you interacted with other posters throughout this thread? Is there anything you regret posting? If you were joining that discussion again, is there anything you'd do/say differently?
 
 
matthew.
16:30 / 18.04.06
well there's a text book case of somebody insulting Shadowsax as soon as he posts in this thread, belittling him instead of responding to him.

Example, please?

I don't think there's a need for a yay/nay thread. This one is doing just fine. If only 10% of Barbelith chimes in with their two cents, that's still enough to gather a sense of the community's opinion. The other 90% who can't be arsed... well... it's like they say, "If you don't vote, don't complain!"
 
  

Page: 123(4)56789... 14

 
  
Add Your Reply