BARBELITH underground
 

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


Things that should be discussed on Barbelith but won't because....

 
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Closed for Business Time
18:02 / 07.11.07
I think Haus is partly the inspiration for this. I might be wrong, but it matters little.

What would you like to talk about on Barbelith, but feel there would be not enough interest in, would get the wrong audience etc? Tell us about the new thread you almost started but decided against, and the reasons why.

~

I'm trying to think of something, but dinner is ready..
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
18:16 / 07.11.07
mudkips
 
 
Closed for Business Time
18:39 / 07.11.07
And why, o herder of mudkips?
 
 
Spatula Clarke
18:40 / 07.11.07
Videogames.
 
 
gu
23:09 / 07.11.07
I agree with Stoatie. And I'd like to add Seaking as another thing that should be discussed but won't be.
 
 
Hydra vs Leviathan
23:52 / 07.11.07
Disability as a site of oppression.
 
 
Char Aina
09:29 / 08.11.07
Live performances by the band Lummox.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:48 / 08.11.07
It's odd - I generally think of the idea that people are thinking of things they might talk about on Barbelith and then thinking "Nah, I won't bother. What's the point?" as a bad thing, but with the exception of Honolulu's video games lament, I'm not seeing much of a downside so far. Will think harder.
 
 
Closed for Business Time
10:33 / 08.11.07
Well, as I recall, not so long ago you said that in general you'd like to spend less time on-board doing frustrating mod bizness and more time starting new threads and doing fun stuff.

Come on, big brane, I know you've got something for this thread.
 
 
Janean Patience
10:54 / 08.11.07
The comics of Joe Matt. Because they won't have been read by many, they cover some contentious ground and just nobody wants to talk about that end of the comics market much.
 
 
This Sunday
11:14 / 08.11.07
I'd be interested in seeing lots of quality posts in the Racial/Cultural Portrayals in Comics thread, but have more or less given up hope on it. Such a rich field for discussion, for praise and lamentations, mediocrity and fury, and yet, so quickly did it die.

And, yeah, Film/TV seems like it could generate some great discussion in the sex/sexuality/gender or race/culture/locality directions, having intelligent, observant posters and, again, a rich field to explore and glean from, but I don't participate enough in the forum to feel comfortable starting it off.

I'd be quite interested in a thread on considering sexuality, ethnicity, and locality-based pride, but fear I'd be at best useless and at worst annoying (and kinda useless), if I tried to start it. There's been bits (White pride, is it desireable/possible?, Gay Pride Parades, why do they have'em?, and my babbling of the other day, summarised by Haus with a ten toes pride joke come to mind readily) but no thread specifically to deal with any and all on a conceptual, focused, level. I do fear it would turn into posts amounting to 'I don't have pride (because I have power and access), and am grateful and humble (about my power and access),' which is unfair of me enough I wouldn't start the thread (or, possibly, participate), because I'd be a jerk right out the gate.

Over in Temple, I'd like to see a thread on duties, those we choose, those we're born to (and choose to fulfill or not), but come from such a different direction to the average post in that forum, I hesitate to do the thread-starting, myself. And wouldn't have patience for any 'you're sacred duties aren't as meaningful as my sacred duties 'cause I choose to keep the sun with maths and an acid-charged pet and you're just cooking for dead people because you were told to!' Neither the negatives in this hoped-for thread, or the one directly above, would be coming from everyone, or even the bulk of posters, of course, but I wouldn't doubt them showing up, sadly.

Basically, there are threads I'd like to see, things I'd like to see people discussing and considering, but I'm not the best thread-starter, and I'm not the best communicator, and totally fail at adopting a good middle-ground even for the sake of getting the ball rolling. I can get halfway through the opening post to a new thread and if there was an anti-barbe-crush thread, the only thing keeping me out of it is deleting what I got and leaving the thread unmade. These are things I want to read posts considering/discussing, because my current opinions, points, and awareness are unsatisfactory to me and I'd be interested to see other folks' angles and perspectives. But, since these things aren't coming up without me (unless I've just missed them - also a possibility, of course), I have to presume either no one feels comfortable starting them, or the interest just isn't there, or there enough.
 
 
Spaniel
13:09 / 08.11.07
I think the problem with threads that focus on race and ethnicity, even culture, is that many of us probably don't feel very comfortable talking far outside of our own experience. For example, I've recently been reading Crossing Midnight but have had difficulty knowing whether what I'm reading fairly represents Japanese life and culture, or whether it's problematic in any way. I mean, sure, I can spot glaring racism or sterotyping, but I'm a little out of my depth when it comes to some of the detail.
 
 
Spaniel
13:09 / 08.11.07
Exactly the same problem I've had with Scalped
 
 
Aertho
14:54 / 08.11.07
I actually have questions regarding the origins of Holocaust Denial.

Maybe a year ago, a now-banned poster put up an extraordinarily long list of "facts" why the Holocaust never happened. Now I would imagine all were fabricated, but nearly all lies begin with a misinterpreted truth. It's those kernels of hidden history that were spun horribly wrong that interest me. Maybe it's morbid curiosity, but I'd like to know more about where crazy comes from.

I've neglected asking Barbelith because I can foresee too many ways for my request to be misinterpreted as well. I wouldn't want to be seen as someone who's endorsing a discussion on the validity of Holocaust Denial, or providing a place on the web where anti-semitism rubs elbows with intellectual discourse.

That's my unmade topic.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:18 / 08.11.07
Now I would imagine all were fabricated, but nearly all lies begin with a misinterpreted truth.

I shagged your dog.

That one didn't.

Probably.
 
 
Lurid Archive
15:26 / 08.11.07
And Haus' canophilia rears its ugly head.

Again.
 
 
Papess
15:31 / 08.11.07
Well, that is just you, Haus, misinterpreting your truth and broadcasting that falsehood. Then if we were to believe it or not, there might be some dog-shagging denial and soothsaying going on.

So, you are saying you didn't shag the dog, Haus?

A side note: I have known someone who did this, and the terrible effects it had on the dog were heartbreaking. Although, I am not likely to start a thread on the subject of animal rape (let's face it, "bestiality" always implies rape) and the consequent psychological repercussions of such behaviour, I am concerned and wonder what others think about it.
 
 
Char Aina
18:40 / 08.11.07
I'm not seeing much of a downside so far.

Ah, but then you haven't heard Lummox.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
23:11 / 08.11.07
So, you are saying you didn't shag the dog, Haus?

I've got a friend who thinks I didn't. Allow me to enumerate the reasons why he believes I did not.

Point being, I think - although ultimately this sort of thing bends to the will of Tom - that a discussion of why people don't believe the Holocaust happened would _necessarily_ be banworthy. However, that's already not quite what is being proposed. What is being proposed is something along the lines of "what are the historical truths that support people's belief that the Holocaust didn't happen". And that is not a question that makes sense. The belief that the Holocaust didn't happen is not based on history, any more than Creationism is based on biology or the Flat Earth Society is based on geography.

If you want to go down this road, thread 24193 will help you out. However.
 
 
Papess
00:51 / 09.11.07
Oh. No, not that road. I am not in favour of discussing even the remotest possibility that the Holocaust was a lie or exaggeration. IN fact I think I am going to be ill from reading that thread. One really has to have their head up their own arse to entertain such convoluted ignorance. Dammit Haus, you had to make me look there! Now, I am all pissed off. If I have any curiosity at all regarding that BS, it would be what the hell are these guys thinking? and maybe a little astonishment about what the heck makes their brain warp in that direction.

Actually, I was commenting on your example of the lie you told in which you proposed you had not misinterpret the truth, when in fact you did. Your truth. Then again, what else is a lie to begin with? What else could a lie be but a misinterpreted truth, intentional or not?

Anyway, I meant it as a divergence and completely out of context from the previous bit of discussion.

AGHH! I have the sudden urge to club a neo-nazi.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
05:31 / 09.11.07
Sorry, MO - I was referring to Cassandra/Chad Raymond/Sersi's:

but nearly all lies begin with a misinterpreted truth

I don't think this is the case here - or indeed in my admittedly facile claim to have been intimate with Fido upthread. It is possible for something to be a lie without a historical underpinning, and this is one of those possibilities. So, the question "what truth lies at the base of this denial?" is not answerable with "in [year], [event] happened, which has been taken to mean ...", but rather something like"some people really don't like Jewish people, or really do like conspiracy theories, or both". It's a different kind of truth.
 
 
Aertho
06:28 / 09.11.07
blah blah blah.

Fetch or Fletch or whoever listed a shitload of "historical events" which he reported as to have happened according/resulting in/to his views. The fact is that it was a list of things in a well documented period of history that I'd never heard of, so if there was any fact of them happening at all, I was interested.

In any case, it's a question I didn't ask because the question's intent would have misunderstood. Imagine that.

***************

I apologize for bringing up such an ugly topic on Barbelith. That wasn't what I wanted to do.
 
 
Janean Patience
06:39 / 09.11.07
If there's a basis in historical records for Holocaust denial, it's in the lack of records; as far as I'm aware, the Nazi government took great care to make sure that the practice of genocide was not recorded as such on any documents, the orders were not written down, etcetera. David Irving, a denier who began as a historian, made a great deal of the lack of any written order from Hitler ordering the Holocaust and initially claimed Himmler was the man responsible. Though a brief scan of any of Hitler's speeches or writing on race makes it apparent the camps exactly followed his policies and beliefs. And obviously there's a massive amount of evidence to prove the Holocaust took place as a result of orders which came from the head of the Reich.

I don't think there's a particularly profitable discussion to be had on the subject. Holocaust denial begins with anti-Semitism, and evidence supposedly supporting it is cut to suit. What truths or lies are chosen to fit an alternative history are irrelevant.
 
 
Closed for Business Time
07:47 / 09.11.07
Dzhaknow, when starting this thread I actually entertained hopes that the Holocaust wouldn't be mentioned at all. Imagine that. What naivete.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
08:06 / 09.11.07
Fetch or Fletch or whoever listed a shitload of "historical events" which he reported as to have happened according/resulting in/to his views.

It was Zoemancer. I just directed you to the thread where he did that, just here.

Which is one of the problems - people often want to make statements about very difficult subjects - or more precisely subjects which may be very difficult for other people - without doing the most basic work on them - another example might be that godawful thread about slavery and selective breeding in the Laboratory. If one is just sharing one's ideas about purple vmemes in Seven Soldiers, this isn't very important either way, but since the Holocaust was not a dream, a hoax or an imaginary tale the stakes are a bit higher.

So, pretty much what Janean said, on the whole.
 
 
Mistoffelees
08:10 / 09.11.07
It looked pretty certain to me, that the Holocaust would be mentioned. Holocaust Denial, for example, gets mentioned explicitely in the Barbelith FAQ, along with a wikipedia link. It´s right under the graphic of stupid offensive shit.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
10:31 / 09.11.07
I can understand people wanting to be as clear as possible about the Holocaust and anti-Semitism, especially in light of the Zionist lobby's recent abuse of these phenomena and our society's awareness of them to falsely accuse people who criticise Israel (this of course does not apply to all Zionists).

What I don't understand, is why people would frame a discussion in terms of 'So, seriously, just for the sake of argument, let's talk about whether or not the holocaust actually happened and whether or not these holocaust-deniers have any point' - this is already a biased discussion. Why not the objective 'Let's discuss the Holocaust - what's the latest scholarship by people who know what they're talking about, and how does it affect the modern world?'
 
 
All Acting Regiment
10:33 / 09.11.07
In the above paragraph 'biased' means biased towards the deniers, just to be clear.
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
11:04 / 09.11.07
How about belief in a 'Zionist Lobby' stifling debate about Israel as a topic?

(Okay, that sounds like me writing 'Yeah? Well how about your mum as a topic!?!', but I'd be genuinely interested in getting a topic going on that one)
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
11:20 / 09.11.07
blah blah blah.

Helpful.

Fetch or Fletch or whoever

Nice to see that you bothered referring back to the thread.

...listed a shitload of "historical events" which he reported as to have happened according/resulting in/to his views. The fact is that it was a list of things in a well documented period of history that I'd never heard of, so if there was any fact of them happening at all, I was interested.

But not interested enough to do anything as whacky as, you know, follow up with a bit of research. How tragic that such questions can only be answered by starting a thread on Barbelith. Wouldn't it be great if there was some way to search the internet for websites on the topic? And books--man, if there were only a few books out there on the subject of the Holocaust!

Basically, the thing with the Holocaust is this: The evidence exists, and all you have to do is look for it. There is a metric fuckton of writing on the subject, including pages dedicated to addressing the claims made by Holocaust deniers and refuting them. It's not all tucked away on JSTOR or some academic journal somewhere, it's freely available to anyone who wants to type a few search words into Google or shell out a few quid for a book or two. There is no Earthly reason why the data has to be sifted through Zoemancer's digestive system before we can access it.

Now, what this means in practice is that this periodic "hey, maybe these Holocaust deniers have a point, let's look at their claims calmly and rationally!" thing is coming from one of two places. The first is a place of pure ignorance. The poster has not troubled to do the most minimal work to inform themselves on the issue. It may be that there's a genuine desire on the part of the poster to broaden hir knowledge, but more usually it's rooted in a need to look contentious and nawtee.

The second place is uglier. The reason we don't go a bundle on Holocaust denial threads here is that all one really needs to do is just think about the idea for a second. Just think about it. Reflect upon what it means to say "the Holocaust never happened." The only possible place this line of thinking goes is off to the International Jewish Conspiracy and tinfoil-hat land. It's less "I shagged your dog" and more "let's calmly evaluate the evidence that this group of people right here are all a bunch of dog-shaggers. Yes, I know it's a contentious subject, but we're all rational people here--surely we can discuss the possiblity of a mass dog-shagging conspiracy without getting all uptight about it?"

So yeah, that's the place a lot of these threds come from. I don't like it. It's a dark, ugly region of the human psyche. It's a place where there's this monolithic entity, "the Jews," rather than a sprawling mass of human individuals. It's a place where all those people have got together to create a vast hoax motivated by the deisre to fuck over everyone else on the planet. Can't imagine why you'd want to visit.
 
 
Mug Chum
11:30 / 09.11.07
Again, Aunt Beast said what I felt in ways I couldn't myself.

surely we can discuss the possiblity of a mass dog-shagging conspiracy

Pretty, pretty, double-sugar-please with ice cream?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:36 / 09.11.07
How about belief in a 'Zionist Lobby' stifling debate about Israel as a topic?

We've had one, I think, in effect. To be exact, we have had a couple of threads in which somebody connected criticisms of Israeli policy to anti-Semitism, and was roundly and extensively criticised for doing so.

I imagine that if you'd like to start a thread about the influence of a pro-Israeli lobby on US politics, say, I doubt that anyone would call you a neo-Nazi.
 
 
jentacular dreams
11:49 / 09.11.07
Well speaking for myself, I originally (and naively) found holocaust denial quite interesting, for the simple reason that it so obviously did happen, how could anyone who had done a bit of research and wasn't hatefully racist, or living in the tinfoil-hat republic support those kind of views? Except I soon discovered that the majority did fall into those two camps.

I still think there's a small number of reasonable people who believe that kind of thing, but purely because they are either uneducated in the documented history or because they for whatever reason trust the "hidden history" views of the racist nutjobs. I can see the benefit of discussing the issues with these reasonable few, but as has been said before, to do so on a public forum outweighs these benefits with the potential negative impact on other readers and the publicity it gives to said viewpoints.
 
 
Closed for Business Time
11:53 / 09.11.07
Is it possible that arguing the reverse would make one more likely to be called names?

[In response to Haus' last paragraph.]
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
11:57 / 09.11.07
How about belief in a 'Zionist Lobby' stifling debate about Israel as a topic?

Zionist might not be as accurate a term as "pro-Israel", but there's no doubt that a pro-Israel lobby exists. As I've said before, an organisation such as AIPAC is more than happy to self-identify as such. I don't see why recognising that would stifle debate.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply