| |
|
It might also be worth addressing your position on rape, since one of the things you have not retracted is that women all too often invent claims of rape in order to gain power over men. Also, it's worth noting that your claim that what you actually meant to say is that people should take responsibility for their actions is pretty obviously untrue - we can read what you actually did say, which is so far from this that unless you were experiencing some form of cognitive failure at the time the statements cannot be reconciled.
Now, we're getting to the point where you are getting various forms of contradictory advice. We've had this problem before, and it usually means we are winding up; the common thread in the advice is that you go away and attempt not to resemble Qwik/Claris Dancers in the future. I think this is probably the way forward, and I think that shutting down this suit and letting you reapply for membership, should you so desire, with a comparatively clean slate is the only way forward. Even if you had posted to retract your claim that women pretended to have been raped all the time in order to gain power over men, I think that in itself would probably be pretty upsetting, especially as on curremt form you would not be retracting the argument that what you said was fact, only stating that you should have expressed it better or not posted it on Barbelith, where we are all sensitive.
So. There's that. There's also a question of entitlement:
However if it's the case that i will be tossed anyway in spite of my efforts, then this whole event has been an exercise in mutual masturbation for all of you, and a farce as far as "first warnings"
I don't know if you can see how this drips of entitlement, but let's break it down. The "first warning" thing need not delay us too much - alas has pointed out that she found your behaviour banworthy a year ago, and said so. Also, of course, the "first warning" is not policy, and has been advanced only by Tuna Ghost, whose arguments have consistently assumed that this is what we do, without actually producing any instance in which we have. The amount of time we spend negotiating depends on the circumstances and the behaviour.
More to the point, have a look at what you just said. If we decide to ban you, despite you having taken what you feel to be actions sufficient, then the whole exercise was one of mutual masturbation. That is, you do not want to take responsibility for the possibility that your actions actually are unacceptable and your ameliorations too little or too late. If the process does not end in the conclusion you desire, the process is worthless. I can certainly see why that position might be very tempting; on occasion, I have seen people I felt should have been banned not been banned, as a contrasting example, and I have felt very frustrated with what I perceived as a failure in the process. I have seen banning proposed for people, and have gone to great lengths, at times involving Venn diagrams, to explain why they should not be.
Personally, I was surprised and impressed by your retractions, limited and incomplete as they are, as they are something I was not expecting. However, this "mutual masturbation" comment reinclines me to believe that ultimately you are not going to accept that any process which does not have the outcome you desire is valid or worthwhile. In effect, you are not going to leave of your own accord, and you are going to make us rely, if you stay, on your guesstimates of what we would find unacceptable behaviour. These might be accurate, although history is not on your side. However, if you are still attached to this suit, it is more likely that your utterances will be seen as those of somebody who claimed without feeling that it was even worth substantiating that women regularly (your term) "cry rape", that black people are the authors of their own misfortune, that white people are suffering from the corrosive impact of black people on their self-esteem, and so on.
So. Looking at this discussion, I don't think that anyone who agreed with a ban has so far expressed a belief that it is not still a regrettable but appropriate course of action. And, as AdL has mentioned, the advice being offered is becoming contradictory. What I suggest is a suit ban. This to differ from a _person_ ban - for example, the way that Modzero is banned. In this case, we shut down the Claris Dancers suit. The person behind the suit can reapply, and can do so with a clean slate, which will help them, hopefully, not to be associated with the apparently unintentional promulgation of racially prejudiced and misogynistic dogma the suit had posted to Barbelith. While wating, the person applying for a new suit can read Feminism 101, read Dworkin, read Susie Bright - hell, if they want to request a reading list now, we can get right onto that. They can then return with a fresh suit and a fresh start. If they mess it up again, so it goes. |
|
|
