In Which Res Ipsa Abandons the Illusion of Control Over What People Post In a Thread f/k/a Thinking About ...

[Res Ipsa]

MeDotOrg, I really like the quote. I think it captures what I’m feeling,

I see the same problem you do. And I agree that it’s not possible (or even wise) to try and use the coercive power of the state to “end racism.” That’s why I find thinking in terms of harm reduction helpful.

There are things the State can and should do. There is no excuse for disparate impact the criminal justice system has on black folks. But I don’t think that criminalizing hate speech would be effective or wise. Persuasion is the only tool I can think of to be effective. But that requires some sort of common starting point. And some pretty powerful forces have essentially taken away that starting point.

So, I don’t have any answers either, but I think it’s worth trying to think a little out of box to see if we can find one.

Res and MeDot. To be clear, neither of you gentleman believes that the 'coercive power of the state' via The Civil Rights Act of 1964, The Voting Rights Act of 1965, Loving v Virginia, or Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka helped to reduce racism? Title IX didn't help diminish sexism?

Etceteras up the wazoo.

Certainly the 'coercive power of the state' changes hearts and minds all the time.Or are you writing of some fairyland that stipulates the impossible goal of the elimination of racism or sexism?

.


.

Hi Morley, it's the latter. Describing government action as "coercive power of the state" is something I picked up from a Critical Legal Studies professor years ago. It's just a reminder to myself of what state action boils down to. I agree that all of the examples you cite and many more resulted in changing of hearts and minds, although I'm less confident about the extent of that change than I used to be.

[Morley]

Hi Morley, it's the latter. Describing government action as "coercive power of the state" is something I picked up from a Critical Legal Studies professor years ago. It's just a reminder to myself of what state action boils down to. I agree that all of the examples you cite and many more resulted in changing of hearts and minds, although I'm less confident about the extent of that change than I used to be.

Ahh, thanks!

[Lem]

But here's my experience on this thread. I got up, I started to cross the room. One woman responded by tone policing how I was going about trying to persuade another man. Another responded by telling me I couldn't possibly cross the room unless I crossed half the room first, but couldn't do that unless I crossed a quarter of the room first, etc. And the end result is still no discussion about how to get off your feet.

Goddamn those people who interfere. Can't you just have a thread where you get to control what's said?

On another note, welcome to the real world. Although I can sort of relate. I was a little frustrated myself that a poster has dedicated 40+ posts to talking about how awful I am and making inappropriate comments about my 'personal' life (of which he knows nothing), as well as many, many posters saying rude things to and about me, all because I posted a crude sexist slur someone else used against me. All that I could have avoided by just letting the sexist slur slide, right?

After those attacks, it's hard to read about you being frustrated about how others disagreed with your ideas, responded with other opinions, and made comments about the topic you didn't want because they derail your idea. What civilized problems you have. Maybe you can get Shades to create a rule where the OP can delete posts that they don't think go in the direction they want.

I'm in 100% agreement that this is a problem that is men's responsibility to solve. But I can't if my attempt to try something different instead of what hasn't worked for decades is derailed just as I'm getting started. If it's my responsibility, please, let me try. If you want to control the details, take the responsibility.

Ok. Start a thread, set up your rules, and I promise this woman won't express herself. I would only ask that you not have any comments referring to me though, even indirectly. If you need to stifle a woman, at least play sort of fair and don't talk behind her back on a public board. The number of personal attacks you've overlooked on this thread, all the while complaining about the women who are causing your dilemma by expressing opinions you don't want to see, is pretty disturbing.

[Res Ipsa]

Lem says what she says and does what she does. I have zero interest in arguing about whether a label that Honor slapped on her conduct applies. I’ve been in hundreds of those types of conversations, and I’ve never found them to be productive. More often than not, they’ve been counter productive. And given the history of completely dysfunctional communication between Lem and me, I’d be crazy to get anywhere near a discussion of that nature.


So, my answer is that I object to relevance of Honor’s claim. I’m not going to comment on the substance claim because I’m not going address an issue that I feel is unproductive. Lem is a fully functioning adult. She is responsible for her conduct. If I choose to respond to her conduct, I am responsible for how I respond. Slapping a label on Lem’s conduct has no relevance to how I choose to respond.

I don't see that honor slapped a label on Lem's conduct. I saw a poster making an assertion about her conduct. She acts like an asshole. Further, I saw a poster attempt to address her asshole to asshole, probably in an attempt to validate his claim for which he has supplied no evidence in kind of a hey hey, we're both assholes, amirite? way.

Not only that, honor blows in and asserts that she acts like an asshole, after a grueling discussion/debate that has been nearly 2 weeks in the making because he's reviewed these threads without ever making mention of (much less putting it on the table here) the thread of origin which was Terrestrial or how that nearly 2 week discussion evolved (What was she responding to when he thought she acted like an asshole?) and basically claims she got what she deserved because she acts like an asshole. Why didn't he just come out and call her a bitch? Too sexist?

by the way, here is how Lem (the one who acts like an asshole) resolved the initial conflict with the male poster who slung a sexist slur her way as a rhetorical device.

Apr 17th (the day following Lem's objection)

So. Analytics apologizes for and explains his motivations for making the sexist remark. Lem (still acting like an asshole ) offers that she could have handled it in a different way.

So.

So what exactly is honor's motivation for making his assertion on the heels of nearly 2 weeks worth of discussion that included posters:

Who were on top of the situation from the get go.
Posters who showed up late and didn't bother to examine the history.
Posters who showed up and apparently just wanted to blathered about what they didn't know or care about.
At least one poster who requested a list of phrases not to use.
Same poster refusing to engage while crying victim.

What function did the assertion serve, who profited from that and also his analysis of Lem as asshole poor deeply troubled creature that she is when the matter was already put to rest civilly, no assholishness perpetrated on the community at large, with everyone tucked safely away in their non-blood stained beds?

Shrugging again. Trying to figure out when truth becomes relevant.

Shout out to Molok: Hey! I'm still being an asshole!

You can't make this Crap up. You seriously cannot.

Zeno's paradox.

I know it's not your intent, but the questions you are asking are perfect examples of how a discussion centered on fixing the problem gets derailed. Your questions focus on discussing the discussion, which leads to a discussion about discussing the discussion and so on. The problem is I'm standing on your foot. I want to fix that, but I can't because you want to discuss the details of the discussion.

Your question about truth has no context. The truth is I'm standing on your foot. The truth is that I want to stop and I want to persuade my fellow men to stop.

You're free to discuss whatever you want. I relinquished any control over this thread yesterday. Have at it.

[Res Ipsa]

Hi Morley, it's the latter. Describing government action as "coercive power of the state" is something I picked up from a Critical Legal Studies professor years ago. It's just a reminder to myself of what state action boils down to. I agree that all of the examples you cite and many more resulted in changing of hearts and minds, although I'm less confident about the extent of that change than I used to be.

Ahh, thanks!

You're welcome. It was very polite of you not to ask me if I'd lost my mind.

[Morley]

Ahh, thanks!

You're welcome. It was very polite of you not to ask me if I'd lost my mind.

Ha! I’ve been following this thread. That you’ve lost your mind isn’t in dispute.
.

[honorentheos]

I'm also curious where you see yourself being refered to as behaving like an asshole.

I named the poster who made the remark. Now. You got a search feature and...I have to go.

I didn't say that about you.

[Res Ipsa]

You're welcome. It was very polite of you not to ask me if I'd lost my mind.

Ha! I’ve been following this thread. That you’ve lost your mind isn’t in dispute.
.

Very true.

[Jersey Girl]

Goddamn those people who interfere. Can't you just have a thread where you get to control what's said?

Back in the day we had a rule that the thread started could control the topic. Apparently the practice was abandoned. You know like board moderation.

[Jersey Girl]

I named the poster who made the remark. Now. You got a search feature and...I have to go.

I didn't say that about you.

Nowhere did I claim that you said that about me.