BARBELITH underground
 

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


Banning Discussion: Claris Dancers

 
  

Page: (1)23456... 8

 
 
Quantum
18:29 / 20.06.07
So, this thread for pre-banning, voicing serious concerns, those times when the grounds for a ban are novel or uncertain but you can feel it coming on any moment, like a migraine.

Y'know, like the moderation requests thread but for banning.
 
 
*
18:46 / 20.06.07
Misogyny, racism, and harassment of a board member. I don't think there's any need to wait any longer. CD for the BAN.
 
 
Olulabelle
19:04 / 20.06.07
Right. Who is CD?
 
 
Papess
19:37 / 20.06.07
MMM: Claris Dancers, in this current thread, and from February 28th, 2006. For starters.
 
 
Seth
19:37 / 20.06.07
Boot. Waste of life, time and effort.
 
 
Char Aina
20:29 / 20.06.07
what were the charges of harassment relating to, zippy?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:51 / 20.06.07
OK. I'll start with Claris Dancers, also known as Qwik. Quick has not posted here for long, but has managed an orgy of boat-burning. Key texts here are the Feminism 101 thread and the Ron Paul thread - links following where contextual.

So, we start at the Feminism 101 thread. At present, we must remember that ignorance is not something which we currently take to be a banning offence on Barbelith. So, the usual tired, unlearned never-read-Dworkin citations of Dworkin were not in themselves actionable. However, his reaction to being corrected and informed was surprsingly hostile. To quote gourami:

Qwik, you're not actually making sense, you know. The smileys give the vague impression that you're satisfied with yourself, and I'm completely baffled as to why.

This delight at really very limited achievements is a feature of the troll, of course, but also of the child, and like a child Qwik was keen to share his view of the world even if he did not have the necessary facts. If he wanted to talk about Transformers, this would not be a huge issue. As it is, however, he did in fact want to talk about rape:

I'm not a lawyer, but I can't imagine that a woman raped by her husband would have no defense. I would imagine that it would be similar to date rape, though probably less easy to prove. And yes it has to be proven, it can't be one word against another. There have been too many women seeking power over men claiming they were raped when they were not. They "believe they need an unfair advantage" as Dworkin would say. Rape is horrible and shouldn't exist, but some women do capitalize on the emotional impact of it for their own gain. Anyway, there has to be a legal defense for raped women in marriage.

When people who actually knew whereof they spoke provided him with actual information, Claris Dancers of course thanked them for giving him information he did not previously have, and undertook to be more careful when making such potentially very upsetting statements.

No, obviously not. He disappeared as a preferable alternative to admitting a lack of omniscience.

To be honest, I assumed that that would be the last we'd see of him. However, as a dog to its vomit.... Claris Dancers pops up with a thread about the (arguably) libertarian Presidential candidate Ron Paul, here. When Paul's atiitudes to various things are questioned, it is worth noting that Claris Dancers goes first in the thread for the personal insult - what he later incorrectly calls an ad hominem - to Flyboy:

I wish I could be as cool as you.

Flyboy reacts in an exemplary fashion:

That's flattering, but not really on-topic: perhaps there's a thread in Conversation might be appropriate?

However, we were already seeing some problems around race - specifically, whether Ron Paul was in fact a successor to Martin Luther King, which discussion led to this showstopper:

Flyboy: However that context exists, and to deny it, and then aim accusations of racism at people who have the temerity to make issues of race visible by highlighting and working to oppose otherwise invisible inequality, is about as far from the spirit of Dr King as you can get.

I find this to be disingenuous. I also think that most of this context exists because it is self-imposed if only out of "racial pride." I've heard more times than I care to remember that black people refuse to take certain jobs because they don't want to "whiten-up." That means (according to them), not talking in ebonics, dressing appropriately for the job (suit/tie/blouse/skirt/etc...) and so on. This is more of a cultural issue than anything else, though. I've actually see white people in the ghetto, laughing at other white people for acting too "white," whatever the hell that means. The stupidity and ignorance abounds. The only place I can think of where people are genuinely discriminated against are with cops. There's even a term for it - "driving while black." But that context gets fuzzy again since the same holds true for people with grateful dead and phish stickers on their cars.

In no place I have worked in has there been a disproportionate number of white people to anyone else of color. Where I work now (state office job), white people are actually a minority. Sudanese, Pakistani, Hispanic, Indian, Black, Asian, and on and on. It's really cool actually, we have an international food day every year where people bring in dishes from their own cultures. But that is off the point. The point is that as far as I've seen, any actual racism is either entirely self-imposed (as Ron Paul implies), or incredibly overblown by the media.


Italics in the quoted section mine. Full text here.

Frankly, this was never going to go well. You already sort of know that there will never be any documentary support for these contentions. However. At this point Flyboy raised his comments about rape in "Feminism 101" and Claris Dancers replied:

Boy that was a steamroller of a thread. I don't think i would say it's the same, but I still support everything i said there, though not the things other people put in my mouth, which seems to happen a lot in this place.

Just to recap and be clear. Nobody put into his mouth the statement:

There have been too many women seeking power over men claiming they were raped when they were not. They "believe they need an unfair advantage" as Dworkin would say. Rape is horrible and shouldn't exist, but some women do capitalize on the emotional impact of it for their own gain.

Nor, for that matter, the statement that Andrea Dworkin was "thankfully" deceased, but let's stay on one thing.

Essentialy, I don't see Claris Dancers adding anything but heartache to Barbelith. He has never and to the best of my knowledge will never say anything of any real interest. While he hangs around, adding no value, we all, and specifically women on Barbelith who have survived sexual assault, have to deal with this crap - specifically, this crap where he downplays the significance of sexual assault, and tells us that women make up accusations of rape to gain power over men all the time. I don't want to see that, and I don't want anyone here to have to deal with it.

It may be early to start talking about banning, but I am driven in raising the issue by a few things:

a) I've seen people being "grandfathered" around here before - people end up very hard to ban simply because they have not been banned previously. I don't want to see this happening, and I want to make it clear that I see this behaviour as problematic to the point of being banworthy right now.

b) It is clear from Claris Dancer's tergiversations and dissembling that he hasn't really thought about any of these things - the blacks, the whites who are not proud to be white, the women who cry wolf - and is profoundly resistant to being induced to think about them. His responses are a mishmash of prejudice, recent tabloid headlines and received right-wing wisdom. I've seen this enough times to know that the chances of generating any imnprovement are already minimal.

c) Honestly, I don't see why we should put women and survivors of sexual assault on Barbelith, or indeed black people, or indeed white people, through this welter of offensive generalisation and defensive insult. He is clearly very happy with his prejudices, to the point where any attempt to correct them - even factually, as in the case of marital rape - will be ignored or responded to with hostility. I see no likelihood of improvement, or profit in having the experience of being black, being insufficiently proud to be white and being sexually assaulted denigrated in this fashion. Quite simply, it is not our job to put up with being thrown up and shat on while trying, and probably failing, to toilet-train. That's a job for a mother. Barbelith is not a mother.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:07 / 20.06.07
As might be clear, I started that a while ago.
 
 
Papess
21:18 / 20.06.07
Hehe, I was wondering just that very thing, Haus. How incredibly efficient!
 
 
petunia
21:19 / 20.06.07
I like what Haus said. And YO! and MO and...

Ban
 
 
Tom Paine's Bones
21:21 / 20.06.07
Ban. And the sooner the better.
 
 
The Falcon
21:37 / 20.06.07
Well, it looks a foregone anyway, but I find flushing unforgivable turds a moderate pleasure.

Actually - Flyboy, Haus, we've our moments, but really thanks for dealing with this; I know it's regularly you pair, and there may be some issue occasionally with your frequently deserving victims acquiring some entrenchment problems and/or personal vendetta notions, but really I don't generally have the capacity or patience to deal with these types, perhaps that's the case of a number of us, so - you know - certainly on this occasion, cheers.
 
 
Mysterious Transfer Student
21:42 / 20.06.07
Hello, first time posting in Policy et bloody cetera.

As someone with relatively minor standing on the board - whatever that counts for - I've been wary of joining in discussions about banning or not banning posters because I have an over-active imagination and can all too easily envisage saying or doing something erroneous, which I will then compound with self-righteous and shrill responses to the efforts of others to persuade me I am mistaken, ultimately leading if not to a ban, then a massed informal cold-shouldering.

None of the above is relevant to this case. The fellow has form. Kick him to the kerb.
 
 
Princess
21:42 / 20.06.07
Please no more Clarriss Dancer.
Send away now.
 
 
*
21:49 / 20.06.07
d'mandem, primarily the way he has resolved to refer to Haus henceforward as "Small, Petty Haus," while accusing him of wasting the board's time with ad hominem attacks. I don't know if this fits the board's consensus definition of harassment, but it certainly doesn't serve any purpose other than to enrage.

(Me, that is. Haus seems to be managing fine.)
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:50 / 20.06.07
Hmm - this seems to have taken on the aspect of a banning thread pretty quickly. I suggest we change the title to "Banning discussion: Claris Dancers", amend the topic summary accordingly, and go from there...
 
 
Char Aina
01:17 / 21.06.07
primarily the way he has resolved to refer to Haus henceforward as "Small, Petty Haus," while accusing him of wasting the board's time with ad hominem attacks.

I thought that was what you meant.
I'm uncomfortable with that being a reason for a ban, as I feel his resolution was not a banworthy response to haus's approach. Slightly unhelpful, certainly, but I wouldn't call it harassment or included it in a list of reasons to ban him.

The rest of course is a different story. The nonsense about racial pride seems especially un-cool, as does the way he prioritises the accused's experience of rape prosecution over the victim's.

I would be interested in hearing him defend himself, if only for a sense of due process. I'm not confident it will be anything that will help him, but hey.
 
 
alas
03:54 / 21.06.07
Want to ban CD now. Do not want to have any more hand wringing etc. Ban. Ban. Ban.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
05:37 / 21.06.07
Who's wringing hands? I don't think anyone is going to miss the guy. But I would also like to hear him defend himself when he's made aware that banning is likely. I doubt he'll take the chance to help himself out of the situation, but I'd still like to hear him.

Lucid A.I. (remember him? Wore a colander hat and found psychic rejection amusing?) told me in a PM that he plans to watch and be silent around here. Sounds like a win to me. Posting offensive nonsense is not acceptable here, but keeping one's mouth shut so that it doesn't happen again and just watching, you know, paying attenion even, maybe learning a bit, is a good step. Right? Can we call that a win? I'd like to. And I'd like to see CD go that route. Keep his crappy ideas to himself and just watch how Barbelith does things.

Go ahead and make this a banning thread, by all means. But I'd still like to hear him defend himself, even if it's just more nonsense that'll get him booted even faster.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
05:44 / 21.06.07
I already told him this was going to Policy in-thread. If anyone wants to make sure we get a satisfying scrap out of this, they are free to prod him to make an appearance, however.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
05:57 / 21.06.07
Well shit, it doesn't have to be a scrap, really. He proves himself to be not only unrepentant but unwilling to play by our rules, then that's all there is to it and dude is out the door. I see no reason for that to take up more than half a page at maximum. I doubt we'll have any trouble discerning whether or not he's game to shut the fuck up and not carry on with the horseshit.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
06:39 / 21.06.07
I'd just like to point out that people have been trying to get through to Qwik/CD for well over a year. I'm curious to know how long the apologist/"but he might leaaaaarrrn something!" contingent believe we should go on swallowing this crap--two years? Three? Four?
 
 
Shiny: Well Over Thirty
06:51 / 21.06.07
Ban, primarily of the basis of;

Boy that was a steamroller of a thread. I don't think i would say it's the same, but I still support everything i said there, though not the things other people put in my mouth, which seems to happen a lot in this place.

I'm all for individuals who've said something stupid being informed as to why it's stupid, and having some time to consider and to retract and apologize if they come to understand. However in this case CD has had over a year in which he has had every opportunity to do so and still stands by his ill informed and offensive comments about rape. Therefore anything else is almost irrelevent since he should be straight out the airlock for those.

That being the case I'm not even convinced he even needs a chance to defend or withdraw his comments here, since he's already had plenty of time in which that could have been done.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
06:54 / 21.06.07
Well, if he's already been given the ultimatum and has not behaved accordingly, then there's no need to take this any further. Has he in fact been told in the past that any more offensive nonsense, as Barbelith defines the term, will earn him a forced exit? If so then I say show him the door. If not, we're telling him now, and either his refusal to play along or his indifference to the situation will get him the boot very very soon. Or maybe he'll just shut the fuck up and knock off the bullshit.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
06:55 / 21.06.07
cross-posted; the above was to Strangers.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
07:00 / 21.06.07
And I object to being placed next to the "apologist" contingent, even with a backslash between us. Is there even such a thing as an "apologist" contingent here? I've seen no evidence of it.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
07:11 / 21.06.07
Well, this is part of the problem. In general, if people are talking about banning somebody that somebody often has trouble learning from experience or indeed beng quiet. 33 and Paranoidwriter, for example, were simply incapable of being quiet. CD may or may not be, but if we are taking being quiet + learning as the formula, there is nothing to suggest that this is likely to happen. It has worked in the past, though, at least to a degree - Kay, for example, appears to have learned from his experience at least not to share his thoughts on race relations. So, there's some hope.

I wouldn't want to call actions so far harassment, by the way. The intention was clearly to harry, but harrassment on Barbelith for me is sustained threats or threatening behaviour, targeting based on point of perceived weakness, following from thread to thread, starting threads, abusive PMs - like that, really. This is currently just abuse.
 
 
illmatic
07:25 / 21.06.07
Well, I’ve been someone who might be described as an “apologist–“ basically, objecting to other people’s displays of anger and irritation and seeing this as compounding polarised positions as well as having a belief that communication is possible eventually with someone you disagree with. I still believe in the second clause there, but not the last part (at least not over the internet.) Shadowsax (who I did try and engage with for a bit) was really telling for me there – people like him, and Qwik, really seem to go out their way to defend their prejudice, ignorance and privilege. It’s quite revealing in a lot of ways.

What I think gets some people’s goat is the when these “apologist” sentiments are expressed they are normally directed at other posters rather than at the source of the irritation – see Alex’s Grandma in the Conversation recently. (not sure if this is one of hir-increasingly-less-loveable drunken windups or not). If you want to engage with Qwik or whoever, no one is stopping you, but y’know, lead from the front. Personally, having seen a number of these discussions now, I think it’s a waste of energy. Ban.
 
 
illmatic
07:27 / 21.06.07
That last to Tuna Ghost obviously.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
07:40 / 21.06.07
If you want to engage with Qwik or whoever, no one is stopping you, but y’know, lead from the front. Personally, having seen a number of these discussions now, I think it’s a waste of energy.

Believing that a less public venue would be best, I've been trying to do that. It most likely is a waste of energy, but I've wasted energy on far less admirable pusuits so what the hell.

But really, if everyone's agreed that he's been given a strong, clear-cut warning before, then there's really no debate to be had and all there is to do now is fetch the ceremonial vestments and summon our dark lord.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
07:42 / 21.06.07
If you want to engage with Qwik or whoever, no one is stopping you, but y’know, lead from the front.

Yeah. I for one am far more likely to be motivated to continue engagement with a troublesome poster if I see, say, alas doing so; having someone come down from on high and tell you what a meanybad person you are for finally losing your rag, and that it's you job to continue spoon-feeding the critter in front of you no matter how many times it spits in your face and laughs... well, not so much.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
07:55 / 21.06.07
I don't think the word apologist is inappropriate when describing people who haven't bothered to engage in the original conversation. Or indeed people who seem to become more motivated about the issue of treating people who spout racist or sexist bullshit fairly than they do about anything else.

I would be interested in hearing him defend himself, if only for a sense of due process.

A sense of due process might be appropriate if we were talking about sentencing the man to a couple of weeks in jail, say, or even a light fine. We are not. We are talking about giving him the heave-ho from a bulletin board. A board he has been present on for some time, as has been discussed. I find this "Has he already been given a clear and formal warning in compliance with paragraph 6.2 of chapter 11?" stuff fairly risible, to be honest.

We don't have a formal terms and conditions, as has often been bemoaned, but we do have a fairly obvious shared baseline of values which means that cheerleading for a racist presidential candidate, coming out with racist views yourself, and then getting shirty when those racist views are taken to task, is not something people ought to need a fucking map to figure out will get them into the shit here.

Given the length of time it will probably get to take Tom Coates to notice that this conversation is happening, let alone enact a ban, if people want to have the "but should we ban him? have we discussed it long enough?" back and forth, perhaps they could have it in their heads, or on their MySpace blogs, while we wait?
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
07:57 / 21.06.07
I'm going to assume that's a cross-post, Strangers, and point out that this

having someone come down from on high and tell you what a meanybad person you are for finally losing your rag, and that it's you job to continue spoon-feeding the critter in front of you no matter how many times it spits in your face and laughs

would be laughable in it's exaggeration except that it's coming from a poster that I normally associate with things like reason and respect. So, as it is, I find it confusing and not at all helpful.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
08:04 / 21.06.07
Out of interest, TG, is this what you do? Start PM conversations with people who have just got weird about women and try to counsel them into a functional relationship with Barbelith? Might I ask how that's going?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
08:06 / 21.06.07
I was indicating strong agreement with the sentiment: If you want to engage with Qwik or whoever, no one is stopping you, but y’know, lead from the front.

I don't feel that my post was much of an exaggeration, no, more like an explosion of pent-up GRR at being told to play nice with Qwiks and related.
 
  

Page: (1)23456... 8

 
  
Add Your Reply