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 >

Interacting with difficult posters who (we suspect) are mentally unwell

  
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
 
Tryphena Absent
16:07 / 24.08.06
more female-identified posters might have decided that Barbelith was a place where sustained outright misogyny was tolerated

Of course they would, it was already being tolerated, it has been tolerated, you don't need individual discussion with someone to make that judgement when you can already read seven pages of material and that has been the problem with the argument against banning Shadowsax all along.
 
 
Ganesh
19:30 / 24.08.06
That is to say, understand what kind of worldview they were likely to continue to present in their posts on Barbelith, and how they would react to that worldview being challenged in any way.

Which is, in itself, a sort of assessment of capacity to change - and, as such, completely valid. Equally valid was my own assessment of capacity to change.

Also I should clarify that when I said "unless someone wants to make the argument again" about ShadowSax, what I meant was - as I see it you're putting forward suspicion of psychotic illness (see topic summary) as an exceptional circumstance in which Barbelith, individually and collectively, should respond or at least support people who respond in a specific ("less confrontational") way to their posting.

I don't know that I'm proposing it as an "exceptional circumstance". Where newbies are concerned, I'm not sure it's that exceptional at all. I suspect that Barbelith attracts a certain kind of online demographic within which psychotic illness is perhaps overrepresented compared with the general population. All speculation, naturally, but based on solid anecdotal experience.

Your second issue is that there are other exceptional circumstances in which this may be the case - I'm not saying this thread can't include such a discussion, although we'd need to change the title and summary, but I think someone needs to put forward what it was about ShadowSax that should have influenced how we responded to his posting.

Again, I'm not sure this is "exceptional". I fully agree that it'd be good to properly dissect the responses to ShadowSax and the thread started to discuss his potential banning. Perhaps there'd be some value in discussing specific reactions in the Post-banning discussion thread?
 
 
Ganesh
19:44 / 24.08.06
And if they had, perhaps more female-identified posters might have decided that Barbelith was a place where sustained outright misogyny was tolerated, and chosen not to post here any longer.

Possibly. In this wonderfully hypothetical para-Barbelith, we can suggest all kinds of eventuality, can't we? Perhaps more posters with a history of psychiatric illness for which they've been excluded from much of society might've thought, "Barbelith is somewhere they'll consider me as a person" and chosen to post more. Who can say?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
20:05 / 24.08.06
True. In the reality we know, female-identifying members of the board did conclude that Barbelith was a place where misogyny was tolerated, and at least one is on record as having left the board as a result.

Equally valid was my own assessment of capacity to change.

Was it? What was your conclusion?
 
 
Ganesh
20:10 / 24.08.06
I'm still unclear. Are you saying then that every poster who posts homophobic, sexist or racist content should be subject to an evaluation of their mental health even if nobody contends or suspects that they suffer from psychotic illness? Or are you complaining about my comments about the response to 33's "apology", which were addressed to people who had not made any comment about 33'd mental health as far as I recall?

Oookay. Let me unpack this further.

I'm not attempting to lay down general rules in any sense, no. I'm certainly not attempting to dictate that posters who post (presumably what you consider to be) homophobic, racist or sexist content be subject to "an evaluation of their mental health". Then again, I think we're in danger here of gravitating toward a categorical yes/no system of defining mental illness - as if a psychiatric eminence grise is required to give a definitive answer regarding the presence or absence of psychopathology.

It doesn't work like that. Individuals who fail to get along in terms of interpersonal relationships for whatever reason may have mental health problems. Equally, they may not. Individuals who post stuff that's inflammatory for 'ism' reasons may have a psychotic illness; equally, they may not. Point is, establishing this is likely to necessitate an examination of the content and the form of their contribution to Barbelith. I know, from my experience in the field of mental health, that those with a psychotic illness are more likely than most to develop extreme 'ism' viewpoints (presumably as a result of poor ego strength), and I'm therefore interested in those who, on Barbelith, display extreme viewpoints plus underdeveloped modes of interpersonal communication. I would appreciate the opportunity to evaluate such individuals, in my own way and without hostile criticism.

And yes, I am complaining specifically about your comment within the 33 discussion thread. I linked to it in my first post. It was

Astonishing: making racist, sexist and homophobic statements really is the best way to be on the receiving end of an unprecedented amount of kindness and compliments and hand-holding from some people on Barbelith! Now it transpires that what's getting in the way of 33's attempts to apologise is that he has too much dignity. Is that what everyone else has got from his posts to date? An excess of DIGNITY?

and I saw (and see) it as akin a particularly corrosive sentiment which, to my mind, dogged the ShadowSax discussion thread: the suggestion that anyone who was in any way pleasant or civil to a poster who had made "racist, sexist and homophobic statements" was "hand-holding".

Whether anyone has explicitly stated that they think 33 suffers from psychotic illness is by the by here. You have framed things in such a way that anyone who approaches 33 in a less-than-condemnatory way is cast as a 'hand-holder'. You've narrowed discussion, and successfully 'othered' "some people on Barbelith(!)" who might be tempted to approach the situation in a manner less confrontational than your own.

I have reasonably strong feelings on the situation with 33, particularly recently. I'd have been tempted to offer my opinion. Your framing of the situation puts me in the category of 'hand-holder', which gives me pause before contributing to that thread.
 
 
Ganesh
20:25 / 24.08.06
True. In the reality we know, female-identifying members of the board did conclude that Barbelith was a place where misogyny was tolerated, and at least one is on record as having left the board as a result.

Since it's been argued that mental illness cannot realistically be considered as a factor of online decisions because it's impossible to validate in Real Life terms, perhaps you'd like to establish this beyond all reasonable doubt. We could then go on to think about why, if we're accepting the female-identifyingness of certain no-longer-here posters as valid, some of us are rejecting the possibility that certain posters might be identifiably mentally unwell in a way that has some bearing on their posting (whether they identify - as psychotic individuals would tend not to - as mentally unwell or not).

If we're accepting, at face value, your assertion that female-identifying (which cannot be 100% established as accurately reflective of Real Life) posters have left the board for a particular reason, then shouldn't we accept the assertion that potentially mentally-unwell (which cannot be 100% established as accurately reflective of Real Life) posters have suffered as a result of 'high expressed emotion' punitive backlash?

Was it? What was your conclusion?

I commented on (what I perceived to be) ShadowSax's inflexibility/non-viability here, and I think my comments are valid.
 
 
Ganesh
20:30 / 24.08.06
Hmm. More in the – "is ze saying this just to get my goat, or is ze just talking to hirself?" vein. Less "why isn't Poster X able" and more "is Poster X unable, or just unwilling," if that makes sense.

Thinking about this, Grant (and M LeWeaving). Will get around to it, I promise.
 
 
Mourne Kransky
21:29 / 24.08.06
Pricks who post here and piss us all off are not to be countenanced. Fair enough. People who post here and say unacceptable things but whose psychotic illness prevents them from engaging in normal ways will also be told to fuck off. Fair enough. Some of our number are particularly able in identifying those whose worldview sucks and is unaccpetable and we treasure them for that trait and their resolute expression of appropriate disdain.

Those of us who have been fortunate to have spent many years surrounded by people with psychotic illness and who know that world and that way of looking at the world very well, might feel differently and may feel that there is a difference between won't listen to reason and can't listen to reason.

So, when someone who is frankly psychotic is posting and being assailed with (perfectly understandable) demands to alter their posting style to conform to the prevailing orthodoxy in a direct and confrontational manner, it concerns me purely because I know that this person cannot conform and will not, however much we excoriate them for their views.

If we could tolerate it, even for a short while, we might learn something from the very particular world view they express even if it's just how much we disagree with it and why. Perhaps a glimmer of consciousness might take hold that this or that statement is unacceptable and why. If the psychosis abates, there will then be clear direction as to where their understanding of the world collides with the mainstream and that might be profitable, if not for the poster on the receiving end, trapped in their own blinkered little world, then for others observing the discussion, if it has been expressed with some precision and an avoidance of the high levels of expressed emotion that are intolerable to people trapped in psychosis.

The significant thing would be that 99% of posters reading the thread would be following the discussion and firming up their own attitudes and opinions in this challenging context. Perhaps this would be instructive for many, even if it's phrased as preaching to the choir and everybody nodding the heads in unison with the more conventional outlook.

Ganesh and I recently had a parrty to celebrate our gay wedding and a good friend of mine came along. She had just been discharged from hospital following an acutely psychotic episode, not her first. She had a great time at the party and had some very interesting discussions with people about all sorts of things, including the intersection of race and her experience of mental illness. She's a star!

But a few weeks ago she would have been persona non grata because her mind was poisoned by paranoia and delusional perceptions. At that time she said and did horrid things but those of us who value her knew that the illness was speaking and not the fine woman suffering from it. So we carried on treating her with respect and allowing her as much dignity as was possible and she came around. We continued to observe the Boundaries and Consequences of which Mr Disco spoke but we tried to temper that with both kindess and firmness.

I think, from my understanding of what Ganesh was saying at the threadhead and what Seth seemed subsequently to intuit, that all some of us are suggesting is that, when posters piss us off that there may occasionally be mental illness driving this offence and therefore some mitigation might be possible, We're probably going to ban them anyway and that's probably for the best both for us and for them but it needs to be done with as much kindness and concern as we can muster. The process is the issue.

I know it's a toughie. When people are getting on your nerves, the obvious and immediate response is to strike back. I say this as someone who has never enjoyed the comfort of being mainstream in my 50 years. It was bloody uncomfortable being the butt of prejudice when there were about ten of us, so it seemed, on the first Gay Pride parade in London back in the 70s. But, oppressed and all as I may have felt, I have never experienced anything approximating the social exclusion and prejudice to which someone with a psychotic illness will be regularly subjected in present day Britain, with damn few fighting my corner.

I understand entirely that several people are saying how can I be expected to diagnose mental illness. I dont think anyone expects that or could easily do so. Just bear the possibility in mind when we round upon someone who says something that flies in the face of the Barbe-Orthodoxy. In the end we could well ban and so on as we would anyway but sometimes we should be aware we are just the latest social group to exlude this individual who is running out of options.

OK, now I'm reverting to type and being a selfish and self-absorbed middle class Londoner who could give a fuck about those less fortunate. Peel me a grape, Beulah...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:26 / 24.08.06
I think we have two separate threads here. One of those is aboout dealing with people who might suffer from psychotic illness. The other is about people being free to deal with people whom other people are accusing of unacceptable behaviour in a non-confrontational fashion - which might have a diagnostic function or might not - without then being accused themselves.

I think these overlap, but do not necessarily occupy the same space. As has been said, many of the people treating 33 with gentler hands have not specified that this is because of a judgement on his mental health (although others have), and likewise ShadowSax.

I'm conflicted. I'm aware that I am more kindly inclined towards 33 because he is.. well, he presents less coherently than ShadowSax, although I don't see the differences as that great otherwise. However, that doesn't alter the impact he might have on other people, or the adverse effect that might have on Barbelith or members of Barbelith.

And, sad though it is, if we persuade 33 not to make offensive comments about gay, black or female people in general or specifically, he's not going to turn into alas, you know? Which is part of a question about how hard one should work to reform people who won't in all probable circumstances end up adding an awful lot, to balance out the.. risk factor?

But. But we should try to be kind, and to make people who are accustomed too rejection feel not-rejected, as far as we can. Is that OK? And so if we can decide if somebody _is_ having a psychotic episode, or is suffering long-term psychotic... disorder? delusions? I'm afraid I'm not very good on the terminology... we should try to be non-confrontational in dealing with them. But. But we have to make it clear at some point that this is _why_ we are being non-confrontational - we're not starting to soft-soap. And we have to find some way to communicate that people think that this is what should happen.

Barbelith LiveJorurnal group? I don't know how one can balance all these elements... or how you could control people's reactions in-thread.
 
 
Ganesh
22:36 / 24.08.06
Haus, I really am reluctant to talk specifically and explicitly about 33 here, for a number of reasons. I hope you'll forgive me for avoiding that particular discussion within this thread.

I think there are (at least) two issues in this thread, certainly. I think they overlap, though, particularly as the sentiment to which I took exception in the ShadowSax discussion has recently been revisited - and I worry that it might inhibit closer examination of 33's motivation/capacity as it threatened to do in the ShadowSax thread.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:41 / 24.08.06
Fair enough - I will have a think about generalities.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
22:49 / 24.08.06
Can we amend the title and summary of this thread, then, if it's accepted that we are talking about something broader than just responses to posters who we suspect of psychotic illness?
 
 
Ganesh
22:51 / 24.08.06
If you want. Suggestions?
 
 
Ganesh
23:01 / 24.08.06
Alternatively, if you truly feel that discussion of the way in which softly-softly approaches to assessing ShadowSax's capacity for change is inappropriate in this thread (and, personally, I think it is appropriate), we could split that off into the Post-banning discussion thread and devote this one to general issues.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
23:13 / 24.08.06
It's inappropriate to bring any comments I've made regarding people's response to either ShadowSax or 33 into a thread which is called 'Interacting with difficult posters who (we suspect) are mentally unwell', since I've not made any comments towards anyone who has said that they suspect that either of them are mentally unwell.
 
 
Ganesh
23:22 / 24.08.06
I don't think it's inappropriate because my approach to ShadowSax, in his shall-we-ban-him thread, was largely governed by an awareness, on my part, that his inflexibility might be part and parcel of mental illness - and my approach to assessing ShadowSax was, I think, among the things grouped as apologism by you and other posters within that thread. This made me uncomfortable in my assessment at the time. Similar sentiments being expressed in the discussion of 33 make me similarly uncomfortable; I'm therefore keen to flag the "why are you even talking to him?" meme as particularly unhelpful in discussions of and concerning potentially mentally ill posters.
 
 
Ganesh
23:29 / 24.08.06
I'd point out also, Flyboy, that, if you require an explicit "I THINK THIS POSTER MAY BE PSYCHIATRICALLY UNWELL; PLEASE ALLOW ME TO ENGAGE IN COURTEOUS DIALOGUE WITH THEM TO EXPLORE THIS" tag in order to avoid accusations of apologism, then I require an explicit statement from so-and-so poster that they've definitely left the board for such-and-such reason before I'll accept claims of same as more than manipulative shroud-waving.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
23:37 / 24.08.06
Explicit statements from people who've left the board are difficult for them to provide once they've locked themselves out of their 'suit'. But I think this was fred, encore's parting shot.

The idea has come up previously that Barbelith is not a school, and can't be expected to function like one. I think it's equally true that it can't be expected to function as a mental health clinic.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
23:41 / 24.08.06
I'd also add that I don't think it's accurate to say that you do not want to talk about the specifics of 33 when you opened the thread and are using as a key example something I said in the discussion about 33. If you want to talk about 33, you can rest assured that I'm not going to call anyone an apologist for misogyny, racism and sexism just because they want to discuss someone's possible mental health problems - I reserve that for people who make apologies for misogyny, racism and sexism, and the two are not the same thing.
 
 
Ganesh
23:46 / 24.08.06
In the same way as I didn't explicitly state, "I'm wondering whether ShadowSax/33 might be mentally ill; please cease hostilities for a moment while I attempt to find out through the transgressive act of talking to him politely", Fred, Encore didn't state, "I'm leaving the board because I'm disgusted at the fact that people are talking to ShadowSax politely". Both require a degree of 'reading in'.

And I'd hoped that I'd made it clear in my first post that I don't expect anyone here to act as a member of a "mental health clinic". I'm asking that the possibility of Mad be factored into the equation governing interaction of potentially-mentally-ill newbies (and, sometimes, it really doesn't take a psychiatrist to sniff it out) or, failing that, that those of us who see potential mental illness as relevant in gauging someone's capacity to change/ability to contribute successfully to Barbelith be allowed to engage with posters as we see fit, without being accused of apologism.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
23:51 / 24.08.06
I want to say something here, I'm almost hesitant to do it but I'm going to steam ahead.

No Internet message board can help someone who is going through a really bad patch of this type. Whether that person is psychotic, schizophrenic, that's neither here nor there. The point is that you cannot achieve good mental health support online because there is no way of tapping completely into what is going on with a person. That's why the community has to come above the individual, for the sake of both the community and the individual.

For us a very salient question has to be: can we bear the brunt of a relationship with an individual who we cannot see but who comes here primarily when they're in trouble. The answer has to be no because it's unhealthy on a variety of levels. It's another reason why our banning process needs to be healthier because if people like Shadowsax really are in that state of being when posting and we're still discussing them months afterwards, after posting in a trial thread about them then that's extremely detrimental to them.

Additionally we are in danger of creating perma-trolls if people who have a distinctly negative relationship with the space are not cut off quickly enough. We can't afford to be the habitual space that people turn to and not primarily for our benefit.
 
 
Ganesh
23:52 / 24.08.06
I'd also add that I don't think it's accurate to say that you do not want to talk about the specifics of 33 when you opened the thread and are using as a key example something I said in the discussion about 33.

I don't want to talk about the specifics of 33 as an individual. I've used your comment on 33 as an example, because I see it as an unwelcome polarising/narrowing of the discussion, as happened with ShadowSax. I see your comment as a contemporaneous exemplar of (what I saw as) a problem with the previous discussion of ShadowSax.

If you want to talk about 33, you can rest assured that I'm not going to call anyone an apologist for misogyny, racism and sexism just because they want to discuss someone's possible mental health problems - I reserve that for people who make apologies for misogyny, racism and sexism, and the two are not the same thing.

Yesss, but you frame friendliness toward 33 as "hand-holding", which rather echoes the previous sentiment, expressed by you and other posters in the ShadowSax discussion, that those bothering to be polite to the 'man on trial' had skewed moral priorities.

And no, I don't want to discuss 33 here.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
23:53 / 24.08.06
You can engage with those posters as you see fit up to the point without being accused of apologism up to the point at which other people perceive you to engaging in apologism. You can engage with them as you see fit up to the point at which other people perceive your method of engagement to be having detrimental effects on the board and other members that outweigh any benefits they might have. I don't see why anyone should want or be given carte blanche (in terms of not being open to criticism - obviously we all have carte in what we say here until we say anything that calls for moderators to interfere) in terms of how they engage with other posters.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
23:56 / 24.08.06
You ARE discussing 33 here! You can't make any kind of comment about my post in that thread which specifically refers to 33, and then claim not to want to discuss him! Well you can, but I don't know what to do with that. Stripped of the context of what 33 has said, and what we individually and collectively think about that, of course my post seems corrosive and unhelpful...
 
 
Ganesh
23:59 / 24.08.06
No Internet message board can help someone who is going through a really bad patch of this type. Whether that person is psychotic, schizophrenic, that's neither here nor there. The point is that you cannot achieve good mental health support online because there is no way of tapping completely into what is going on with a person. That's why the community has to come above the individual, for the sake of both the community and the individual.

We may not be able to help, but we can avoid making the individual situation worse, without massive sacrifice to the community.

For us a very salient question has to be: can we bear the brunt of a relationship with an individual who we cannot see but who comes here primarily when they're in trouble. The answer has to be no because it's unhealthy on a variety of levels. It's another reason why our banning process needs to be healthier because if people like Shadowsax really are in that state of being when posting and we're still discussing them months afterwards, after posting in a trial thread about them then that's extremely detrimental to them.

Possibly - but I don't think I'm talking specifically about individuals who come here when they're "in trouble". I'm talking about people who come here and get themselves in trouble because they lack the ability to communicate effectively on the level required by Barbelith.

Additionally we are in danger of creating perma-trolls if people who have a distinctly negative relationship with the space are not cut off quickly enough. We can't afford to be the habitual space that people turn to and not primarily for our benefit.

I'm absolutely not suggesting that we don't cut people off quickly enough; in fact, I'm tacitly in support of speeding up the banning process in situations where endless arguing may make a psychotic individual feel worse. I'm arguing that there might be ways and means of making that (faster) process kinder.
 
 
Ganesh
00:03 / 25.08.06
You can engage with those posters as you see fit up to the point without being accused of apologism up to the point at which other people perceive you to engaging in apologism.

Well, yes. I can engage with the 'man on trial' up to the point that you think I'm being an arsewipe, and then you'll call me an arsewipe. I'm trying to 'show my working' here, in the hope that the next time I take time to do something I consider important and relevant, you won't call me an arsewipe. I'm asking you, please, not to call me an arsewipe, because I don't think it's fair or helpful. Naturally, as you point out, there's nothing to stop you disagreeing.
 
 
Ganesh
00:05 / 25.08.06
You ARE discussing 33 here! You can't make any kind of comment about my post in that thread which specifically refers to 33, and then claim not to want to discuss him! Well you can, but I don't know what to do with that. Stripped of the context of what 33 has said, and what we individually and collectively think about that, of course my post seems corrosive and unhelpful...

I can cite your post as an example of the unhelpful marshalling/framing of approaches to 33 without dissecting 33 as a person. I think I can, anyway.
 
 
Lurid Archive
00:12 / 25.08.06
I think that Flyboy has a point when he says that this thread doesn't seem to have much to do with mental illness.

I guess I don't see the mental illness line, if you will, as being all that important. Some people have trouble dealing with others and communicating, and these patterns can be extreme but there isn't a very clear point for me where I start treating someone as if they are ill, whereas a shade before I treated them as intolerable. Its a continuum, whereby I try to cope and negotiate acceptable modes of interaction as best I can. On Barbelith, this means teaching and understanding when possible and banning when that is too difficult.

But I am having a little trouble understanding what you are actually want, Ganesh. It seems that you want to try the more communicative approach, but are possibly upset(?) at the accusations of pandering to bigotry that result, especially as happened with shadowsax, and you want some kind of resolution. But I don't really see what that can be.

Flyboy feels very strongly about these issues and wants to exert the maximum pressure he can to get others to strongly respond to prejudice on the board, preferably in terms of swift condemnation. I sort of feel that he has a right to do that, as long as he doesn't become abusive. Having said that, I found the way you dealt with shadowsax much more enlightening, and ultimately much more convincing than flyboy's accusations. Of course flyboy was *trying* to obstruct you, but then that was his point of view. I might agree with you that it was misguided, but I very much doubt that he'll change his mind.

Difficult posters may well be divisive, and dealing with them will often be uncomfortable. I realise that this is shit for you, Ganesh, because I'm in effect saying that I support your approach - and you are very good at it - but you should take flak for it anyway. But this isn't something you can really get a consensus on at this level of abstraction, is it?
 
 
Ganesh
00:16 / 25.08.06
I also doubt that Flyboy will change his mind, but I'm hoping that, in future 'trial' threads, he'll allow me to do my thing with a little less of the 'apologist' criticism. I'd settle for that.

And, believe me, I'd like to be more specific/explicit here. I may go to PM.
 
 
Ganesh
00:44 / 25.08.06
I've been thinking about what makes me think, "hmm, not well" in a poster. I'll write more about that anon.
 
 
Disco is My Class War
05:38 / 25.08.06
and I saw (and see) it as akin a particularly corrosive sentiment which, to my mind, dogged the ShadowSax discussion thread: the suggestion that anyone who was in any way pleasant or civil to a poster who had made "racist, sexist and homophobic statements" was "hand-holding".

I swore I would try to keep my contributions to this thread relevant to the thread, but since others aren't, why bother. Ganesh, the above is quite a misrepresentation of what actually happened. Flyboy is not alone in thinking that ShadowSax had far too many chances given him after the ban. Several posters made pain-staking, careful and very civil attempts to bring ShadowSax out of the hole he was digging for himself. After a month (or longer) people who had been involved in some of these threads, and were subject to some of theprejudices expressed, were no longer able to be pleasant or civil. The ensuing claims that everyone should be civil and 'lay off', or that some good might be done in 'laying off', erased the fact that people had already tried this and it didn't work.

You're free to make whatever assessments of a situation you like. But others are also free to make assessments of a situation, which may differ from yours, and they are also free to question the utility of those assessments. Right?

Xoc wrote:

Those of us who have been fortunate to have spent many years surrounded by people with psychotic illness and who know that world and that way of looking at the world very well, might feel differently and may feel that there is a difference between won't listen to reason and can't listen to reason.

So, when someone who is frankly psychotic is posting and being assailed with (perfectly understandable) demands to alter their posting style to conform to the prevailing orthodoxy in a direct and confrontational manner, it concerns me purely because I know that this person cannot conform and will not, however much we excoriate them for their views.

Yes, absolutely. But again, this erases the enormous efforts made by various people to solve problems in a civil and courteous manner. Now, no-one is suggesting ShadowSax was psychitic, so echoing Flyboy, I'm not sure why he's being broughtup as an example. But with 33, too, it took quite a time for things to devolve into a discussion about whether he should be banned. People were very friendly, at first: along the line sof, "Yo, fella, you might wanta withdraw that statement, and if you do, we'll all be fine." So isn't there a bit of mixing up happening here?

And your example of a good friend is apt. Except.... Barbelith is the Internet, not real life. We have no way of knowing what a newbie is 'really like'. Posters who become friends over along long periods of time, given time to understand what a person's 'stasis' state of being is, and to know when that person starts behaving inconsistently with that, are different. And I'm confident that the same grace would apply as you extend to your friend. But when the only behaviours a person demonstrates include sexist/racist/homophobic frothing at the mouth, over a long period of time (as with all the people we've banned, AFAIK, with one exception), you can't assume that this person is any other way.
 
 
Evil Scientist
07:50 / 25.08.06
threadrot

Flyboy is not alone in thinking that ShadowSax had far too many chances given him after the ban.

Just as Ganesh is not alone in preferring not to be portrayed as an apologist for attempting to engage with problematic members in a polite and reasoned way.

threadrot ends
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
08:47 / 25.08.06
I think you've missed Disco's point, Scientist. Nobody has been "portrayed as an apologist for attempting to engage with problematic members in a polite and reasoned way". Look again:

Several posters made pain-staking, careful and very civil attempts to bring ShadowSax out of the hole he was digging for himself. After a month (or longer) people who had been involved in some of these threads, and were subject to some of theprejudices expressed, were no longer able to be pleasant or civil.

On a related note, Lurid:

Having said that, I found the way you dealt with shadowsax much more enlightening, and ultimately much more convincing than flyboy's accusations. Of course flyboy was *trying* to obstruct you, but then that was his point of view.

I don't know which "accusations" are being referred to here - I would hope not the ones directed at ShadowSax, because I'd be disappointed and depressed if all the effort I went to to collate links etc. in my posts that began the actual 'Should we ban him?' thread. I was never trying to "obstruct" Ganesh, either, because I didn't perceive Ganesh as actively intending to prevent ShadowSax from being banned...
 
 
Unconditional Love
13:10 / 25.08.06
When i first came to barbelith i was identifying as schizophrenic because i had been diagnosed at that time with that disorder, i was trying to process experiences that i didnt have a context for at the time and to all appearences and behaviours i was in a sense acting in a way that engaged with psychosis.

I have made offensive remarks in the past, been insensitive to other peoples issues, and put my foot in it on numerous occasions, i have always been willing to apologise when i can see i have over stepped the line.

I think without having made those mistakes and being allowed to make those mistakes i wouldnt be in the situation i am today where i no longer identify as being mentally unwell, but understand my own problems in a far better way, I am not going to say that barbelith is entirely responsible for this but i do think it had a part to play in that process, without having my attitudes responded to and gauged by others i wouldnt of been able to see my own racist sexist and sexual issues as clearly as i do today, or of been able to get to places where i could begin correcting those attitudes.

I think their is a need to treat posters who you think may be mentally unwell with as much compassion and tolerence up to point, but not without intelligence. I still think a code of conduct, a bill of rights or perhaps a speech code, is needed on barbelith.

I know from being labelled mentally unwell just how easy it is to use the label as a crutch to fall back to when lines of behaviour that are generally agreed upon are broken, i am not suggesting that mentally unwell people exploit there condition, but i am saying that i certainly did, and if memory serves me well, in some instances in relation to barbelith.

To be fair i dont think it should influence how you respond to there postings and they should be treated like any other poster, this is why i think a speech code may well be a good idea.
 
 
Red Concrete
18:04 / 25.08.06
...just how easy it is to use the label as a crutch to fall back to...

Agreed. But I think the 'label' might have some use for other people to bring some understanding when mental illness causes "bad behaviour".



I about to be appallingly vague and generalist, but from reading and re-reading this thread, I don't think specific guidelines or rules can possibly work, except possibly a reasonable way to avoid prolonged "trial" threads when they are not appropriate. In other situations, I think we have to let (and encourage) people to think as much as they can before they post, especially when emotions are running high.

I sympathise with all your sentiments in this thread Ganesh. While I understand that you don't want to mention specific individuals, for me 33's case lies behind this thread in a fundamental way. As soon as I saw his website, and realised the mental problems he has had, that went some way to explaining his behaviour. And I began to see some of the responses to his initial apology as... I won't say harsh, but unhelpful and probably frustrating to 33 himself.

(as an aside, the accusations of hand-holding shouldn't be taken too personally/literally, as I think they were directed at someone's (was it paranoidwriter?) attempts to 'coach' 33 into the correct and proper responses, and not so much at anyone being polite to racist/sexist/homophobic posters)

I think the best way forward is just to make sure that when it becomes clear that someone has or has had a mental health problem, people make some allowances. (and by "allowances", let no one think that I mean letting anyone off the hook for what may well be unacceptable behaviour)

Maybe the wiki should mention that the mental health of others should be considered when posting, as much as race/gender/sexuality?
 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
  
Add Your Reply