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 >

What exactly does get you banned on Barbelith?

  
  

Page: 1 ... 3536373839(40)4142

 
 
DRR... DRR... DRR...
(prev. Mordant)
19:06 / 01.05.07
I have to say that this group included a lot of fantasists, inexperienced players, or outright abusive tops.

Well IME all of BDSM has those people in it. The no safe word crowd has just as many issues as the safe word crowd but it isn't automatically worse.

I'd like to be very clear precicely who I'm talking about above, because I think we may be arguing at cross-purposes here.

I'm not talking about people who have carefully considered the mechanics of their interactions and the place of safewords therein, and who have elected for whatever reason to utilise other methods of ensuring the well-being of all involved. I'm talking about the people I encounter who simply reject the whole idea out of hand and will listen to no arguments. Generally speaking these are indivduals I've run into outwith any kind of fetish/BDSM "scene," which may have skewed my sample towards the clueless and the abusive.
 
 
Jenna Elfman's Hollywood Haus
(prev. West Baltimore Hausing Project)
19:08 / 01.05.07
Haus it maybe possible that you have no idea how condescending this reads to me.

Well, I'm sorry it read that way to you, and I apologise unreservedly for any impatience in my overall emotional approach that led me to choose words which had that effect on you. However, this being the appropriate area to discuss this, I am quite clear in my mind that you would have to be possessed of a near-religious dedication to the repeated offering of, if you'll forgive me, extra cracks of the whip to think at this stage in the game that DEDI is unintentionally causing offence. DEDI's entire schtick is to cause offence, in order to get attention, often by adopting a tone of lordly contempt for his less initiated peers or taking a stand against political correctfishcakes. The model is pretty much what we saw with Epop. As such, while it is perfectly within one's rights to believe that any offence being caused is unintentional, one's chances of being right are, let us just say, not exactly visible from space.

What many people seem to be overlooking is how many people are reading the BDSM thread and are feeling scared shitless of posting because of how DEDI is being treated not because of what he is saying in thread but some off screen history.

I would like to make it clear that I at no point overlooked this, and I agree that people should feel able to share their thoughts, although this being the Head Shop those thoughts should be ontopic and of some worth. However, so far I have yet to establish whether it is the case that this is happening. The only person who has so far stated that they were made reluctant to post to the thread is id entity, who was made reluctant by DEDI, apparently, rather than by DEDI's treatment.

However, I am not sure why we are talking about this in this thread. Unless we change why we ban people, this is not bannable behaviour. If we want to change why we ban people, we should discuss this here. If we want to discuss special protections for threads in which people are likely to feel self-conscious about posting, then I think that is an interesting discussion, but one which deserves its own thread. If anyone really wants to try to ban DEDI based on our current rules of engagement, there's a pre-existing thread to ressurect, but it is unlikely to generate much traction, because DEDI's behaviour is probably not bannable.
 
 
DRR... DRR... DRR...
(prev. Mordant)
19:12 / 01.05.07
Well I think it is worth having a discussion on how we handle people making biased statments about various sexualities and the expression thereof. Not saying we have to put that show on right here in the barn of course.
 
 
Jenna Elfman's Hollywood Haus
(prev. West Baltimore Hausing Project)
19:25 / 01.05.07
Well, then we get onto the problem of protecting people's rights to share what they feel are relevant experiences or feelings in a therapeutic or simply an informative fashion when those rights rub up against other people's rights not to feel that their own life experience or self-construction is being dissed. See morpheus, earlier, who used his (real or, more probably, imagined) experience as a basis from which to make pronouncements about broader activities and communities. The status of Barbelith as a kind of live therapy session in the eyes of some of its members is also a factor here. Worth a new thread, though.
 
 
XK
19:54 / 01.05.07
Ok I had a bit of a think and I want to see if I can express this well here in the meta-thread'o'policy.

My problem (and it is clearly mine) is when a poster is taken issue with often times it is unclear if what is being critiqued is the concept they are stating or how they are stating it. Or in a few cases who is stating it.

In this particular case of DEDI's use of Domina I agree with TTS that DEDI's presentation is problematic and needs examination. However I personally have room for the concept DEDI is describing in my experience of the topic. I also understand that in the case of this particular topic the way in which it is being presented is often the way it is packaged. I'm not saying that makes it acceptable rather I'm saying it's common enough not to be automatically motivated by the desire to give offense. It very well maybe an unchallenged assumption on the poster's part because it is often a part of the construct they are discussing.

As you know I am strongly opposed to personal attacks on people posting especially when the comments are not sourced from direct quotes. To lower someone's standing by dismissing them via their off screen life is unfair and assumes too much. In all the cases I can think of someone's posted statements are more than enough rope to hang them with rather than needing to infer or insinuated anything based on them.

We would not tolerate a beloved poster being abused in such a manner and in fact it maybe grounds for considering a ban. Why should the standard of treatment be any different for a poster we have communication problems with? How do personal insults or slights further the intellectual review and exchange over topics? Shouldn't potent counter arguments stand on their own without seeking to cast aspersions on the other party?

I'm talking about the people I encounter who simply reject the whole idea out of hand and will listen to no arguments. Generally speaking these are indivduals I've run into outwith any kind of fetish/BDSM "scene," which may have skewed my sample towards the clueless and the abusive.

To me:
I'm talking about the people I encounter who simply reject the whole idea out of hand and will listen to no arguments.

Is a separate issue from that of safewords. It is a style of non engagement that crops up over the whole field. The difficulty to some extent lies in the construct of what a Dominant is and we can see this is the larger cultural construct of Authority. It is assumed that questioning certain Authorities automatically is to challenge them rather than to enter into dialogue with them. This attitiude being as prevelant as it is IME prompts me to give the benefit of the doubt to DEDI that he is not intentionally giving offense but rather speaking from his experience. AS TTS notes, this perspective is verifiably in the subculture.
 
 
DRR... DRR... DRR...
(prev. Mordant)
20:10 / 01.05.07
Weellll... "safewords are not necessary/meaningful to me" is a position that is verifiably in the subculture. "Safewords = topping from the bottom and are not used by 'natural dominas'" might also be in the subculture, but I'm not sure it necessarily should be, anymore than "I can reinforce my own ego by denigrating someone else's reasonable practices" or "I can use the threat of abandonment to harrass or blackmail my partner/s into doing things they might otherwise refuse" ought to be part of the subculture.
 
 
Rex Feral
20:28 / 01.05.07
We would not tolerate a beloved poster being abused in such a manner and in fact it maybe grounds for considering a ban. Why should the standard of treatment be any different for a poster we have communication problems with? How do personal insults or slights further the intellectual review and exchange over topics?

XK, to be honest, I find the idea that one cannot express anger, annoyance or any range of aggressive options with posters that you do not like, posters who are talking offensive rubbish, well, "oppressive" in itself. It holds me to a standard and type of behavior that I do not wish to commit to, and limits my expression of some responses which I think are perfectly valid.

I put the scare quotes there for a reason - I don't really think being asked to be pleasant, or to put effort into communicating with difficult posters, is in itself "oppressive", but to a degree, it is wanting to editorialise about others behaviour, responses which may feel perfectly valid and justified to them. Everyone draws this line differently, I guess.

Note I'm not talking about Dedi personally here, as I know nothing about the topic under discussion. Also, note that I used to feel a lot more like you, but repeated encounters with what the internet can throw up have hardened my heart, pretty much. I don't think you can't overcome every communication difference, certainly not in this medium, and sometimes it's equally profitable to give up, take the piss, or get a bit combative. Props to you for trying but I don't think the rest of the board should have to live up to this standard.
 
 
Quantum - terribly nonplussed
(prev. Quantum of Solace)
20:45 / 01.05.07
I agree that ideally we should engage only with in-thread posts so it's clear what the problem is, but often people pop up all over the board in different threads displaying the same behaviour. There is something to be said for seeing the board as a whole, and addressing a poster on their overall contribution even if it draws on other posts elsewhere.

My reading of posts is certainly coloured by prior experience of the poster, for good or ill. I don't think everyone should have a clean slate for each thread. I am more of a mind to protect SBR threads preferentially to others, but that's a whole other thread as we know.
 
 
Quantum - terribly nonplussed
(prev. Quantum of Solace)
20:48 / 01.05.07
As an example, I'm thinking if somebody displays low-level-not-quite-bannable behaviour everywhere, the straw-that-broke-the-camel's-back post ticking them off or displaying anger is going to look like an overreaction. Unless we can get a 'See all user's posts' button I think that's always going to be the case.
 
 
DRR... DRR... DRR...
(prev. Mordant)
21:14 / 01.05.07
Kind of what Apophenia said, really. I am not minded to prioritise the delicate sensibilites of someone who's effectively attacking me and my practices and expressing potentially very dangerous ideas over making a firm and clear stand.

I'm also very unhappy with what I see as an attempt to spin Dedi's post as neutral when in fact it does actually express a message that can very easily slip from being rude into being actually oppressive. Cut'n'pasting from one of my posts in the BDSM thread:

I'm not just uncomfortable with the "natural domina" thing because Dedi said it. I have experience--long, broad and painful experience--of being told "you are not a proper X because you do/don't do Y." You're not a proper perv because you switch. You're not a real Domme because you won't let me kiss your boots in the middle of this non-fetish nightclub. You're not a true sub because you wouldn't let me take your top off in the middle of a crowded tube train. Sometimes this kind of thing is too laughable to be a real problem, but I have actually suffered real emotional harm in the past as my sense of self came under a sustained attack following a similar model.

I've had these experiences myself. I know other people who've had these experiences and suffered by them. It is not a neutral position to suggest that safewords are always entirely incompatible with meaningful, real, "natural" BDSM experiences. It can be at best an ill-mannered dismissal of other's practices and at worst it can be at the foundation of an abusive interaction.

I fear we may be at risk of forgetting that a lot of BDSM sex does not occur in the context of a scene or a community. Indeed, the abusive top is very likely to go to some pains to isolate hir victim from any sources of information that might challenge the structures that enable the abuse. If "safewords are topping from the bottom" is not challenged and challenged strongly, we risk giving aid and succour to such abusers.

Sure, maybe the more generous interpretation is the correct one. Maybe what Dedi really meant was "I have nothing against others using safewords, but safewords would be topping from the bottom if I included them in my particular brand of scene." But until he's prepared to come back and clarify that for us we're going to have to work on what he actually said, which was: "Safewords" are absolutely topping from the bottom. A natural domina will, for her own pleasure, take you to a new level almost every time. There's no point, if every time a slave is threatened or feels close to breaking, he yells "Mercy, Mistress."

Now, we don't need to bring any history into the mix for that to be a whole can of problematic worms. However if we look up on the same page of the same thread, we also see:

Bloodly hell. I'll share this. You're a male, athletic, muscular. You are totally in control of yourself. Yet, you totally submit to Goddess. You almost understand Babalon. You'll never understand Kali. You play in a variety of clubs. You form few realationships. A few are honest. Not many. In these you fail because you can't give up total control. You come close enough. You become a top for a while (but always with an adult girl-child, never a woman). You separate magic from your sex life. It goes well enough....

It's not the pain. That's a distraction, almost.... And an annoyance for the Domina.

This is an extremely problematic post and it invites a less generous spin on the later "safewords are topping from the bottom" post. I really and truly don't think anyone in that thread has been out of line. Personally I feel somewhat attacked by what was written, as a perv, as a Domme, and as a survivour of abuse within a BDSM relationship. I don't feel that I acted inappropriately by registering my strong emotional response. Had I made the kinds of generalisations that Dedi has made against any other group then damn skippy I'd expect to be pulled up on it, and pulled up hard.
 
 
XK
21:46 / 01.05.07
XK, to be honest, I find the idea that one cannot express anger, annoyance or any range of aggressive options with posters that you do not like, posters who are talking offensive rubbish, well, "oppressive" in itself. It holds me to a standard and type of behavior that I do not wish to commit to, and limits my expression of some responses which I think are perfectly valid.

Apophenia, I understand what you are saying and don't wish to oppress your people. Seriously.

However many people are trying to dismantle structures of abuse and hatred being expressed by others. If a person wishes to defend the right of some people not to be abused or hated it is my opinion they ought to pay attention to what they are dishing out into the world. It would, IMO, be hypocritical of me to defend critiques of some people's actions while upholding their intrinsic right to basic human respect if I didn't make an attempt to behave that way. That's where I personally draw the line, a person's actions and statements maybe critiqued and condemned but attempts to remove the protection of basic respect is dangerous. Once a person is dismissed as having no value, their voice unworthy of being heard, then one is in danger of representing abuse and hatred. That is not to say that their actions and statements are above being attacked, critiqued, and even condemned but to assault their very personhood IMO is to add to the store of shit in an already filled sewer.

one cannot express anger, annoyance or any range of aggressive options with posters

I reserve this for posters' statements, actions, and currently espoused perceptions not them as individuals. From my POV there are many statements and actions that should be vehemently condemned in the strongest language possible and should rouse stern reaction. However this should never be a closed door of absolutes and by dividing the poster as a being capable of change from their unacceptable post it would be my hope they would review why I condemned their view and consider my arguments.


I don't think you can't overcome every communication difference, certainly not in this medium, and sometimes it's equally profitable to give up, take the piss, or get a bit combative. Props to you for trying but I don't think the rest of the board should have to live up to this standard.

I'm not mod and I don't intend to be one so my opinion as to how people should interact is just that. I do feel when someone attacks another person it is my right to express my discomfort with it especially when it makes me feel it maybe disruptive to the discussion. Of course anyone is free to put me on ignore at any time.

I personally find the combative piss taking to be cringe-worthy and often promoting another form of abuse and hatred. Watching people be belittled is always going to be painful to those of us who have suffered it. IMO condemning someone's posts until a ban can happen is far more productive and less harmful to other members of the community than vicious insults being careless slung about without thought of how those words make other people feel.

It may sound like rubbish and I understand the eye rolling reaction but I consider words to be as powerful in harming other people as blows. One may have only disdain and contempt for another but this is a public venue and many of us would rather not be exposed to such ugliness when possible.

"Nonviolence means avoiding not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. You not only refuse to shoot a man, but you refuse to hate him. "-MLK

Okay I'll get off my soapbox and retire from the field for a bit. I get vexed when I'm forced to reveal my hidden lurv agenda.
 
 
XK
22:06 / 01.05.07
Personally I feel somewhat attacked by what was written, as a perv, as a Domme, and as a survivour of abuse within a BDSM relationship. I don't feel that I acted inappropriately by registering my strong emotional response. Had I made the kinds of generalisations that Dedi has made against any other group then damn skippy I'd expect to be pulled up on it, and pulled up hard.

To be clear I don't recall pulling you up but rather asking for clarification. Disco's post was the one I found to be a personal attck on DEDI.

"Safewords" are absolutely topping from the bottom. A natural domina will, for her own pleasure, take you to a new level almost every time. There's no point, if every time a slave is threatened or feels close to breaking, he yells "Mercy, Mistress.

Okay the language in here is complex and I'll see if I can unpack my reaction. To begin with yes DEDI is posting in a manner that should be called out and I think you are doing that appropriately.

However:
DEDI, have you been reading too many smutty novels? Your idealised world looks like it needs a severe reality check. No wonder you're having trouble getting laid; any dominant or top worth her salt would run a mile from that idealistic bollocks.


How do any of us know what DEDI's experience is? How is this not a personal attack? It makes me uncomfortable specifically because aspects of what DEDI is saying

A natural domina will, for her own pleasure, take you to a new level almost every time. There's no point, if every time a slave is threatened or feels close to breaking, he yells "Mercy, Mistress."

resonate with my experience and other people's experience. He should be called to task for the inappropriate construct of 'natural' and his use of generalizations but if I say:

In a D/s relationship having someone tap out with a safeword everytime a limit is tested rather than trust the D to carry them through it there is something very wrong with the trust dynamic.

Obviously that's not exactly what DEDI is saying and I'm not defending DEDI for using problematic word choces inappropriate to this community. What I am saying is that conflating one poster's viewpoint with an entire group of players is unfair. I'm also saying commenting on posters' sex lives in a sexuality thread in a derogatory manner makes me uncomfortable.

So to be extra giant crystal sparkly clear I think TTS posts demanding the review of DEDI's post aorund 'natural' and his dismissal of other ways of interacting are valid (and please point out my posts out where this is counterindicated).

What I want is to strip DEDI's perspectives out for examination along side of the subculture's entrenched reaction to Authority in a manner that allows us to constructively discuss both. While I maybe wrong I think DEDI has in the past learned from exchanges with TTS and the rest of the community.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
22:47 / 01.05.07
Actually, I was nearly scared off posting in the BDSM thread by the fact that what he was saying was being received by you with seriousness, and that you were admonishing the other people in the thread for their honest reactions. It was upsetting for me to deal with the fact that my reactions to his arrogance wouldn't be tolerated as much as his arrogance was being tolerated.

But surely XK was only expressing her individual opinion? It's not as if there's some sort of bullish cabal backing her up. If anything, the opposite's true.

Really, it's not as if you're reluctant to lay into a view you disapprove of, yourself. Nor should you be, either.

But in terms of your interaction with Barbelith, it's a bit late to play the frightened bunny, I'd have thought.
 
 
Quantum - terribly nonplussed
(prev. Quantum of Solace)
23:09 / 01.05.07
Sorry, "Frightened Bunny"? Care to take that suitcase and unzip it, take the stuff out, give it a bit of an airing, etc? It sounds a bit like you're accusing id of playing a role for rhetorical effect- I didn't read it that way. I, too, would be more deterred by* DEDI's bullish posting style on a sensitive subject, than the challenges to it. Which are unlikely to get a response if* past performance is anything to go by.

Of course anyone is free to put me on ignore at any time. XK

Good point- anyone could ignore DEDI if they so chose. The downside to that is that you can't challenge* unacceptable posting, it's the internet equivalent of stuffing your fingers in your ears and singing LALALALALA. I would personally push the button for DEDI if I didn't feel my responsibility to the community as a mod requires me to keep my eyes open. Especially with Haus in HS hermitage. I've kept out of the BDSM thread because I know nothing about the scene, leaving the Stranger Talker to challenge, but on another subject I would very likely be fulfilling hir role.

*what I perceive as
 
 
XK
23:16 / 01.05.07
I'm not sure how I missed these posts upthread...

When I first read his post I got really angry. Then I went back through the thread and realized I was confusing DEDI with Morpheus. I certainly think DEDI has said some problematic and wrong things about BDSM. There are other things that have led us to discuss banning of this suit before. Practicing BDSM differently from me while being arrogant about it isn't really on the same level as those things, I think. I do also think that TTS and Disco were justified in their responses, which rather matched his or escalated slightly.

I will say that seeing DEDI discussing BDSM made me not want to post in that thread, but I did anyway.



Actually, I was nearly scared off posting in the BDSM thread by the fact that what he was saying was being received by you with seriousness, and that you were admonishing the other people in the thread for their honest reactions. It was upsetting for me to deal with the fact that my reactions to his arrogance wouldn't be tolerated as much as his arrogance was being tolerated. Just a different perspective.

I'm going to go sit with this for a while and get back to you. I just wanted to let you know I heard ya.
 
 
*
23:20 / 01.05.07
Aw, thanks, AG, for seeing into my mind and heart and understanding that the frightened bunny act is just a ploy to win me sympathy. When actually I just LIVE for the risk of being called a force for oppression by posters I respect*. It's so good to feel that you've seen the work it's taken me to get to this point, and dismissed it all as a manipulative device.

It's been brought up before that it sometimes seems that certain posters get rewarded for expressing honest anger, and certain posters get torn down for it. Certain people are more willing to hear others express their feelings (which may include anger as anger is a natural feeling) and others would rather that everyone put on a nice face all the time. I've gone through various phases of putting on a nice face for the board and being sick of it, and I'm a more genuinely pleasant person, I find, when I am nice when I feel like it and angry when I feel like it, as opposed to feeling pressure to be nice to people who are not treating others with respect and then later blowing up at some small thing. I do not appreciate how frequently you have picked at me when I express anger or displeasure; it makes me view potential interactions with you less favorably and makes me more inclined to be snappish with you.

*Don't worry. Familiarity with hearing this sort of thing from you has somewhat dulled its impact; you yourself are not likely to frighten me off of anything.
 
 
*
23:21 / 01.05.07
crossposted with Quants and XK. Thanks, XK, for hearing me and thinking about it.
 
 
DRR... DRR... DRR...
(prev. Mordant)
23:22 / 01.05.07
Had I made the kinds of generalisations that Dedi has made against any other group then damn skippy I'd expect to be pulled up on it, and pulled up hard.

To be clear I don't recall pulling you up but rather asking for clarification. Disco's post was the one I found to be a personal attck on DEDI.

XK, I find myself having to ask at this point if you've read what I wrote. I never suggested you'd pulled me up. I wrote: Had I made the kinds of generalisations that Dedi has made against any other group then damn skippy I'd expect to be pulled up on it, and pulled up hard, ie that if I had made the same kinds of generalisations that Dedi has made, then it would be reasonalbe for me to be pulled in the same way that Dedi has been pulled up.

I'm not sure how you got your interpretation from that post. Right now I feel like I've had to continually repeat and elucidate and explain, explain, explain my position, in a way you haven't asked Dedi to do. Right now, if you were anyone else, I would be asking myself if you weren't deliberately misreading my posts. That is how hard I'm finding it to communicate with you right now.
 
 
DRR... DRR... DRR...
(prev. Mordant)
00:04 / 02.05.07
Perhaps the piss-taking which seems so horrendous and shameful might make more sense in the light of this thread. Can we at least acknowledge that this is a poster who has in the past sent abusive PMs, posted lyrics from a comic song about gang-rape to a thread on feminism, referred to various people's mothers as whores and so on? Is calling someone a "little shit" not an attack on thir personhood?

Oh yeah and I put up with all that. I actually sucked it all up and laid aside any thought of asking for a ban because Dedi undertook to conduct himself more reasonably in future. Since then, he's popped up every couple of months, contributing virtually nothing of worth and much that is ignorant and infuriating. Random noise. Crass generalisations. Deliberate obfuscation.

How sick do I feel about that now? I feel ashamed. Ashamed. I feel ashamed because I let this man shit all over me and all over people I love, and all over a community I care about. I let him do it and I've now got to accept partial responsibility for putting the board in a position where he can keep pulling this just-under-the-radar stuff indefinately.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
00:14 / 02.05.07
Aw, thanks, AG, for seeing into my mind and heart and understanding that the frightened bunny act is just a ploy to win me sympathy. When actually I just LIVE for the risk of being called a force for oppression by posters I respect*. It's so good to feel that you've seen the work it's taken me to get to this point, and dismissed it all as a manipulative device.

I wonder if this, while troubling, has got anything to do with what I originally said, though.
 
 
*
00:27 / 02.05.07
It has to do with you saying this:
But in terms of your interaction with Barbelith, it's a bit late to play the frightened bunny, I'd have thought.
Which by virtue of being outright insulting pretty much blinded me to the rest of your post, I admit. I'll try to have a go at responding to the rest when I've cooled down a little. At the moment I've no idea if you've got a valid point or not, I'm just seething mad.
 
 
XK
00:52 / 02.05.07
I'm not sure how you got your interpretation from that post. Right now I feel like I've had to continually repeat and elucidate and explain, explain, explain my position, in a way you haven't asked Dedi to do. Right now, if you were anyone else, I would be asking myself if you weren't deliberately misreading my posts. That is how hard I'm finding it to communicate with you right now.

Er, sorry but I thought that's because I agree with you about the use of 'natural' and the generalizations as shitty? I've been at pains to explain that I'm not trying to justify DEDI's posts or protect him but pull out a few things people have said in reaction to him that made me uncomfortable. It bothers me that other people have made comments that he is making up his viewspoints because they sound ridiculous when I in fact hear the same things all the time from people off board.

IMO, DEDI's posts were inappropriate, as was mocking/ belittling his sexual offscreen life or saying it is all fantasy designed to be offensive. It might be backwards thinking deserving of condemnation but I've hear it too many times to automatically think it's bullshit and not based on personal experience.

I've been agreeing with you for most of the day on what you're objecting to in his posts. It seems I'm just disagreeing with many people I respect about how to express anger on the board. I'm also, it appears, disagreeing about how to engage with a problem poster.

I think my confusion stems from my desire to address DEDI's inappropriate comments as they resonate with my experience of the BDSM community. IRL when I encounter this perspective the solution is to explain to the person the limiting impact such as you list above as being devalued for not being an exact fit for a perceived type. It's hurtful to me to have the construct of the Archtype of Authority someone holds up automatically dismissed because I know many people that need assistence to see beyond it. It might sound cheesy and stupid but as you yourself said, people really do operate this way.

However it appears that in my attempt to hold space to listen to that voice I shut out others, which was not my intent. I find I support anger with viewpoints and statements but rebel against the idea of it ever being okay to belittle or mock a person.

I seem to be out of step with the rest of the board's level of patience with specific posters. It was not my intent to appear to support a voice that was harming others as much as I was seeking to curtail what was appearing unjust to me. Yet as I've said people I respect disagree and so the proper thing to do is to listen to what they've told me and consider it before continuing.

I hear you, TTS and id, and will spend sometime thinking about WTF it is we're seeing differently.
 
 
*
01:19 / 02.05.07
XK, there's nothing wrong with your opinion, or the way you seek to engage with others. It's admirable, and one of the reasons I respect you so highly. It's just that not everyone can do that. This diversity of approach is not necessarily injustice.

If everyone could express their anger on the boards in clear and neutral ways, such as the NVC formula "When you X I feel Y this causes Z I would like A," it would be ideal. Except it's been demonstrated in the past that this does not work unless there is an equal commitment to this kind of communication from all parties. I think many of us have seen what is to us sufficient evidence that there is no such commitment with DEDI, and more forceful communication of one kind or another is what works. I support you in communicating with DEDI as you want, of course, and I spoke wrongly when I implied otherwise in an earlier post. Just that it did seem to me that you were taking TTS and Disco to task for a response that was, pretty much, also my initial impulse--although that impulse was, as I've already admitted, partially shaped by confusing DEDI with Morpheus. That made me feel like the thread was not going to be safe to engage with--a feeling that is never quite going to lose its impact for me, particularly in an area where I feel very vulnerable (i.e. BDSM). I felt, rightly or wrongly, protected by TTS and Disco's response to what seemed to me like an attack and a challenge, one I didn't want to engage with defenses down, the way I have tried to interact in that thread.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
01:31 / 02.05.07
At the moment I've no idea if you've got a valid point or not, I'm just seething mad.

Tt,

Perhaps you're sanctimonious antics will lead nowhere
 
 
Jenna Elfman's Hollywood Haus
(prev. West Baltimore Hausing Project)
01:39 / 02.05.07
Time for bed, grandma. Really.
 
 
DRR... DRR... DRR...
(prev. Mordant)
01:51 / 02.05.07
Yeah, Granny, don't make me ring for Nurse and a really big syringe.
 
 
*
01:59 / 02.05.07
Oh, I see. Well that's cleared things up then; I thought for a minute I might be overreacting.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
03:04 / 02.05.07
God forbid.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
09:44 / 02.05.07
Erm ... Apologies for last night's contributions, both here and in the Head Shop. It's a poor thing, I appreciate, to roll back from the pub and then hold forth on subjects that one basically knows nothing at all about, simply because there's nothing much on telly.

Again, sorry. I shower myself in ashes, I ... I keel myself.
 
 
Quantum - terribly nonplussed
(prev. Quantum of Solace)
13:14 / 02.05.07
We need a Gin-detector built into your keyboard, gran. Or maybe we could just pay that swarthy male nurse you are so fond of to cosh you unconscious when you get lairy.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
14:05 / 02.05.07
The syringe method, as posited above, seems preferable, but I do take your point.
 
 
grant
15:45 / 02.05.07
We need a Gin-detector

The apostrophe was a giveaway.

Are we still confident that this discussion isn't actually about banning anyone? Is there another thread where this discussion can take place?
 
 
Alex's Grandma
17:02 / 02.05.07
I think you should be banned, grant, tbh.

When I first signed up to this board, I thought that you were Morrison, and I dare say I'm not the only one, either.

It tore my heart to pieces when I found out that you weren't really him.
 
 
grant
17:24 / 02.05.07
I've mentioned it to my mother before, but she refuses to apologize, the old tramp.
 
 
Glenn Close But No Cigar
17:27 / 02.05.07
Perhaps it might be worth adding a 'don't surf drunk' suggestion to the FAQ? Or agree on way to make it clear that drunken posts are just that? Given that we cannot - thank Morrison! - smell each other's beery breath via the internet, perhaps the letters PSH (Posting Shit-Faced) or a version thereof could top 'n' tail an inebriated post?
 
  

Page: 1 ... 3536373839(40)4142

 
  
Add Your Reply