| |
|
I have a lot of thoughts on this whole situation, but many of them have already been put forward by others, better.
The one thing I would like to see happen, if SS *is* banned, is a clear understanding of why. To me, that still feels lacking in the discussion - especially since SS has been interacting with the discussion (if not engaging).
The reason I think this is key is because, like it or not, this is going to set the precedent for future bannings on Barbelith. Denying that is very foolish - the very first post in this thread speaks to the precedents we've already set.
Now, I don't think anyone during the Zoemancer situation was actually trying to set a precedent. They were merely trying to deal with the clear and present issue. Regardless, the precedent is set.
This will have the same effect, and I'd be very happy indeed if people were able to clarify what precedent, exactly, they would like to be set by banning SS.
There are many reasons throughout these 9 pages of discussion. Some of them I agree with. Others represent a slippery slope in terms of the rationale not being very applicable. I think it behooves us all to spend some time thinking about not merely the solution to todays problem, but the Barbe-law that we're laying down for the future and how comfortable we are with that.
One reason that I'm actually behind is that SS is pissing off (and causing to not be present) posters I value far higher than him. Best summarised by Illmatic w/
If this is having the effect that many posters I like, many of whom I value as friends (Nina, Mordant and others) are deeply angered and are therefore not posting - well, to me, the negatives of his presence are outweighing any positves, and I'd be happy for him to be shown the door.
So, better to keep people like Nina than SS, sure. If that is the precedent we're setting, though, we need to be very clear about it - because I'm not sure it's a good one. It is, however, a clear one. Piss off anyone with enough friends and you go. Like I say, I actually think this is appropriate for this case - but a bad precedent.
I thought (id) came up with a very concise summary of another position, which (from my reading) balanced upon the core description His arguments describe a world where there is no systematic oppression of women.
I think that's undoubtedly true. Is that the reason to ban, and is that the precedent we want to set? I find it more palatable than the first option here, in terms of long term application. It's much clearer and seems a lot more acceptable to me than the first.
Evil Scientist also presented a POV that I think would be actively dangerous as an ongoing precedent
If our words cause offence, even unintentionally, then they are offensive and it is the duty of the person who created them to address the hurt that they have done.
On this basis, we need to move to ban Flyboy and Haus next. They certainly offend plenty of people, and they rarely address the hurt they cause thereby. I very, very, strongly believe that mere offence should not be sufficient for banning. This has been put forward by several people (in one form or another) and I think it's bad for Barbelith.
So, there's my current position. If the reason put forward is
SS is pissing off my friends and causing them not to want to post : I abstain. I think it's the right call now, and the wrong call for the future.
His arguments describe a world where there is no systematic oppression of women : Yes to a ban on this basis.
He's offensive : No to a ban on this basis.
I really appreciate the level of debate that goes on around these matters. Barbelith is a changing and shifting sand - but the things that happen in Policy really do set the metre for the future of the 'lith. |
|
|
