| |
|
ibis: miss wonderstarr, I think you're being taken in by SS's uniquely misleading posting style, which I hope to illustrate below.
"taken in"??? or you just dont see what you want to see? lets see...
It seems to me *SS* is leaving off half his point. He's saying, yes she is a mother and a student, BUT she is a stripper. I'm not saying she deserved to get raped, BUT... but what? What is the conclusion of that point? You can't look at what SS is saying and not look at what he's quite deliberately not saying, especially when he continuously phrases his posts in such a way that he points you down a certain road without actually escorting you there.
my comments were a response, not an essay, not a fully fleshed out op-ed piece. the point was, simply, if we're going to group the players into something bad because they hired a stripper, then we cant leave out the equally but just as unfairly damaging fact that the woman involved is someone who takes her clothes off for money. i'm not trying to invoke a judgment of anyone, either those who hire strippers or those who strip, simply pointing out that if we're going to trump up the facts of the possible victim, lets be fair about it. you're reading, as miss w points out, the worst intentions into my posts. you're being paranoid.
SS's faulty spelling and capitalization and confused syntax can sometimes lead one to believe he's just not articulating well, but I think if you really look at his words and how he uses grammar, you'll find he uses it in an extremely clever and deceptive manner.
actually, my spelling is usually pretty good. my capitalization comes from too many years using MSWord and its autocorrect features; i spend most of my day typing. i find that when i'm typing more informally, i dont use capitalization unless i am doing a long essay, which i used earlier in this thread. same goes for selective apostrophes. it's not done to confuse you. i dont see how my style "provokes" you to finish my sentences, unless you find something missing in my sentences that you demand that your stereotype of me wants to say but doesnt. i would think, by this point, that it would be clear that when i intend to say something, i fecking say it.
It's not especially clear but I think what you mean is that we may prosecute the rapist(s) from the party, but deep down in our hearts we should judge the victim to be the one stupid enough to have put herself in that position and NO I'M NOT SAYING SHE DESERVED IT but if YOU want to say that, well, then, you're the one who said it. Is that how it works?
hey, sometimes victims are idiots. most likely, they were idiots long before they were victims. that DOESNT MEANT THAT SHE DESERVED TO HAVE A CRIME COMMITTED AGAINST HER. is that clear? i want to make sure i'm not leaving any open-ended sentences here. but once someone is a victim, that doesnt mean that he is no longer stupid, or that he could have made different choices that would have reduced his risk of being a victim. being mugged in central park is being a victim, but walking thru central park's upper reaches at 2 a.m. is being stupid, and the fact that you got mugged doesnt make you less stupid, and in an open and honest and diverse conversation about the facts of a highly publicized crime, why should we ignore the fact that some of the people involved may have been stupid, the players included?
haus, your quoting of my hypothetical at a gay bar is taken out of context. it was in direct response to another post which referred to an article in which black women were making points about racism and sexism in nightclubs. what i was doing was making an analogy.
blake head: To go way back to Flyboy’s original post, ShadowSax is able to accrue power on the basis of his reputation, which means that some members will avoid threads he is present in, or indeed the entire board, while members who don’t know his reputation or who choose to ignore him when he’s not being actively offensive could, through proximity to the miasma of pestilent ideas he surrounds himself with, be tainted by assumptions of complicity.
holy christ. i think this might be a bit more productive if y'all stopped with the "odious" and "pestilant" and all this shit. i mean, seriously. are we going to have an adult conversation or not? odious is something i've seen a few times, and, blake head, i'm sorry for focusing this point on your quote there, but thats just how it fell in how i'm going thru these posts. on the one hand, we can applaud south park over in the tv board for a cartoon which showed jesus christ shitting all over people, and on the other hand, it's "odious" for me to suggest that fathers have the same legal rights that criminals have (not custodial access, but legal rights, to address another point made further up). can you please give me a break?
More recently I posted in the Music forum in a thread that ShadowSax had also posted on, because I felt I had a small contribution worth making, rather than a desire to interact with his own odious self, and reflecting on that I think I’m able to do that as part of the unconscious privilege inherent in not feeling my opinions are likely to challenged or dismissed by him on the basis of my gender (while believing others might be far more aware of that).
i have NEVER challenged anyone or dismissed anyone on the basis of gender. the "chicks like you" comment followed a history of exchanges. and, o so kind of you to respond on a thread where i found myself. you're quite the saint. but far be it from you to avoid using "odious" there. just to qualify it.
i think you'll find that unpleasantness is rarely created in a vaccuum. i've never talked with you, i dont think, yet you bring these loaded words and qualifiers to the discussion. thats why i'm being unpleasant. however, while not editing my words to you, i'll apologize (because the point needed to be made, i think) for being unpleasant, having hopefully showed you why you brought it on. i'm apologizing because i think it's clear from the balance of you post that you might be using those words in order to fit in with the larger group, which i'll into later on.
His priorities are such that he devalues the negative experience of women, and concentrates on the (typically, relatively smaller in scale) consequences for others, to such a degree that the validity or otherwise of his points in no ways excuses the omission on his part of any substantial sympathy or even understanding of issues at hand when they have no relation to those issues he is concerned with. Certainly what I felt was that, initially, in both the “Should pro-choice extend to men as well?” and “Duke” threads ShadowSax attempted to engage with other posters and was reasonably coherent. However, it’s his blindness to the significance of the crime of rape, his wilful avoidance of addressing questions apropos the standards of the team members accused, the intensity of his language - which suggests his expectations are that it’s a false claim - and his vitriol regarding such false claims, that are really the point. Were it proved that the woman in question was attention-seeking, ShadowSax’s comment still suggests an unhealthy level of misogynistic (and racist) colouring to his description of an admittedly negative action, and again within his past experience suggests that he’s willing to comment displaying highly visible prejudices without actually laying claim to their authorship.
well, everyone has their causes, or beliefs. i dont expect someone who was fired from their job for being black to come to a forum and for the sake of being believed be forced to agree that it really sucks for bosses when they have to fire someone. or something like that. i cant think of a good analogy right now that won't result in another misconception. fuck it. look, yes, there are some political views that i'm more invested in than others. by your logic, why are the feminist-leaning people here not focusing as much on criminal rights? i dont ask them to, really, because everyone's got their beliefs.
1.)Do you understand that– intentionally or not- multiple posts you have made on this board have offended several members and have caused them to look at your unfavorably?
obviously.
Which continues his pattern of giving the right answer without, well, either showing his working or expressing any concern.
well, what are you after, the answer or the psychology behind it? this is important because of this: you may ban me, but you've no right to judge me. are you really concerned about my psychology? i gave an answer. i gave an answer to a leading question where ganesh wasnt being open about whatever point he was trying to make. it's insulting to have people i've never met and who have little experience even talking with me and who are obviously confused about what my intent is in the first place to presume to be able to then guage some alteration in that intent.
alas: Let me be blunt: Your style comes across to me, pretty consistently, as a bullying style.
i'd disagree with "consistently," and ask if you've read some of my posts not on switchboard. but i'd agree that my style can come across as bullying. it's not meant to be bullying, but rather direct. here is an example:
(Elijah), this is incomplete. a large number of blue collar jobs are outsourced, specifically factory work. but you're right about the other ones. but whats critical about those jobs is that they were traditionally jobs that not only provided work for the average person, they also essentially served to build american cities. steel and auto factory workers lost jobs to overseas operations.
And it seems to be cordoned off from your own ability to examine it, somehow, in an at least quasi-deliberately unexamined gray area.
i think other people are covering the gray areas. in a forum, there are many ideas to be expressed and i dont believe that each post needs to sum up everything or qualify everything. often, i find that my overall points are skipped over in responses in order to focus on one sentence here or there. it would be more productive within the community to have an exchange of ideas, not merely a nitpicking of word choices. i listen to gray area discussion, and acknowledge it. i argue points i feel warrant it.
Arguably, yes, we are teh sheeple. But one of the good reasons for our lack of persistence is that, in the less anonymous parts of our world, that kind of aggressiveness is disruptive—it may get us ahead in social circles based on competition, but in places like parties and families and conversations and neighborhoods, it is self-centered, rude, annoying. People back away, yes. But they back away with bad feelings and resentment in their hearts.
i agree. and i agree that, right in the beginning, i was being arrogant, tho with some irony, when i said things like "you're wrong and illinformed, sorry 'bout ya," but that is a large step down from "shadowsax, you're an idiot." so, we were all a little rude. some of us, like you, have been able to get past individual words and actually have a discussion. i think that reflects on your intelligence, good sense and compassion. i'd hate to see any forum be ruled by those with something less than enough intelligence, good sense and compassion to move on with things.
People use the term “offended” for these bad feelings, but it doesn’t quite do it for me. It’s an absolute wall that gets put up because they realize that the terms of the relationship are, for the bullying other, all about “winning” and “losing” and not about learning, exploring, growing.
while i understand that i may be perceived as bullying, i'm really not trying to be. i believe i was bullied by haus much more than i was bullying ANYONE else. i think that the only "bullying" that i can be accused of are vague and simplistic groups of people. people might say i'm "bullying" women, but even that, only if they misunderstand what i'm trying to say. the duke thread is perfect.
The key being: this is really also primarily an issue of style for me. I am not, and have not been precisely "offended" by your ideas, so much as I've regularly found the experience of arguing or reading your arguments less than gratifying. Because you seem to enter into debates with a stridently win/lose focus, many of your postings lead to the threads’ eddying around the same points, degeneration into strictly personal attacks, rather than the production of new insights.
again, i make my points. instead of being challenged on them, really, they are met with simple vitriol. i am willing to engage, but not with people who call me names and so grossly misread my posts.
But, that being said, given that you are aware that this is a pretty left-leaning space, you have been here a long enough time, you have had multiple warnings, but your approach still has a sledge-hammer quality.
actually, when you say warnings, i'd have to disagree. i've had a couple of PMs about conduct, mostly saying that my perception of moderators was wrong. and, again, please read my other posts.
also, i'm pretty leftist. to say so, i understand, may be viewed by some (has been viewed by some) as "beating my chest," but i feel it deserves to be said again. i dont think that being opposed to many laws championed by high profile feminist organizations makes me right wing. and i've expressed plenty of other ideas on switchboard, about ID cards, immigration, rumsfeld, etc., without being challenged or even engaged. in fact, the ONLY times i am ever engaged is when i mention something that falls on the "wrong" side of feminist or gender-related issues. so this stuff about walls and everything, i'm not sure it's very valid. because everyone is really quiet until i say something that the group decides to misread as being antifemale or something.
As a teacher, I am oriented toward optimism about the potential for human growth and change. And what I’d really have liked to see would have been a legitimate change of style—less of a need to win, and more of a goal to explore—rather than an outright banning. But, given the state of affairs, as Ganesh points out, it’s probably impossible at this point. There’s no clear way for you to apologize with dignity that I can see, so I can’t imagine a way forward. If you can, try putting it forward. Divorce seems to be in all of our best interest. If we have to show you the door, well, that may be what we have to do.
i'd hate to think that such a left leaning place would behave that way, but if thats the case, thats for people like you to decide, not me. if my apologies arent sincere enough for the group, then thats for you to decide. i'd like to point out, however, that the only inarguable place where i admittedly came at the thing wrong was in the VERY FIRST thread i really participated in, the F4J thread. so it seems that what you're saying (which others have also expressed), is that now, it's simply too late, even tho what brought this up was the duke lacrosse thread, so you'd be banning someone because of the inability of the group to move forward. if my participation in this thread doesnt reflect a willingness to work, then i dont know what does.
I'm not certain that a lack of posters in ShadowSax's corner (in this thread) is indicative of an overall feeling that he should be banned. Silence may equal assent. It may mean any number of other things, including the possibility that the posters who typically pay attention to the Policy forum are more inclined to want him gone than others on the board. It may mean, too, that some posters who do not feel so strongly that SS should be shown the door -- or maybe even feel strongly that he should not be shown the door -- are hesitant to speak up for fear of being painted with the same brush.
i agree, and this was a point i was planning to make. thank you.
trimvir: If you have read my We Need More Conservatives thread, I think you already know what I'm going to say. Please don't misunderstand me: ShadowSax's style of debate is boorish, bulling, and has all the tact of a rock. That asside however, he offends a great many people here. He is racist, sexist and homophobic. That however, is precicely why we need him.
i diagree with everything you said. i'm not racist, sexist and homophobic. and i dont think any forum needs that.
lady w/ flowers: He has almost consistently posted only in threads dealing in some way with feminism, one post (I think) to The Sopranos thread doesn't really offset that.
thats wrong.
ShadowSax, I've been thinking about this. I know I'm not your therapist, but when you posted this, I thought for a moment that you might be able/willing to build on what you said. To my mind, it's the nearest you've come so far to being able to reflect on possible reasons to do with your flaws rather than other people's flaws for things going pear-shaped. In particular, I feel that if, in the future, you were only able to drop a little of the "arrogant self-assuredness" and occasionally voice explicitly just a little of the "regret pooling in [your] gut" you'd get on a lot better with a lot more people.
i'm pretty sure that others have pointed out problems with my postings. if this is an effort to get me to jump on board that bandwagon, it's not going to happen. what i'm doing is defending myself. i've acknowledged certain things, and i would agree to drop a little of what you wrongly call "regret pooling" in my gut.
Tom: Remember Barbelites - people often have trouble backing out of difficult positions, or are too proud to just retire gracefully and apologise when they've said something wrong. It's not unreasonable to help people find a way to get out of an argument without losing too much face. We're all able to look like idiots in front of each other because we mostly trust that other people won't eviscerate us. That means it's easy for us to apologise when we're wrong. Newer users have more trouble with that because they don't know us.
it has nothing to do with pride. simply, i'm leaving it up to you to ban or not to ban. i'm not going to remove myself or try to change my name. this is me. like i already pointed out, i think my participation in this thread is pretty open and i'm trying to present an honest view of me so you can judge one way or another.
you know, right in the beginning, i PM'd haus because i was trying to step back from the argument in F4J and make up. he PM'd me back more argument.
since then, haus and some others, just a few, have inserted comments to me that only undermine anything positive i'm trying to say. this, as much as anything else, has led to this mass problem. if i'm the dead one because of that, so be it. life goes on. but be clear: this wasnt all my fault, and i have taken many more steps that most others since the initial conflict to try to make things better. |
|
|
