BARBELITH underground
 

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


Underground > Policy & Help >

Reaction on the Underground

  
  

Page: (1)234

 
 
deletia
21:52 / 26.06.01
As a wain, used to amuse myself sometmes by going to Christian chat sites and taking the piss. Understandably, people got quite cross, and usually banned me, at which point I messaged them and asked for forgiveness. Always put the cunts in a quandary.

Anyway, point being that, as time goes on, I can acknowledge that this was probably not particularly cool behaviour. I mena, these people had assembled for the specific purpose of talking about being Christians, they had called their chat channel #Christian, and here was a non-christian ignoring all those cues and being offensive.

SO, on a related topic...Barbelith is the home of subcultural dissonance, whatever that may mean. It is presumably angled towards conceptually hep cats.

So, what is the correct response to people turning up with comically reactionary views? People who believe that the police are doing a bloody good job given the pressure they are under? The peopel who believe that protestors are a gangof violent lunatics? The people who believe that feminism has emasculated men and left women hopelessly alienated from their proper roles? People who believe that black people are just...ruder...than white people?

Should we treat their viewpointsa with consideration and respect, or are we entitled to point and laugh at the special needs ideology?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
10:15 / 27.06.01
Weeeellll...

For starters, I think the terms in which you've couched the start of this discussion are going to piss a fair few people off, but I'm sure you have your reasons.

Secondly: it is a common stance both within and without Barbelith for those who hold what we might delicately term more 'conservative' viewpoints to either believe that they are in a persecuted minority or to at least claim that this is such, in spite of glaringly obvious statistics. The problem with this position (or rather, the reason it often works) is that when voiced in the context of certain debates it's almost self-fulfilling, because it invites derision.

Thirdly: Barbelith can be a very odd place of which to assess the overal tone and ideology. Some people get the impression it's some kind of Queer Totalitarian Cult, others may think it's just full of stoned American teenagers, others that the majority are geeky British fanboys. None of these are true - it just depends who's being most vocal in the threads you're reading at the time.

Fourthly: I think that while we should usually, as a default, aim to make our posts as reasoned and well though-out as possible, there are times when derision is the most appropriate reaction. Taking the piss can be useful tool, especially if you're in a marginalised group.

Filthily: on the other hand, I think there are times when some people talk about things as if they were blindingly obvious to all of us when they are clearly not. Jackie in his hate-suit, for example, spoke of the assumptions about public/private sex and so on in such a manner - althogh he did go back and explain once he decided he loves everyone. Now, in that instance, I've come to agree with the point being made but only though learning stuff via Barbelith, and if every time I'd posted something that didn't take these factors into account someone had responded with "duh!", I'd have been a bit put off.

Basically: if someone holds views which some of us might consider reactionary but are otherwise respectful and reasonable and what not, I think dialogue is the solution. If people turn up ranting about the female-homo axis and spoiling for a fight, or make casually indignant racist remarks, I think anyone is well within their rights to bitch-slap them.

Even more long-winded rambling thoughts will follow.
 
 
No star here laces
10:16 / 27.06.01
Well you quite clearly have a very conventional view of what subcultural dissonance means, y'daft old sod. Your definition of 'reaction' appears to be predicated on either a schoolboyish rejection of whatever is currently in place, or traditional right/left politics, neither of which, I would hope, are defining features of anything truly radical. I mean surely being subcultural is something slightly more than having a different orthodoxy to those in power?

To me it is much more about having a certain bloody-mindedness, desire to provoke and above all mental flexibility.

It doesn't mean swallowing pseudo-anarchist propaganda wholesale, or buying your ideology from liberals-r-us a la Charlotte Raven and all those Guardian readers.

And the word 'dissonance' is pretty key, no? I mean if anyone's views are worth a damn they should be able to stand up to a bit of debate, and personally I welcome the chance to argue with peeps as tenacious and lucid as yerself, and many of those who could be accused of being 'reactionary' are also worthy opponents.
 
 
Rialto
10:19 / 27.06.01
quote:Originally posted by Zenith Despairs Of All But A Few:
If people... make casually indignant racist remarks, I think anyone is well within their rights to bitch-slap them.

What about using language which casually endorses physical violence against women, you Eminem-loving sanctimonious pissant?
 
 
No star here laces
10:33 / 27.06.01
I disagree. I know a bitch when I see one, and a lot of 'em aint women. Senor Haus being a prime example (but in the nicest possible way).
 
 
QUINT
10:36 / 27.06.01
quote:What about using language which casually endorses physical violence against women, you Eminem-loving sanctimonious pissant?

I hate people who do that. I say we bitch-slap them, too.

Uh...

Oops.

[assumes the position]

[ 27-06-2001: Message edited by: The Wally Llama ]
 
 
deletia
11:01 / 27.06.01
quote:Originally posted by Mecca the Soul Brother:
Well you quite clearly have a very conventional view of what subcultural dissonance means, y'daft old sod. Your definition of 'reaction' appears to be predicated on either a schoolboyish rejection of whatever is currently in place, or traditional right/left politics....And the word 'dissonance' is pretty key, no? I mean if anyone's views are worth a damn they should be able to stand up to a bit of debate, and personally I welcome the chance to argue with peeps as tenacious and lucid as yerself, and many of those who could be accused of being 'reactionary' are also worthy opponents.

I admit that my definition of "reactionary" here is a fairly...reactionary one. I was using it primarily to identify people whose opinions and (perhaps more importantly) the way they hold them are antithetical to the free and progressive play of ideas.
 
 
No star here laces
11:21 / 27.06.01
Yes well this is a bit of a bugbear of yours though, no? I remember the 'kick out the rednecks' campaign too...

If they're crap reactionaries they'll bugger off after a while.

If they're amusing reactionaries then it's worth keeping 'em around.

And if they're clever reactionaries then they are good foils.

It's all good...
 
 
deletia
11:29 / 27.06.01
I see no point in indulging organics without the wit to examine their own beliefs or process successfully those of others. This isn't a Quake 3 bulletin board, after all.

Look at my brickwork, It's almost as smooth as real skin.
 
 
Ierne
11:35 / 27.06.01
it is a common stance both within and without Barbelith for those who hold what we might delicately term more 'conservative' viewpoints to either believe that they are in a persecuted minority or to at least claim that this is such, in spite of glaringly obvious statistics. The problem with this position (or rather, the reason it often works) is that when voiced in the context of certain debates it's almost self-fulfilling, because it invites derision. – Zenith Despairs Of All But A Few

Another problem is that the derision directed at the "persecuted minority" provides them with a great deal of attention, which is all they really want. This excess attention is diverted from developing the topic at hand and used to tell the "persecuted minority" how pathetic and sad they are, which is something they are already quite aware of.
 
 
Rialto
11:47 / 27.06.01
True, and that's a good argument for "ignore them and they'll go away". The only problem here is if attention-seeking reactionaries (as we've defined them, I'm not pointing the finger anywhere) become so vocal that they discourage other, more progressive posters (who see these ideologies being put forward without challenge) from continuing to post.
 
 
grant
12:13 / 27.06.01
quote:Originally posted by Mecca the Soul Brother:
It doesn't mean swallowing pseudo-anarchist propaganda wholesale, or buying your ideology from liberals-r-us a la Charlotte Raven and all those Guardian readers.

And the word 'dissonance' is pretty key, no?

Word up.
 
 
Ierne
12:25 / 27.06.01
RE: Time Please's post

I see your point about people becoming disinclined to post due to the various attention-getting tactics used on the board. But one can ignore these tactics by deciding not to post...and one can decide to ignore these tactics by sticking to the subject at hand and responding to all the other posters, comments and feedback in the thread.
 
 
QUINT
13:56 / 27.06.01
quote:Originally posted by Ierne:
RE: Time Please's post

I see your point about people becoming disinclined to post due to the various attention-getting tactics used on the board. But one can ignore these tactics by deciding not to post...and one can decide to ignore these tactics by sticking to the subject at hand and responding to all the other posters, comments and feedback in the thread.

Pointy furry mans is in leagues with elves.

Yeah, sure, you can ignore things. But they'll get to you, as well. The signal to noise and the general attitude can make you feel that it's not worth it, I suppose.

Still, when the going gets pointy, the tough get furry, as my old mother used to say. (She was married to Jack Burton for a while.)
 
 
Saveloy
14:38 / 27.06.01
It all depends on the tone of voice, rather than what is said. I think it would be ridiculous and totally against the spirit of the board to tell someone to sod off just for having the wrong sort of attitudes/viewpoint etc, if they are able to express those views in a reasonably grown-up way. But if it's just troll-like, childish and clearly intended to irritate, then sure, take the piss, frighten 'em off with your *cough* sophisticated wit (as irritating as that in itself is). That goes whatever the message is.

[ 27-06-2001: Message edited by: Saveloy ]
 
 
Ierne
15:57 / 27.06.01
Yeah, sure, you can ignore things. But they'll get to you, as well. The signal to noise and the general attitude can make you feel that it's not worth it, I suppose. – The Wally Llama
I hear you, mate. I get really irritated by the "noise", too (especially yesterday... ). But feeding into the childishness only exacerbates it. It's HOW one chooses to ignore the stupidity and maintain the flow of communication.

I think it would be ridiculous and totally against the spirit of the board to tell someone to sod off just for having the wrong sort of attitudes/viewpoint etc, if they are able to express those views in a reasonably grown-up way. – Saveloy
I agree.
 
 
Jackie Susann
09:33 / 28.06.01
Has there been a big upswelling of reactionary sentiment? I haven't noticed it. But then I love all of you.
 
 
klint
09:33 / 28.06.01
Personally, I think that the majority of the posters in the gender threads are being reactionary and presenting emotive non-logical arguements.

If someone were to post an intelligent arguement in favor of female superiority, scientific racism, or any other view I disagreed with I would write an intelligent post on why I disagreed with them. But what I see most often here is name calling. For this purpose I created a thread to discuss this. But instead I (mostly) insulted.

Answer me this Haus, is the KKK not a subculture? And is part of being "hep" having an open mind and listening to what people have to say? To having an open mind and discussing things intellectually, instead of by attempting to insult people's sexuality?
 
 
deletia
09:33 / 28.06.01
Klint, darling, suggesting that the line you are peddling won't get you laid much is hardly insulting your sexuality.

And, the crux of the matter is, we are still waiting for you to produce an "intelligent arguement (sic)". You have so far trawled out some tiresomely tabloid-letters-column screed about the dangers of feminism, without experiential, scientific or textual support, indeed with no instantiation that one could argue with, beyond simply saying, "your beliefs are unsafe and somewhat childish". If you have an intelligent argument, I for one would be delighted to see it.

At present, however, there is nothing really for anyone to argue against, just an emotional sound effect, and thus to attempt to present a counterproposal in forensic terms would a) be like knitting fog, and b) by the account offered by your current ability to construct arguments, would be equivalent to trying to engage you in a conversation in Ancient Greek.

While you are composing your argument, might I also suggest you read up on the definition of subculture - Richard Hebdige's eponymous "Subculture" might not be a bad place to start -and then favour us with your thoughts on whether the KKK is one?
 
 
klint
09:33 / 28.06.01
quote:Originally posted by The Haunted Haus:


While you are composing your argument, might I also suggest you read up on the definition of subculture - Richard Hebdige's eponymous "Subculture" might not be a bad place to start -and then favour us with your thoughts on whether the KKK is one?

I refuse to dignify your insults with response. But, I will give you a dictionary definition of subculture, which is equivalent to what I learned in sociology

quote:
A cultural subgroup differentiated by status, ethnic background, residence, religion, or other factors that functionally unify the group and act collectively on each member.

Now, I haven't read this Hebdige book yet, but it appears to focus on specific subcultures rather than subcultures in general. I would be willing to entertain a counter definition of subculture if you'd like to propose one.
 
 
ceridwen
09:33 / 28.06.01
Pointing and laughing seems to be the precursor to many a bad feeling in the barbelith. The Eddie Murphy skirmish as a point in case. As one of those who hardly ever gets it, please be kind to us. Anyway, many of you are clever enough to sneak your snickering into wordy sarcstic posts. You needn't respect the ignorance, but you can't write off an other's differing opinion, else it's no longer a discussion. That way lies the us verus them attitude.

The trolls should be ignored, as proding them only makes them post more trash.
 
 
klint
09:33 / 28.06.01
Came accross a website that quotes Hebdige

quote: subcultures "represent a solution . . . to particular problems and contradictions," disrupting and violating the rules of hegemonized culture. As such, they become a source of anxiety (81). He writes: "[S]ubcultures express forbidden contents (consciousness of class, consciousness of difference) in forbidden forms (transgressions of . . . codes, law breaking, etc.). . . . [T]hey are often and significantly defined as unnatural'" (Hebdige 91-92).


OK, so this is out of context. Anyway, the KKK "style" include white robes, racism, etc.

Of course, I still haven't read the book, so I could be way off base here, and I'm sure that Haus will tell me that I am regardless.
 
 
deletia
09:33 / 28.06.01
I think we're straying rather off the point, frankly.

The point is, your belief that feminism is somehow denying women the right to be girly, which is a freedom necessary for their happiness, is not subcultural. It is cultural. Specifically, it belongs to the large section of the culture which reads popular tabloid newspapers and watches mass-appeal television shows.

As such, should its status as the opinion of if not the majority culture, then certainly a sizeable group within the majority culture mean that the Undergorund is a fitting place to treat it as a serious "subcultural" ideology. This comes down to whether you believe that holding the the views of the average taxi driver is subversive or not.

And they are not insults, Klint, they are comments, and comments you might do well to consider, since you appear on another thread to be defending the argument that dresses are cosmetic but nail varnish is political.
 
 
Jackie Susann
09:33 / 28.06.01
quote: At present, however, there is nothing really for anyone to argue against, just an emotional sound effect, and thus to attempt to present a counterproposal in forensic terms would be like knitting fog.

I laughed out loud when I read that... and Klint, I haven't followed whatever arguments got us here but as far as I can tell, the Haus is right to say you're not actually advancing any arguments, could you tell me/us where/if you have so I can figure out what's going on?
 
 
reidcourchie
10:35 / 28.06.01
Some of the comments in this and a couple of the other threads on the board, most noticbly the gender war one, seem to be suggesting to me that unless you conform to some kind of convienantly undefined barbelithian mode of thought you will get slapped down.

There seems to be an implied threat that if you do not conform any ideas you propose will be met not with discussion but with derision and sarcasm.

Does anybody else feel that way?

Is there some kind of cliquey popularity contenst going on that I am unaware of?
 
 
deletia
10:37 / 28.06.01
Yes. That's right.

So how does one conform to an undefined set of criteria? By being....(dramatic chord) bodiless?
 
 
Rialto
10:46 / 28.06.01
quote:Originally posted by reidcourchie:
Some of the comments in this and a couple of the other threads on the board, most noticbly the gender war one, seem to be suggesting to me that unless you conform to some kind of convienantly undefined barbelithian mode of thought you will get slapped down.

There seems to be an implied threat that if you do not conform any ideas you propose will be met not with discussion but with derision and sarcasm.

Does anybody else feel that way?

Is there some kind of cliquey popularity contenst going on that I am unaware of?

I don't agree, perhaps predictably. I'm not sure Haus' tone is helping, but he is the board's resident sarky bastard.

Look at the discussion between Mecca and Jackie on ethical corporations and the like in the Switchboard. They disagree pretty strongly, but they're both putting forward solid ideas.

Contrary to what you say above, several people have repeatedly stated that any ideas put forward intelligently and sensibly will be discussed by them in kind. If you feel your idea was sensible and intelligent and has been derided unfairly, the best response is to explain it again, with more concrete evidence, or a fuller explanation - not to resort in turn to fairly useless name-calling ("PC plods", etc).

If there were some cliquey popularity contest going on that you're not aware of, reid, how would anyone else be aware of it? There isn't a hidden forum here, nor does anyone have any access to forms of communication which you do not (unless the accusations are based on a suspicion of regional bias, which I think it's fairly clear would be nonsense - [YNH] is American, Haus English, Jackie Asutralian etc etc).

If the accepted mode of thought is undefined and the popularity contest hidden, how would anyone know how to conform to it anyway?
 
 
Ierne
11:44 / 28.06.01
There seems to be an implied threat that if you do not conform any ideas you propose will be met not with discussion but with derision and sarcasm.

Does anybody else feel that way?

Is there some kind of cliquey popularity contenst going on that I am unaware of? – reidcourchie


The issue is not about the opinions people post, but the way in which they're posted. There have been many threads where people strongly disagree, but they treat each other with respect and read (not listen – heh! ) each other's posts carefully.
 
 
z3r0
13:20 / 28.06.01
By partly dismantled Zenith: quote: others may think it's just full of teenagers, others that the majority are geeky British fanboys
Yeah, I always thought you all were a bunch of geeky fanboys... you mean you're NOT?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
13:24 / 28.06.01
Well, okay, I am. And a couple of others. But sometimes I'm here in different capacities, you know? Music snob, amateur theory slut, general bigmouth. The point is, this is most of us as individuals and certainly of the board as a whole - Christ, people criticise for NOT being all of the same mind and moving towards a fixed goal half the time...
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
15:52 / 28.06.01
quote:Originally posted by The Haunted Haus:
So how does one conform to an undefined set of criteria? By being....(dramatic chord) bodiless?

Works for me. Look, you're all well aware of my rampant hypocrisy and throbbing pomposity when it comes to what used to be called 'flame wars'... ie, 'the lack of respect in the youth today is sickening', until it's my turn to be churlishly wude, at which point the words 'monkeyfucker' and 'pissjoy' get bandied around a lot. I just jumped down Haus' throat on the '...Gender Wars' thread, perhaps a little unfairly, making what I thought were rude and unwarranted assumptions about another poster. And, all the above embarrassing two-facery aside, I'm not about to back off just because Haus is a mate.

However, this harks back to Jackie's thread about fictionsuits and responsibilities. Anyone on the old board knows that 'Tannhauser' was a byword for sarcastic intellectual wordplay and scintillating one-liners. It's what you expect. When he posts something mellow, people ask him if he's feeling OK. No doubt he'll tear me into four exactly equal pieces for '...Gender Wars'. I'm a big boy now. I can cope with that.
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
16:19 / 28.06.01
Reid's point about cliques is an interesting one. Interesting that whenver this point is raised, it always gets pretty much the same response, namely, 'cliques, oh nooo missus, not round here'. As if the idea is terrible and awesome and hideous.

Which is patently rubbish. Not in some deep scary conspiracy sense, but just in the sense that if you have a group of this size, which is something no-one but tom can be exact about, but i'm assuming is around the 100 mark at least, you are going to get subgroups.

Or are a hundred people in a community going to interact to the same degree with everyone? Of course not, you're going to end up talking more to the poeple who interest you, whose interests overlap with yours (in this context much more so, as conversation is directed along various 'interest' lines much more so than IRL), those you feel you like more, those that live near you and that you meet up with.

There are always going to be groups within groups. eg there's a group of longtime posters, a gang who hang around in the Magic, a bunch in Chicago, a bunch in London etc. etc. people drop in and out of groups/are members of more than one etc.

why the big horror of admitting it?
 
 
Ierne
16:59 / 28.06.01
Most definitely there are cliques here at Barbelith. It only takes one look at threads like the Barbe-Crush and "for those who don't fit in..." to prove that.

However, I don't think the aforementioned "attention-seeking reactionaries" are being "discriminated against" because they aren't part of the in-crowd. They are basically being called on their shit, and from the looks of how today's posts are turning out, they are responding (or NOT responding!) with various levels of petulance, but very little to back up their statements with.
 
 
Jackie Susann
20:40 / 28.06.01
I'm still not sure why being sarcastic when you disagree with someone is supposed to be some horrible, exclusionary thing. Uh, der: different people have different posting styles, if you want to argue with them you're going to have to look at what they're actually saying and not just get caught up in the scintillating surface. And don't whine like a baby because people make fun of you.
 
 
Rage
00:18 / 29.06.01
Wait a minute. Has anyone with actual conservative views ever posted here? I'd assume that the only "conservative" posts here are jokes.

Why would a conservative want to risk going up against the people here? Maybe some of us would risk going up against a group of right wingers, (for humor or whatever our motives are) but I just don't see some bible thumper trying to enlighten, anger, or whatever anyone here.

You're asking me if I think the pigs enjoy flying.
 
  

Page: (1)234

 
  
Add Your Reply