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: 1 ... 89101112(13)14

 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
22:29 / 23.04.06
"Arguments of misogyny"? That would make little grammatical sense. Why not leave it as it is, so that your feelings on the subject are left clear?

By the way, are you ever going to substantiate the things you were asked to substantiate on page 3 of this thread?
 
 
Jawsus-son Starship
22:36 / 23.04.06
I've discussed the previous comments with Haus through the PM system. I did answer his questions, and as such I don't really think I need to go back and do this again, and as I do not have saved copies of my PM's, would it be possible for Haus to post these on the board.

Finally, is it something I've personally done to you flyboy, or do you always speek to people with such disdain?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:37 / 23.04.06
Surely it is best to give my opinions as opposed to remain silent?

You see, Math, that's where we disagree. No, I don't think that it is best to give your opinions as opposed to remain silent, if you do not know enough to provide an opinion based on sufficient knowledge to be a worthwhile addition to the discussion. If somebody were to start a thread on Swans in the Music forum, I would not think that it would be best for me to give my opinions as opposed to remaining silent, despite knowing nothing about their music. I might ask questions, but give my opinion? No.

So, to recap, if you haven't read the source texts, and you reserve the right to change the meaning of what you have written, how exactly can one engage in depth with what you are saying? As far as I understand it, your revised position is:

1) People want to ban Shadowsax because he is a misogynist (I do not think that this is anything like an adequate summary of this thread, so that's my first problem)
2) I don't think he is a misogynist, and I don't think his behaviour is bannable.
3) Although I have not actually read the threads which other people are citing as reasons why his behaviour is bannable.
4) And I don't know what I would describe as bannable behaviour.
5) Having said which, I would certainly know bannable behaviour if I saw it
6) Assuming I did see it, which I might not because I might not have read the threads people cite as the location of bannable behaviour
7) However, although I have not checked the threads cited for bannable behaviour, which I would be able to recognise if I saw it, I can say with confidence that Shadowsax has not performed bannable behaviour, and should therefore not be banned.

This is not an argument I find convincing on its own terms, before one even introduces external reality. As such, I would say that the time spent giving one's opinion - and you have given a lot of opinion in this thread - might be better spent reading up on the circumstances where your opinion is being solicited as a member of Barbelith. I would say precisely that uninformed opinion is not what we want in this thread, as it will only cause confusion between what is based on evidence and what is based on what we might call internal certainties.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
22:38 / 23.04.06
Math, dude, as has been pointed out, no-one is screaming. At least not in thread. (I fear I may start soon IRL but I shall run the shower while I do and the neighbours are used to it). What people are doing is collating examples of what they believe to be misogyny, and putting together arguments as to why these posts should be read as such.

Since you bring up the poontang incident, I don't recall anyone actually calling you a misogynist based on that. You got WTF'd, people looked at you funny, you had to explain what you were on about, and that's it. The world did not cease to turn and there is still such a thing as icecream.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
22:40 / 23.04.06
Oh boy, late to the party again...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:41 / 23.04.06
For reference, btw, Mathlete did indeed PM me with his examples. I didn't find them convincing, and the correspondence was broken off, but I don't see a lot of point in going down this road, since it has nothing much to do with Shadowsax.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
22:42 / 23.04.06
I think the thread has accomplished just about everything it was supposed to, and within the pre-set time limit, so by my ruler its a success.

It set out to reach a firm conclusion on whether or not SS should be banned and, if so, why. I don't see that here. Even those who believe that he should be shown the door can't agree on the reason.
 
 
Jawsus-son Starship
22:42 / 23.04.06
However, although I have not checked the threads cited for bannable behaviour, which I would be able to recognise if I saw it, I can say with confidence that Shadowsax has not performed bannable behaviour, and should therefore not be banned.


You know Haus, I usually think you're a pretty slick customer, and seeing as Tom has recomended that us newbies don't tangle with you, I have refrained from doing it. However, small slip up here fella, you've said that I have said "I can say with confidence that Shadowsax has not performed bannable behaviour, and should therefore not be banned." Which is of course exactly what I haven't said. So can I expect my apology to be forthcoming, or should I just stick my thumb up my arse?
 
 
Jawsus-son Starship
22:44 / 23.04.06
And Carnival, I completely agree, that was one slip of the fingers that I shall avoid repeating again. From now on, all my posts will be writen with the fact that each word will be taken into account, as opposed to the overall point I am making.
 
 
Ganesh
22:45 / 23.04.06
"Arguments of misogyny"? That would make little grammatical sense. Why not leave it as it is, so that your feelings on the subject are left clear?

As Flowers points out elsewhere, poor choice of wording isn't necessarily indicative of a particular agenda - particularly if one subsequently concedes that it's a poor choice of wording and offers to change it.

Having said which, Math, I think you have made generalisations in this thread that you've failed to substantiate. I'm not sure that it's particularly on-topic here for you to do so now, but if you feel strongly enough about the things you said on page 3 of this thread, you may wish to dig out an old 'Barbelite' thread and lay out your reasoning therein.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
22:48 / 23.04.06
Math- just read the thread. Please. You don't strike me as particularly stupid, but as Haus has said above, you can't really speak with confidence about stuff you have no knowledge of.

You're a member of Barbelith. As such, your opinion on this is important. THEREFORE you should try to actually have one that's, like, actually based on something.

Read the thread. Make your own fucking mind up once you know what it is you're actually making your mind up about. (There are also handy links to other threads which could also fill in the gaps in your knowledge of the subject).



Aaaand in other news- yes, shit like this should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. I agree with Ganesh that we should have some sort of structure in place for discussing them when they arise, though.

And yes, it seems like this has gone on for fucking ever, but this thread has, afaict, helped cap that process. A seven-day time limit on something that could otherwise potentially drag on until the fucking apocalypse? Yeah, I'm pretty sure that hasn't made things last longer.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
22:49 / 23.04.06
GAAAH crossposted with a bunch of people... my post probably now needs rethingking... will come back later.
 
 
Ganesh
22:49 / 23.04.06
It set out to reach a firm conclusion on whether or not SS should be banned and, if so, why. I don't see that here. Even those who believe that he should be shown the door can't agree on the reason.

It set out to reach some sort of conclusion by the end of seven days. Tom has suggested lengthening this timescale slightly, so we'd be into Tuesday. If a "firm conclusion" hinges on everyone agreeing on (a pat reason for) banning, then we're going to have to accept a less-than-100%-turgid conclusion. Ultimately, it's Tom who makes the decision, and Tom's going to be doing so with a rather more complete sense of community opinion than was previously the case.
 
 
Ganesh
22:52 / 23.04.06
From now on, all my posts will be read with the fact that each word will be taken into account, as opposed to the overall point I am making.

Just be aware of loaded terminology. That's all.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
22:53 / 23.04.06
Can I also say, while the subject is at least partially about how these things are dealt with in future, that I'm pretty uncomfortable with the idea that arguments for or against bannings should be made in PMs to Tom?
 
 
Ganesh
22:55 / 23.04.06
Can I also say, while the subject is at least partially about how these things are dealt with in future, that I'm pretty uncomfortable with the idea that arguments for or against bannings should be made in PMs to Tom?

You can. I'm not yet entirely sure how I feel about it myself.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:55 / 23.04.06
And Carnival, I completely agree, that was one slip of the figers that I shall avoid repeating again. From now on, all my posts will be read with the fact that each word will be taken into account, as opposed to the overall point I am making

Now that, ladies and gentlemen, is passive aggression.

Math:

The majority of people who want SS banned are saying so due to the fact they view SS as a misogynist. As I don't think that this has been proven sufficently, I do not think it is a good enough reason for expulsion. When it is proven, put my name down in the ban camp.


I'd say this maps pretty well to:

I can say with confidence that Shadowsax has not performed bannable behaviour, and should therefore not be banned

Since you then say:

However, and this is not at all helpful, I'm sure I'd know what would suffice if I saw it.

If you are solely capable of identifying what bannable behaviour is, but cannot be bothered to look at the threads cited in order to determine whether the behaviour on it is bannable or not, then you are indeed not saying:

I can say with confidence that Shadowsax has not performed bannable behaviour, and should therefore not be banned

But rather:

I cannot be bothered to look at every instance of Shadowsax's behaviour to determine whether it is bannable, even though I will only know what bannable behaviour is when I observe it, and when I observe it I will know that it bannable behaviour. Despite this, I have decided that Shadowsax should not be banned.

In which case what you are saying is far, far worse. I can only second Stoatie's recommendation. Less opinion-sharing, more opinion-basing.
 
 
Jawsus-son Starship
23:03 / 23.04.06
OK Haus, to the PM's about this.
 
 
Jawsus-son Starship
23:17 / 23.04.06
Also - burden of truth? Who's responsibility is it to prove that SS is a misogynist/troll, him or the people who think he is? Perhaps this is one of the things we could decide in this thread?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
23:27 / 23.04.06
Math... DON'T get into a PM argument with Haus right now (yeah sure, do it a bit later, if you want)... DON'T start asking new questions (same contents as the previous parentheses, really)... READ THE THREAD. Considering this whole thing has a time limit, it might be worth using that time to actually engage with the stuff that's subject to that limit. New questions are good... but how do you know they've not already been answered? And Haus will still be there in a couple of days.

I'm not meaning to sound snarky, fuck, I'm not even meaning to BE snarky, so apologies if it sounds that way. But just read the damn thread.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
23:31 / 23.04.06
Math, I beg of you: Hearken unto the Stoat, for the Stoat speaketh Strong Truth. You might also read through the linked posts; yea, and profit mightily therefrom.
 
 
Isadore
23:39 / 23.04.06
Also - burden of truth? Who's responsibility is it to prove that SS is a misogynist/troll, him or the people who think he is? Perhaps this is one of the things we could decide in this thread?

I really, really don't understand where you're coming from with that, Math.

Here is the history of the situation as I understand it:
* Various people on the board expressed a discomfort with statements Shadowsax made. The word 'misogyny', which refers to systematic hatred of women, was indeed used as a description of why his posts were uncomfortable.
* It sat for a while; some people got upset, but by and large, nothing was done. Eventually the matter grew large enough that something is being done: this thread.
* This thread exists to collect and collate posts Shadowsax has made that may be considered hatespeech towards women, that is, misgynic. From that data, an argument can be formed whether or not Shadowsax needs to be banned. Yes, damnit, the burden of proof lies on the people who want him to go. People are trying to prove that Shadowsax is a troll. With evidence. In. This. Thread. If you do not read the whole fucking thread, then you are not going to see the evidence, so you are going to think whatever you damn well please, which is in fact what you are doing.

Burden of proof time. Where are people saying to ban Shadowsax just because they don't like him? Where's the evidence for your statements? Other people have posted links to specific statements that they have issue with. You need to post your own evidence if you expect to be taken seriously.
 
 
Jawsus-son Starship
23:48 / 23.04.06
Seeing as I have read this whole fucking thread, can I ask if you have? Seeing as only one page ago I stated that the only relevant fucking thread I haven't read is the fucking F4J one, which I'm currently fucking reading. So the only fucking thread I haven't read is that fucking one. Is that fucking ok?

Now Haus, would you say that's passive aggresive, or straight out aggresive aggresive?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
23:53 / 23.04.06
Kind of unhelpful-aggressive, I'd say. Although I'd disagree with some of Celane's summary there - I don't think this thread is just about misogyny; you and ze have, I think, made the same misreading.

Nonetheless, the term "passive-aggressive" is a useful case. I first used it in an aside in a post the meaet of which was addressed to you, referring to Ganesh's use of the term. Ganesh actually responded to this request before you replied on the assumption that:

although I'd like to put in a plea for the avoidance of the term "passive-aggressive"

Somehow meant that you were being called passive-aggressive by me. Shortly thereafter, you were triple-salko passive-aggressive, which muddied the waters a little. Nonetheless, this starts from a misunderstanding based on casual reading of the thread.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
23:54 / 23.04.06
OK. Well I'll retract that part of what I was saying. But please do read the F4J thread (which you are anyway) and the other links.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
23:57 / 23.04.06
(My above post in response to Math's last).
 
 
Jawsus-son Starship
00:00 / 24.04.06
INTENTION FOR POST: CALL HAUS AN ARSE.

Nonetheless, this starts from a misunderstanding based on casual reading of the thread.

Smooth snarky Haus shows newbie how to be cool! What has really pissed me off tonight is how willing you are to assume that you know the tone of my post. From now on, it's clear to me that I have to preface my posts with the intention, so in this post I intend to call you an arse.

You, sir, are an arse.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
00:06 / 24.04.06
And you have made it pretty clear that pumping your ego by posting repeatedly and as quickly as possible is more important to you than paying attention to what people have actually written. As such, could you do it in the Conversation, please?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
00:11 / 24.04.06
Ye gods. Math. Stop. Just stop. You're in a hole, and you're digging.

If you genuinely believe that an injustice is being perpetrated here, then the thing to do is take a breath, put together some arguments along with substantiating links, then post those. Okay? And then maybe you should apologise for getting all sweary. Becoming abusive towards other posters doesn't achieve anything.
 
 
Isadore
00:12 / 24.04.06
Seeing as I have read this whole fucking thread, can I ask if you have? Seeing as only one page ago I stated that the only relevant fucking thread I haven't read is the fucking F4J one, which I'm currently fucking reading. So the only fucking thread I haven't read is that fucking one. Is that fucking ok?

Yes, I have read the entire thread, thank you. And I still fail to see how you could have read the entire thread and still say things like "Who's responsibility is it to prove that SS is a misogynist/troll, him or the people who think he is? Perhaps this is one of the things we could decide in this thread?" when the whole point of this thread is to provide and discuss rational arguments (id est, with proof!) for trollishness / misogyny / reason for banning.

(I don't consider that this is just about misogyny, but since that's what Math seemed to take the biggest issue with, that's what I addressed. Sorry.)
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
00:16 / 24.04.06
Especially not in a fairly "designated for purpose" thread. We're not here to talk about you, fuck, we're not even here to talk about Haus. We're here to discuss the question "should Shadowsax be banned from Barbelith". Please do Haus, Shasowsax and the other posters here the honour of letting that continue. Time is at a premium here, yours no less so than others'.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
00:18 / 24.04.06
(Again, my last post in response to Math's last).
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
00:32 / 24.04.06
And the use of the word "fuck" in my previous post should probably be preceded by a "-" rather than a ","... I'm not being as rude as I sound.
 
 
Spyder Todd 2008
01:40 / 24.04.06
Math, I’d suggest listening to Mordant and Stoatie. Maybe take a step back, cool your jets, and get back on the board tomorrow morning. Being abusive and off-topic isn’t helping anyone, least of all you.

I just wish he'd been kicked sooner, frankly, because by dragging it out like this the entire issue's become blurred in a way that it never would have been before. It's allowed him extra space in which to try and slime his way out of what was previously obviously trollish behaviour by passing it off as something else - and it's worked, because there's a hell of a lot of people who've allowed themselves to become blinded by it.

With respect, E.R9, I disagree. I think the very fact that so few posters to this thread have significant enough sympathy for Shadowsax to vote against banning- despite the fact the this thread has covered so much ground and engaged with Shadowsax himself about his feelings regarding the issues at hand- is evidence to the strength of the argument for banning. That being said I entirely agree with you on this:

SS could have been banned after his post in the SR thread, with trolling as the reason - that was the clearest example of him joining an ongoing thread in order to attack majority opinion on the board without any other concerns.

This was a deliberate attempt to derail an extremely serious thread so that Shadowsax could verbally attack posters he disagreed with. To the best of my knowledge, Shadowsax has made no real effort to apologize for this particular incident. If someone has evidence to the contrary, I’d be happy to be proved wrong.

Because I’m not entirely comfortable with expressing my opinion on the issue of banning only privately to Tom, I’m going to do it here. I personally believe that Shadowsax is a troubled individual. I do not presume to think he is simply an unintelligent person, but in my opinion he does hold some troubling opinions that he may or may not entirely realize. But Barbelith is not his personal therapy session (as he himself has made clear), and the board is not responsible for getting him to overcome his issues. He has not to date been willing to apologize for them and examine these beliefs. Any apology he has made has been worded to brush aside responsibility to someone else. He is absolutely convinced that he does not harbour any sexist views at all, despite any evidence the board has brought to him. I think it’s this refusal to interact with others and consider the possibility that he may possibly be wrong that constitutes trolling (for me at least), and therefore banning. I vote for the airlock.

Just as a point of order as we’re preparing to wrap this debate up: Assuming the board does vote to ban Shadowsax (which seems fairly likely), what happens to this thread? Obviously it’s going to stick around in the archives and such, but if Shadowsax is removed should we lock this thread and consider it completed? I’m curious if anyone has an opinion on this.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
05:57 / 24.04.06
I would think it best if this thread were locked once a decision either way is made, whether it's decided that he stays or goes, the thread is done. I think the majority of expressed opinions on here have been in the 'kick him' camp, with a few 'nos' and a few 'dont knows'.
 
  

Page: 1 ... 89101112(13)14

 
  
Add Your Reply