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: 12(3)45678

 
 
Claris Dancers
14:34 / 22.06.07
Hi.
 
 
Quantum
14:50 / 22.06.07
Hi there Claris. I started this thread for pre-banning discussions, but it turned into a thread about you.
 
 
Claris Dancers
14:54 / 22.06.07
I would find it theoretically interesing to hear from Qwik why he bothered joining a board that is so at variance with his basic beliefs

Actually I was interested in the discussions in the Temple.

I'm mostly a lurker in most of the boards i read, but sometimes I have to add things. I have no desire to cause anyone (including any of you) grief.... well, maybe haus. Is it just his way to be an insufferable asshole?

Well anyway. Ban me or not, with the regularity that I post here it probably wont make much difference regardless. And if it will keep you ravenous (as Flyboy ventured) "PC-gone-mad loony liberal majority consensus" peoples happy in your cloistered pocket dimension, content to not have me question things, then so be it. i'll probably still keep reading the Temple.

I'll be checking this thread for updates for the next 4 hours or so and I'll answer questions if asked, but im not going to defend myself from personal insults or suffer people putting words in my mouth.
 
 
Quantum
15:04 / 22.06.07
Well, if you're not bothered and lots of people are pro-ban I can only see that ending one way. I don't know if you'll get many people asking questions over the next 4 hours but you never know.
I'm glad you enjoy the Temple though, thank you.
 
 
electric monk
15:07 / 22.06.07
I feel you're pretty much walling yourself off with that post, Claris. Seems to me that you're ready to dismiss any uncomfortable question I may ask as the bleatings of a whiney liberal. Would you please make an attempt to engage with the other posters in this thread (Haus included) without using emotion-based language such as the kind you've used above? Name-calling's not going to get us anywhere.

Also, please go back thru this thread and address the concerns that have already been raised. There's plenty for you to respond to already.
 
 
Quantum
15:09 / 22.06.07
Oh but FYI phrases like 'Is it just his way...', 'Ban me or not',' cloistered pocket dimension' are likely to draw fire from people and generally cause trouble. I think most feel that a more apologetic, reconciliatory tone would be the sort of thing the board would expect, if a poster were interesting in staying on the board. But since you're not bothered, fair enough, enjoy the needless barney and subsequent ban.
 
 
Claris Dancers
15:20 / 22.06.07
Would you please make an attempt to engage with the other posters in this thread (Haus included) without using emotion-based language such as the kind you've used above? Name-calling's not going to get us anywhere.

I'm game if everyone else is.
 
 
Seth
15:21 / 22.06.07
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.

That seems like an excellent way to whittle a subsection of people out of discussion without a lot of thought.

I get concerned that people who take the stance that there is such a thing as *political correctness gone mad* sometimes believe they have had their bias confirmed when people apply their beliefs about justice and love for others in a way that is unjust and unloving. I can see how some people might see that as a ruling on what thoughts and language are *right* and *wrong* that is divorced from what should be its first principles. I don't think it's wrong to enter a debate in order to point that out if it's backed up by evidence and I agree that such a contribution is immeasurably stronger if it's part of a post that is also on topic and furthers the rest of the discussion at the same time.

At some unknowable point in future I might feel the need to tell someone that perhaps they could be nicer to someone else whose beliefs seem to be prejudiced. If anyone responds to me with the term *apologist* at that point I will devote a lot of time and energy to analysing their use of the term, the context in which they used it, what they might be getting out of it, what their objective might be in using it and what it might say about them... in other words, the same level of critique you'd hope for when it comes to any writing on Barbelith. If they feel the need to they are also welcome to respond with a variant of *you always* defend the interlocutor/*you never* speak up unless it's something like this if they believe they are up to the impossible task of evidencing such universal quantifiers.

Now isn't one of those times, however. I don't think engaging with CD is productive for anyone from reading the related threads, which is why I've opted for the boot here. I just hope that we can push it through soon as I don't see it becoming productive in the near future.
 
 
Seth
15:22 / 22.06.07
That'll be me crossposting with quite a lot of stuff then.
 
 
Claris Dancers
15:23 / 22.06.07
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?

I have been given no ultimatum other than this current thread.
 
 
Quantum
15:29 / 22.06.07
Okay, but what do you think causes lots of people to object to your posting? Why do you think people might react the way they have? Can you see why people might object to your posts?
 
 
Seth
15:30 / 22.06.07
And if it will keep you ravenous (as Flyboy ventured) "PC-gone-mad loony liberal majority consensus" peoples happy in your cloistered pocket dimension, content to not have me question things, then so be it.

I don't think that's a helpful way of putting it. A great many people here have very good reasons and motivations for believing the things they do, and appropriating something that Flyboy may have said as your label for those people doesn't evidence that you're too willing to pay attention to what they might have to say.

Would you agree to retract that and treat everyone here as an individual if it's reciprocated?
 
 
Claris Dancers
15:44 / 22.06.07
Would you agree to retract that and treat everyone here as an individual if it's reciprocated?

Sure. As I said, i have no desire to cause anyone grief. However, it seems that if I say something that is just slightly outside of your "common baseline of shared values," I get pounced on and pummeled without hesitation. There seems to be an oversensitivity here I have not experienced anywhere else.
 
 
Seth
15:51 / 22.06.07
However, it seems that if I say something that is just slightly outside of your "common baseline of shared values," I get pounced on and pummeled without hesitation.

I know a lot of people on Barbelith both through posting here with them and off the board. I don't believe it's their intention to pounce on you and pummel you, everyone I've met here has been a pretty decent sort. It's more likely that they're angry about the way the debate has been going because they're passionate about what they believe in, because there's a lot at stake for many of them. Many of them have personal experience of being pounced on and pummelled for holding those beliefs in the past, or have formed those beliefs precisely because they have been pounced on and pummelled for various things or seen other people get pounced on and pummelled.

I think things are generally heated because of said high stakes. Please don't misinterpret that as pouncing and pummelling, because I don't think it is.
 
 
Quantum
16:08 / 22.06.07
Why do you think people might react the way they have? Can you see why people might object to your posts?
 
 
Seth
16:10 / 22.06.07
There seems to be an oversensitivity here I have not experienced anywhere else.

I also don't think this is the case. I think people have taken issue with some of the things you've posted because they're concerned that the application of the beliefs that those posts seem to evidence brings about harm. I reckon most of the people who have discussed things with you on Barbelith believe their responses are proportionate and certainly not oversensitive.
 
 
Claris Dancers
16:30 / 22.06.07
Why do you think people might react the way they have? Can you see why people might object to your posts?

Of course, my posts are generally very opinionated i believe. And combining opinionated posts with oversensitive people or "high stakes" would logically cause problems. However, why does this have to be the case? What is wrong with differences of opinion? Why am i being banned for thinking differently?
 
 
Spaniel
16:36 / 22.06.07
CD, perhaps what you see as oversensitivity others see as defending their strongly felt opinions. Might I suggest that the only reason why people seem oversensitive to you is that you are not used to being in an environment where people consciously and vocally hold the kinds of opinions that they do on Barbelith. Is it just that you are not used to being challenged in the ways that people are challenging you?
 
 
Spaniel
16:36 / 22.06.07
The answer is yes, by the way.
 
 
Claris Dancers
16:40 / 22.06.07
I think people have taken issue with some of the things you've posted because they're concerned that the application of the beliefs that those posts seem to evidence brings about harm.

My first thought then is that they have mis-read or misconstrued what I posted, but that seems unlikely at this point. I have never advocated or endorsed violence or hatred against anyone, but specifically women and non-white people as people seem to assume. I am at a loss as to why expressing my opinion, though while different from most of Barbelith apparently is not hateful or inciteful, will bring about harm in any way. And as such, the responses seem oversensitive to me.


I reckon most of the people who have discussed things with you on Barbelith believe their responses are proportionate and certainly not oversensitive.

I reckon that too, otherwise there would be less of a problem. But their belief does not make them appropriately sensitive.
 
 
Claris Dancers
17:04 / 22.06.07
The answer is yes, by the way.

Very well.
That question is the what, but not the why.
The answer is accurate though.
 
 
Seth
17:06 / 22.06.07
I reiterate, I believe that the responses you've received are proportionate and not oversensitive, I'd like to use this as an example of the high stakes I'm talking about.

Black people are the authors of their own misfortune? Check!
In recent times, yes.


The belief you hold here, according to what you wrote, is that black people are the authors of their own misfortune in recent times. If your belief is otherwise then I can only apologise, as I can only go by what is written.

One of the things I do most days is take emergency calls for the police, and most days I deal with at least one report of racism from a person or people in a minority ethnicity, usually reported to me by a member of the public. Many of the reports are really awful. It's not uncommon for families to feel afraid to leave their home, or to be the target of damages against their home or car, or to be stared at and shouted at in the street.

If I were to adopt the belief that, as they are reporting the incidents in recent times, they are by default the authors of their misfortune in some way, I would be ignoring the fact that in the context of the situation they are reporting they are innocent aggrieved parties. In the overwhelming majority of cases there are no counter allegations against them, certainly not ones that can be evidenced. If I were to adopt the stance that they were the authors of their own misfortune they would be denied a peaceful home life without abuse and damage, they would be denied access to a justice system that will listen to them, and the behaviour of the people targeting them would be tacitly approved because they bought it on themselves.

It has been my experience that at least a significant majority of people belonging to ethnic groups that are in a minority in my country (England) have been targeted for crime and racist language because of their ethnicity. I was flabbergasted when my then wife told me that she experienced it most days and that she had never told me because it was normal to her. The baseline of her experience was that she would be groundlessly abused throughout her life. That was normal to her.

That's why I take issue with that belief as it is stated in that way, because if I chose to act as though it were true I would be partly responsible for one of the major problems effecting people who live in England right now. That's also why I do my best to challenge those beliefs when I can, and that's why I say the stakes are high. I genuinely believe that the more people who hold that belief the worse the world is, and I think that's a proportionate response that's backed up with sound reasoning.

I have never advocated or endorsed violence or hatred against anyone, but specifically women and non-white people as people seem to assume. I am at a loss as to why expressing my opinion, though while different from most of Barbelith apparently is not hateful or inciteful, will bring about harm in any way.

The above is why I believe some of what you have posted is endorsing a world in which people are harmed. It is my contention that the rest of the people who have responded to things you've posted here will have similar cases they could construct if they were to pick out beliefs that you appear to hold from your posts and follow out the logical consequences of those beliefs.
 
 
Claris Dancers
17:07 / 22.06.07
BTW, reading the first two pages of this thread was like watching a lynch mob rubbing their hands together excitedly, hoping that they made the rope just a little too long...
 
 
Seth
17:11 / 22.06.07
I'd add that the belief that minority groups bring their misfortune upon themselves is not uniquely applied by some to black people in America. I frequently have conversations with callers who apply the same belief to minority groups in England.
 
 
Seth
17:17 / 22.06.07
BTW, reading the first two pages of this thread was like watching a lynch mob rubbing their hands together excitedly, hoping that they made the rope just a little too long...

Again, please don't misinterpret this as *excited.* I know these people. None of us are excited about this thread. In the past a lot of people here have endured a great many situations in which members have given utterance to a lot of harmful beliefs and it has continued for a long time before it has been properly addressed. None of us relish it, we wish it weren't the case and in comparison to other message boards we're much slower to ban someone because we try to carefully think it through first. Recently some of us have been arguing in favour of speeding up the process, not because we enjoy booting people, but because many people have been hurt and angered by the consequences of allowing the situation to continue longer than may be necessary.

None of us want this because we're excited about lynching you. I know many of these people well and they're not like that. Please think again and reconsider.
 
 
electric monk
17:18 / 22.06.07
BTW, reading the first two pages of this thread...

I'm reading it a little differently. A lot of people are justifiably upset with some of the things you've been saying and are all for tossing you out because of your insistence on the rightness of what you've said. And there is no glee that I can see. At the most extreme, people have had enough of what you're posting and want you gone. At the least, people have despaired of ever getting a decent conversation out of you and want you gone.
 
 
electric monk
17:20 / 22.06.07
YO! said it BETTER!
 
 
Claris Dancers
17:22 / 22.06.07
I deal with at least one report of racism from a person or people in a minority ethnicity, usually reported to me by a member of the public. Many of the reports are really awful. It's not uncommon for families to feel afraid to leave their home, or to be the target of damages against their home or car, or to be stared at and shouted at in the street.

Than your experience is vastly different from mine. And as I recall, i was speaking from my experience. I never said anyone was wrong for having a different perspective and different experiences. And not that i would have said anyones own background was wrong, but I was too busy trying to defend myself to do anything else. Occurring events trump previous events in your calls, i would hope. Deal with the situations at hand the way they are and not the way you think they are and all that. My general point (which grew from a ron paul statement) was that people generally dont, but should, take personal responsibility for their own actions and circumstances.

That's also why I do my best to challenge those beliefs when I can

My beliefs weren't challenged, I wasn't being shown arguments and being reasoned with. I was shouted down.
 
 
Claris Dancers
17:24 / 22.06.07
people have despaired of ever getting a decent conversation out of you and want you gone.

This is probably the best, most reasonable conversation ive ever had here.
 
 
Seth
17:26 / 22.06.07
I reckon that too, otherwise there would be less of a problem. But their belief does not make them appropriately sensitive.

If their beliefs are backed up by the facts of their experience and robust evidence that they have collated then it does make them appropriately sensitive. I'm afraid this is not an intellectual game, you are not dealing with stances that have been chosen arbitrarily or without thought and soul searching. These are real issues that effect the quality of life for real people. We are not making these arguments for fun and many people here will happily supply evidence for their beliefs if you ask them.
 
 
Claris Dancers
17:29 / 22.06.07
None of us want this because we're excited about lynching you. I know many of these people well and they're not like that. Please think again and reconsider.


Reconsider? OK......

YO!:
Boot. Waste of life, time and effort.

.trampetunia:
I like what Haus said. And YO! and MO and...
Ban

Tom Paine's Bones:
Ban. And the sooner the better.

Der Falke:
Well, it looks a foregone anyway, but I find flushing unforgivable turds a moderate pleasure.

alas:
Want to ban CD now. Do not want to have any more hand wringing etc. Ban. Ban. Ban.




Hell, I even have a song --

.trampetunia:
Go away now Claris Dancer
wear a blindfold on the highwaaay
take your crap on race and women
It's eviction day todaaaay
 
 
Claris Dancers
17:34 / 22.06.07
If their beliefs are backed up by the facts of their experience and robust evidence that they have collated then it does make them appropriately sensitive.
...
We are not making these arguments for fun and many people here will happily supply evidence for their beliefs if you ask them.

If that is the case and it's not merely reactionary bullshit, then yes. However, as i said, i was not presented with anything, i was shouted down. Which is why I assume reactionary bullshit.
 
 
Seth
17:36 / 22.06.07
My beliefs weren't challenged, I wasn't being shown arguments and being reasoned with. I was shouted down.

Again, I don't think people intended to make you feel as though you were being shouted down. I think it can feel that way if there are multiple people disagreeing in different communication styles and different levels of emotive language. I'll go back and reread the threads so that I can see if there were any examples that support you being shouted down, would you agree with me to do the same? We can come back here and post them.

By the way, I have read numerous accounts from black and white people in America who disagree with you about the burden of responsibility for the problems that black Americans face.

However this My general point… was that people generally don't, but should, take personal responsibility for their own actions and circumstances is a point which contains a belief that I do agree with, at least in part. I wholeheartedly agree that people should take responsibility for their own actions. I disagree that people's circumstances are always the result of their own actions, and so I disagree that people should invariably be described as the authors of their own circumstances.
 
 
Seth
17:47 / 22.06.07
The only quote above that supports the contention that anyone was excited to see you removed from Barbelith is this one:

Der Falke:
Well, it looks a foregone anyway, but I find flushing unforgivable turds a moderate pleasure.


You could equate pleasure with excitement, so I think that one can arguably stand.

No other post indicates excitement in the wording. It is a group of people who want to see you gone because they believe that the logical consequences of many of your beliefs are harmful, and they wanted to see you gone quickly to avoid a lot of the fallout we've had on here in the past in similar situations. That was certainly the motivation behind my post. At no point was I excited and I'd lay money that no one else was… including Der Falke. They were rude, yes. I wouldn't want to put words in hir mouth but I reckon they were speaking out of frustration and anger more than anything. Again, I'd lay money on them not getting a kick out of this situation or enjoying the banning process.

If that is the case and it's not merely reactionary bullshit, then yes. However, as i said, i was not presented with anything, i was shouted down. Which is why I assume reactionary bullshit.

Can you and I agree to put this to the test? Try posting something to both the Feminism 101 thread and the Ron Paul thread to the effect of, "I'm interested in reading as much supporting evidence as you can provide for your contentions in this thread" and see what happens. Will things be different for you if you feel you are presented with something?
 
 
petunia
17:54 / 22.06.07
None of us want this because we're excited about lynching you.

I cannot speak for other people, but i'm not totally in agreement with this.

The lynching metaphor is ugly is sin. I have no desire to see you, or any other person hang (and yes, i know i made an allusion to your death in my song. I sacrificed moral integrity for a good rhyme. Apologies.).

However, i do find a certain pleasure in the thought of a person who posts a bizarre mix of confusion, bigottry and anger on the board i frequent stopping to do so.

I like the idea of giving people a chance to change, to think about their views and to maybe all get along. But let's be honest, shall we? It seems you quite enjoy getting people all het up here. Maybe it makes you feel wanted or something. I don't know. But anyways. I just find it a bit annoying and a bit boring.

I am absolutely astounded by YO!'s ongoing attempt to converse with you. He is taking the time and effort that i geniunely cannot find for you. If the miraculous should happen and Yo! brings about an understanding in you that was previously lacking, you can be sure of my apology.

At the moment, though, i still think of you as the Claris Dancer who said that ugly painful stuff without remorse or desire for self-awareness. For this reason, i would like it if you left.
 
  

Page: 12(3)45678

 
  
Add Your Reply