BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Conversation >

Does Barbelith Need A Decompression Chamber?

  
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
Leigh Monster loses its cool
13:31 / 09.03.07
hah. well i just friended you.

sigh. friend, the verb.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:37 / 09.03.07
I'm afraid I only love you as a friendster.
 
 
Princess
16:18 / 09.03.07
My witchy powers are so-so. It's really my identity theft that people take umbrage at.

laoi, thankyou. faceknivestabbook is well under way.
 
 
Princess
16:19 / 09.03.07
I've been thrown out of the SABJD group. Behold my heart, it breaketh.
 
 
semioticrobotic
16:23 / 09.03.07
For a time last week, perhaps in one of my weaker moments, I considered joining (stabinthe)facebook. I'm so happy I read this thread just now.
 
 
Princess
16:26 / 09.03.07
It's useful in terms of what I can do with my social, uni and work networks. It only gets upsetting when you start to join discussion groups.
 
 
semioticrobotic
16:30 / 09.03.07
Right. I'm making a pretty significant move in the near future and thought it might help me stay connected. Can a user turn off discussion groups and other functions that necessitate compulsive FB checking, like the wall and "pokes?"
 
 
Princess
16:40 / 09.03.07
I'm not sure if they can be turned off. But all that happens is you get a little note as part of your update thing. If you can deal with ignoring a littl green note on the side of the page it's not really that bad.

As to groups, well you have to go and find them before you join so they are fairly easy to ignore. The most that can happen is that your friends can choose to invite you to a group. I don't know how annoying your friends are, but at worst all you get is a little green note at the side of the screen.

All the annoying bits are fairly easy to ignore.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
16:55 / 09.03.07
Sound like you should get some green-tinted shades, Bryan. That way all the annoying bits'd be invisible, I guess.

(Not that I've ever been near Facebook... fuck it, MySpace scares the shit out of me. I used to be on Friendster, before that started scaring me. Now I just rely on running up to random people in the street, shouting "CAN YOU ADD ME??? CAN YOU???" and if they say yes I pretend they're my bezzies for ever after. Hey, don't knock it. It gives me something to do in my World of Warcraft downtime).
 
 
semioticrobotic
17:03 / 09.03.07
I can see it now: "Notebook! Your complete Facebook data-management system! Give us green to manage your green."

Okay, that wasn't really all that clever or all that funny; it's probably more deserving of Stabbybook.
 
 
Princess
21:04 / 14.03.07
Just managed to sneak onto the the SABJ board through my boyfriends profile. A woman with a degree in Gender Studies is saying "feminists don't make the world better because no sex is better than the other".


This person has a degree in Gender Studies?

And then there's just a load of stuff about how I'm a terrible person.
 
 
Olulabelle
22:48 / 14.03.07
In relation to the thread title I've been a member of another board for a year now, but have only just started posting. To be honest that search for somewhere else is mainly in an effort to get away from the male domination that frequents the Lith.

I have found, interestingly, that what I say is more quoted as an example of 'clever' (which I cannot deny makes me feel good) and also that people are generally a lot less sarcastic. However, I do have to say that the conversation does lack somewhat.

And whilst it's lovely to be thought of as the font of all bright cleverness, I am not so stupid as to believe it; a fact which sadly makes me confront the standard of discussion elsewhere on the net.

Here is good. You are all clever, lovely. You are also all mainly men. We have very little female-led conversation and I find myself yearing for that kind of focus now and then. Barbelith is studious in a male way to the extent that the women of Barbelith are decidedly and deliberately studious in that same way - and I think that's to the detriment of femaleness, sometimes. I feel nervous about expanding on that description. I don't know why. I can only say that I have found female discussion to flow much more and to often be less initially precise but yet to have an equally precise outcome. Women allow much more bending of discussion, a more free-flow form which is not actually to the detriment of the end agreement.

Anyway yes. I prefer the standard of discussion here. But I do wish that sometimes it was little more feminine.

Perhaps I should have posted this somewhere else. I might still post a link to it in the Feminism thread.
 
 
HCE
23:52 / 14.03.07
Hm. I don't find Barbelith to be male-dominated in the way you describe -- that may be because I have a different sense of what is feminine than you do. I actually find it to be a pretty feminine place insofar as arguments tend to be more narrative than statistics-based (I haven't quite got the right terms for what I'm trying to get across, here). Also, it seems that questions are pretty welcome, if they're sincere, and I don't see a lot of waving of credentials. Even people here who have degrees or areas of expertise tend to be expected to explain why they think what they do, rather than being allowed to simply make blanket statements. I suppose I think of all of those as feminine things. Perhaps I just don't want to feel limited to some set way of being 'feminine'.

I do, however, think that statements and attitudes that malign or demean women are more likely to be tolerated than those that treat other groups similarly -- for example with shadowsax. That's ground that's been covered pretty comprehensively before, however.
 
 
Princess
00:03 / 15.03.07
Well maybe you could make some space for that type of discussion. I can't really understand what's being described (but I have man bits and am tired) but if you could outline what "feminine discussion" would be like then I'd be interested in seeing a few threads worked under those guidelines.

I think the biggest problem is going to be finding a concensus on what "feminine" means. Maybe using a not-gender word to describe the methods would be more helpful in getting others to understand?
 
 
Isadore
14:29 / 15.03.07
Well maybe you could make some space for that type of discussion.

I refer you to the failure of the Woman Friendly Barbelith thread.
 
 
HCE
14:37 / 15.03.07
Celane! Hello!
 
 
Princess
11:04 / 24.08.07
Thankyou Isadore, consider me educated.

On other, equally depressing (but thankfully more distant) news, I am in another facebook discussion. Please, minds of Barbelith, yoke your brain strength beneath my meagre banner.

Post #1
2 replies
William Clinch (Surrey) wrote on Aug 6, 2007 at 1:04 PM
Stolen from somewhere else, but that place was a blatant pro-homosexual group, so any arguments that doesn't agree with the rest of the group may end up with rants of 'homophobia' and such.

The main theme was that using "gay" as a negative term is homophobic.

Here are my thoughts on the issue


-The word "gay" is more commonly used to mean rubbish (in flamboyant/effeminate/camp way) similarly to its earlier meaning (happy in a flamboyant manner), rather than having anything to do with sexual preference.

-The context of the use of "gay" makes it obvious what meaning of the word is being used (e.g. saying 'this book is gay' is obviously not referring to homosexuality, as books neither have gender, nor sexuality)

So go forth and use the word freely, and if anyone complains, just inform them of the points I've made.


And also discuss

* Reply to William
* Send Message
* Report William

Post #2
Dean Zweck (Leeds) replied to William's post on Aug 7, 2007 at 2:06 AM
i think william is gay

* Reply to Dean
* Send Message
* Report Dean

Post #3
Teh-wei Yeh (Vancouver, BC) wrote on Aug 17, 2007 at 11:31 PM
nice one, hahahhaha

* Reply to Teh-wei
* Send Message
* Report Teh-wei

Post #4
1 reply
You replied to William's post 21 hours ago
Oh my god! A pro homosexual group!

Why, a group that approves of homosexuals could never be reasonable could it?

Thank god this is an anti-homosexual group, eh?

* Reply to Your Post
* Delete Post

Post #5
1 reply
William Clinch (Surrey) replied to your post 21 hours ago
Well I think you've proved my point about the stupid responses I would have gotten from the the pro-homosexual group, with those "excellent counter points to my argument".

And just because something isn't pro-something, it doesn't mean it's anti-something, and the only thing this groups is 'anti', is political correctness, regardless of weather it's homophobic or hydrophobic or whatever.

* Reply to William
* Send Message
* Report William

Post #6
1 reply
You replied to William's post 12 hours ago
Well, sweetie, as a member of the group I'd have to say I'm against a fair few more things than that.

I can't speak *for* the group, obviously, but I'm fairly sure I'm not the only one thinking these things.

I don't agree with your logic. In fact, I think you may have missed the point. But I don't want to engage with you on that.


What I do want to point out is how arrogant it sounds for you to say "just inform them of my points" as if you somehow have found a fool proof way of getting round all those blatant pro-homosexualists and now we just need to inform them how sily they are being.

Darling, this is a complex issue. It affects people in a variety of ways you obviously aren't privvy too. It was nice of you to descend from heaven and give us all your opinion, but actually you were being patronising rather than helpful.

And, after years of getting shit off of ill informed straight people, I really don't need to know what straight men think gay men should be allowed to get upset about.

I'll get upset about whatever the fuck I like thankyou very much.

* Reply to Your Post
* Delete Post

Post #7
Matthew Gosnell (The College of Law) wrote 11 hours ago
people can use the word gay if they want and people can cry about it if they want, neither has the right to decree that the other is wrong in doing so. here endeth the lesson

heh that dude said darling to another dude, that's pretty gay

* Reply to Matthew
* Send Message
* Report Matthew

Post #8
1 reply
William Clinch (Surrey) replied to your post about an hour ago
Well if you have any good reasons why people shouldn't use the word "gay" say what they are, because that's what this discussion is about, and if not, then keep quiet.

I don't think it's arrogant to back up you claims with logic, but I do think it's arrogant for people to try to stop others using words, just because they assume (despite the obvious context of the word), that it has anything to do with what they are.

And please don't call me that, it sickens me.

* Reply to William
* Send Message
* Report William

Post #9
You replied to William's post 5 minutes ago
Please don't use gay as a deregatory term, it sickens me.

See, I won't call you by any of my damn queer homosexualist terms of endearment, because I don't want to be an arsehole about things. (Nice angle on the homophobia by the way)

Why doesn't the logic work both ways? Why, when a linguistic trope upsets you, do you get to ask people to stop if you refuse to do the same for others?

I didn't say it was arrogant to use logic. What I said was that it was arrogant to assume that your logic is superior to everyone elses. If it was really as simple as you are making it out then surely everyone would have come to that conclusion. Unless they where stupid, which is what you are implying.

The context isn't obvious, because words don't exist in just the sentence you use them. Each word is complex and exists in a vast web of meanings and interpretations. This web is called culture. Part of the culture surrounding the word "gay" is that people allow it to have dual and interrelated meanings which offend them. That is the obvious context. The fact I am here, debating about it, makes it obvious. The fact there are groups pro and anti the use of "gay" to mean derogatory things means that the offensiveness is very much part of the context.

What you are all actually saying, in short, is :

"I realise that I am upsetting people, and I do not care enough about the people being offended to bother changing a single sylable of my speech".

That, I can deal with. If people want to be selfish that is there perogative. But to dress that selfishness up as if it is a battle for the "logic", "principles" or, even worse, "the rights" of poor, hard done to heterosexuals is just offensive and self deceitful.

We get that you don't care. That's fine. Just stop making a big deal about the fact minoritys are finally getting enough power to start complaining.

Am I going about this right? Should I just give up and buy a shotgun?

I'm sure that having these arguments is helpful. Strangers send me messages saying that reading the argument made them feel better, even if the other arguee still failed in their basic human duties.
But I do wonder if there is a better way to go about it?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
11:11 / 24.08.07
Please, minds of Barbelith, yoke your brain strength

lol
 
 
HCE
11:19 / 24.08.07
What are you trying to get out of this exchange? Do you want William to feel stupid? Do you want William to look stupid in front of onlookers? Do you want him to understand and accept that it's wrong to use gay as a pejorative? Do you just want him to stop using it that way within your earshot?

I think you'd be better off trying to get rocks to sweat than any of the first three, but that's because I think you've got a cockroach gang over there. The last one may be possible - you could offer not to sexually harrass him in exchange for him not using terms you dislike, but you'll have to decide whether that's a tactic you're comfortable using. I wouldn't, personally.
 
 
Happy Dave Has Left
11:28 / 24.08.07
Princess, while I admire your deft arguments on (I assume this is) Facebook, I do ask myself why you bother? I challenge all sorts of ridiculous things that are said around me on a regular basis (I was in the Territorials for three years, and hoo, boy, that was hard work) because that's my environment, it's people I know, and most of them are amenable to hearing me out, but what you're doing here seems akin to trying to make the world nicer, one anonymous moron at a time. Why do you do it?
 
 
Princess
11:29 / 24.08.07
I don't really think I'm going to change the minds of the people I'm arguing with. I think I'm just engaging with it because I feel like someone should engage with that sort of stuff when it surfaces.

I'm not entirely sure why though. Just so that someone, in a hypothetical post argument world, can look at it and see someone gave a shit enough to care? I just want to be that little light, you know?

Or is that my messiah complex?
 
 
Happy Dave Has Left
11:46 / 24.08.07
I understand that, I do.

But I've given up arguing the toss with a certain type of person, both on and offline. The person who likes a bit of confrontation.

Example: When I was in the Army, I used to hear really smart people make stupid, offensive, racist or homophobic statements quite regularly. My nearly universal response was: "Oy, I know you're smarter than that." Generally stopped them dead in their tracks. But like I said, these were pretty smart people caught up in a fairly macho and 'don't take it all so seriously' culture.

Second example: I know a few people, in person as well as on the web, who love a good argument. A very good friend of mine used to regularly infuriate me by deliberately riling me up about civil liberties. My mum's boyfriend constantly says things that make me want to get out the faceknives. And a number of the other boards I post on (an Army one, a gaming one, a few techie ones) have outbursts of horrendousness that'd make your average 'Lithers eyes bleed, combined with a general rumbling undertone of laddishness and unpleasant misogyny. But the admins are pretty good at wiping out the more hideous examples, and frankly I'm not there to get into shitfights with moronic anonymous strangers, or people I know are just out to get a rise. Life is genuinely too short.

The two boards where I will turn around and say something are here (because that's part of, I think, the reason for being of Barbelith) and Metafilter, which has a ludicrously high percentage of thoughtful, reasoned and facinating regular posters, and, as a site, is very capably moderated. Both of these online spaces are places I consider 'home' if you like, and as such, I don't want someone shitting on my carpet. The other forums I post in are more like the pub, or the library - places I go mainly to get information or have a fanboy outburst about some game or another, not get into anything particularly deep. I save my energy for addressing discrimination and hatred in my own life, and in the few places online I consider sacred.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
11:53 / 24.08.07
I've come up with an equation. The worthiness of getting into an argument on a given website/facebook group/discussion board is directly proportional to the general quality of the site and the ammount of pleasure you get from it.
 
 
Happy Dave Has Left
12:06 / 24.08.07
Exactly - much more succint Allecto, cheers.
 
 
Princess
12:19 / 24.08.07
I see your points.
But when I see their opinions I just feel so powerless. And, well, it pisses me off to have stupid heterosexual guys taking that power from me. I just come up against their priveledge and I don't feel like I can do anything in the face of it.

So I suppose I talk just so I can feel like I'm doing something? So I can have a go at making some tiny change.

But I suppose you are both right. Facebook is not the place to make effective change is it?
 
 
Triplets
12:27 / 24.08.07
Not particularly, I think. I admire your willingness to put yourself out there and say 'no!', Princess but, frankly, there's better uses of your time that will cause less headstress.

Although, the fact that you got private e-mails saying "good one!" and making people feel less headsick is heartening. Maybe you could limit it to the truly outrageous cases of idiocy. However, like Happy Dave says, watch out for people just out to take the P.
 
 
Happy Dave Has Left
12:29 / 24.08.07
My question is, Princess, why are you seeing their comments? As you said upthread, you actively need to go and join groups on Facebook to see the threads. Are you seeking this out?

If, f'rinstance, a thread was started here in the Convo about 'gay' not being a term of abuse, I'd be right in there with you, because this is our space.

But you're wasting energy there. Yes it's annoying and disempowering and eye-stabby, but (correct me if I'm wrong), you're putting yourself into that context. Start by calling people out in your own life, because, frankly, that's where these issues matter.

Yes, the world is full of hatred, and lies, and falshoods and horrific, disgusting behaviour. But you'll burn out if you try and start fixing that on Facebook. Fix your own space, then help the people you trust, admire and spend time with to fix theirs.
 
 
Princess
12:36 / 24.08.07
You are a bastion of sanity.
Theres a part in me that keeps shouting "NO! CRUSH THE BASTARDS!", but I think that is not a helpful part of me to be listening too.

I will go and does something practical and real world I think.
Thanks all for your insight.
 
 
Happy Dave Has Left
12:45 / 24.08.07
Huzzah, good call.

There's a part of me that wants to march up to Parliament, find Gordon Brown and ask him, please, mate, Scot to Scot, let's sit down so I can explain to you HOW FUCKED YOUR ENTIRE GOVERNMENT POLICY ON CIVIL LIBERTIES IS (at volume, for quite a while), in the vain hope that he'll see sense.

But, I realise, my time is better spent agitating for change and steadily convincing an ever-growing horde of my friends, colleagues and acquaintances that yes, should they ever find that the government is doing something they don't like, by golly they should have the right to stand in front of Parliament and scream their disapproval, without having to reach into a pocket to prove to a jobsworth policeman who they are, or being arrested for having a scathing slogan on their t-shirt.
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply