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

[Jersey Girl]

But if the way to handle issues is long form debate, why isn’t the assumption that going to war with other peeps on a message board is a productive tactic something that can be discussed?

It's something that can and should be discussed. As for debate, how do you expect that to happen when a poster makes an assertion as if it were universal truth and others sit on their hands and accept it as gospel (cue up the apologists here) without asking for evidence or proof for that assertion? How does that forward the discussion or debate?

When I asked honor to show me exactly what prompted him to say or think that the conversation would go better if Lem didn't act like an asshole to people. He basically pointed "over there" and when, having looked "over there", I asked him to link and quote a glaring example, he essentially went silent. We could have used that as a jumping off place. A point of understanding.

But no. When you sit on your hands and allow an assertion fly by unaddressed, and you continue to engage that person, that's a tacit agreement that either the assertion is true--Lem acts like an asshole to people--or you are blissfully asleep at the wheel and be willing to be led by the nose. And then, you know, we are treated to an armchair analysis of Lem's deep trauma (or whatever the hell he said) and what could have been an interesting discussion or debate, an examination of behavior be it Lem's or anyone else's here, grows wings and flies off into the universe and the result is that people shrug their shoulders opining on how long form discussion or debate never solves anything when a debate or discussion really never took place.

Well hell. It doesn't solve anything and will never solve anything when we skip over several needed steps to define terms or submit proof before an examination can even begin because it turns into the sloppy mess that we are all looking at here.

What the hell, I swear.

[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 Ipsa]

But if the way to handle issues is long form debate, why isn’t the assumption that going to war with other peeps on a message board is a productive tactic something that can be discussed?

It's something that can and should be discussed. As for debate, how do you expect that to happen when a poster makes an assertion as if it were universal truth and others sit on their hands and accept it as gospel (cue up the apologists here) without asking for evidence or proof for that assertion? How does that forward the discussion or debate?

When I asked honor to show me exactly what prompted him to say or think that the conversation would go better if Lem didn't act like an asshole to people. He basically pointed "over there" and when, having looked "over there", I asked him to link and quote a glaring example, he essentially went silent. We could have used that as a jumping off place. A point of understanding.

But no. When you sit on your hands and allow an assertion fly by unaddressed, and you continue to engage that person, that's a tacit agreement that either the assertion is true--Lem acts like an asshole to people--or you are blissfully asleep at the wheel and be willing to be led by the nose. And then, you know, we are treated to an armchair analysis of Lem's deep trauma (or whatever the hell he said) and what could have been an interesting discussion or debate, an examination of behavior be it Lem's or anyone else's here, grows wings and flies off into the universe and the result is that people shrug their shoulders opining on how long form discussion or debate never solves anything when a debate or discussion really never took place.

Well hell. It doesn't solve anything and will never solve anything when we skip over several needed steps to define terms or submit proof before an examination can even begin because it turns into the sloppy mess that we are all looking at here.

What the hell, I swear.

I can understand your frustration, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to infer anything from the fact that I don’t address an issue when I engage with someone. If you want to know what I think, why assume when it’s easy to ask?

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 responded to Honor as I did because I wanted to communicate I objected to his enabling comment because it implied that I, along with everyone else, was responsible for Lem’s conduct. And I reject the notion that I am responsible for how Lem chooses to express herself. Or any other poster.

I may choose to try and persuade someone to change their behavior or thinking, but they get to decide whether to act on what I have to say.

The same idea applies to your assertion about “tacit agreement.” That’s an assumption you are making that is your responsibility, not mine.

I think most CFR requests like yours are reasonable. And if the person making the claim doesn’t produce the receipts, I think it’s fair to call BS on the claim. I get pretty frustrated when folks ignore requests like yours that can focus the discussion.

And I generally agree with your description of laying some groundwork for a discussion to make sure we’re starting from some common ground. I don’t know how helpful it would have been in this context. ***shrugs***

[Jersey Girl]

And I generally agree with your description of laying some groundwork for a discussion to make sure we’re starting from some common ground. I don’t know how helpful it would have been in this context. ***shrugs***

Do you think it's possible that you don't know how helpful it would have been to lay groundwork (definition and terms) for this discussion when you yourself wouldn't entertain it? I tried, RI.

You started a new topic thread to discuss: Thinking about feminism.

Then changed the title of the thread to discuss: Thinking about how to stop sexist speech and behavior

Sexist speech and behavior are products of sexism. Agreed?

I made a post where I shared my own definition of Sexism and Feminism. Then asked what the function was of each. That lasted all of I dunno, 2 seconds.

How do you suppose you can think about feminism or stop sexist speech and behavior before first defining your terms? How do you expect to stop a behavior (speech included) when you haven't identified what purpose it serves? And if you can't identify what purpose it serves, In other words, how people profit from it (their motivations), then again---how do you propose we stop something or solve a problem when we haven't even begun to seriously examine it?

Like how? Just pitch darts through the intellectual fog and hope something lands?

Instead of discussing either topic, this thread has largely turned into a discussion of personalities, who deserved what they got and who didn't. Is that what you hoped for?

I'm shrugging, too.

[Morley]

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?

.


.

[Jersey Girl]

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)

Thank you, Doc.

Lem,

I’m sorry for what I said. I was having a frustrating day in the real world, was oversensitive, and wrongly made an offensive comment. Thank you for calling me out on it and for explaining in detail why it was offensive.

Sincerely,

Roger

Jersey Girl said I should read your last post, which I had not done before now.

Thank you. I apologize also for not more appropriately explaining my initial perception re: your comment about the missionary stats.

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.

[Moksha]

When Ms. Brown says this: "mean-spirited, teasing, punching thing that passes for male culture," do you think that includes "going to war" against each other?

Why did I know you were going to seize on that while not acknowledging Moksha’s behavior? ... or how I verbally fishhooked Moksha.

Would you leave me out of this disgusting conflict? You acted like a crazed avenger and are trying to justify your bad behavior. This place was not designed as a combat arena for you to badmouth other posters.

[Chap]

[Lem]

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.

As long as I've known you, you've been upset that you can't make me agree with you or post the way you want me to post. You are frustrated by that and I agree it is dysfunctional.

[Lem]

Indeed.