Well, there could be trans-people here who feel so comfortable with the threads that they just do not comment.
They could be so uncomfortable with your advocacy that they just do not comment.
My advocacy. Hmmm. A handful of posts on the Purg thread with nearly 2K posts, a single POV on the Styx thread which boils down to "I don't like the Ship's rule change, but I don't know what it should be"
That isn't even a Boycott Starbucks level of intensity.
If black people had advocacy at that intensity, chattel slavery would still be legal.
That's the problem with ghost crowds. Anyone can use them to support their own position. I'd much rather we stuck to comments which are actually on the thread, than comments which are not.
It is problematic with no representatives on the Ship. But 'comments which are actually on the thread' is what got us to three Styx threads and two Hell ones. Those are what is being discussed.
The simple is asking the question: Why are we sitting segregated? In my experience it boils done to being othered. I am genuinely interested to hear the complication of your situation.
It appears I've failed already to communicate the complications of the situation!
The 'it', for us, was not merely why are we sitting segregated. The 'it' was 'is this segregation'; and/or if so, on whose initiative or choosing, if anybody's; and/or did it really matter; and/or did we want or need to 'solve' what might actually not be a problem anyway; and/or if we did, how could we go about it; and/or what was generating the phenomenon to begin with (was it prejudice, exclusion, hatred, fear, hostility, camaraderie, all of/none of the above - in which case did something need to be addressed) as that would obviously be the driver behind whether or not 'solving' the 'problem' was appropriate.
I'll grant you, asking the the first question is very simple. Answering it usefully and then doing something about it is not. Eg, to use your pattern, the 'simple' is asking the question: why are so many people starving to death. In my experience this boils down to unfair allocation of the earth's resources. But I feel I would be insulting anyone involved in the issue of feeding the world's starving millions, by then stating that I'm genuinely interested to hear the complication of their situation, as if they would have a hard job proving that such complications could possibly exist.
Anyway, bear in mind, my initial post was in response to Eutychus's query had anyone ever felt as he did etc, and this was my example to say 'Yes, indeed. Many people have felt that way.'
Thank you, Anselmina. I was going to chime in with a similar issue at a place where I used to teach - classes' makeup carefully and deliberately selected to reach the maximal diversity possible among applicants of race, class, culture, gender, etc. learning to problem-solve together (maybe) IN class only to have everybody break down in to non-diverse groups at lunch. (And our curriculum was basically unmasking "isms" and sorting out effective ways of dealing with same -- apparently with zero success!)
He's not a clueless moron. Surely there's some middle ground between that and a transphobe?
I do not think NP is a clueless moron. I think the simple answer is that he wants support of the position he belives in. That is completely normal and we all do that at one time or another.
Asking the question is not inherently transphobic.
Posting a dodgy link the first time is not inherently transphobic.
Posting them many times, after the problem with their sources are continually brought up? At that point, does it matter if he is transphobic? The result is the same.
Do you remember E G Marshall's character in the classic movie 12 Angry Men? Sometimes it takes time for the penny to drop. Sometimes quite a lot of time.
The thread in Purg is nearly two thousand posts, how long is long enough?
That's the problem with ghost crowds. Anyone can use them to support their own position. I'd much rather we stuck to comments which are actually on the thread, than comments which are not.
It is problematic with no representatives on the Ship. But 'comments which are actually on the thread' is what got us to three Styx threads and two Hell ones. Those are what is being discussed.
You are tin-eared to my point. You're the one who co-opts the missing trans voices to bolster your position.
That's the problem with ghost crowds. Anyone can use them to support their own position. I'd much rather we stuck to comments which are actually on the thread, than comments which are not.
It is problematic with no representatives on the Ship. But 'comments which are actually on the thread' is what got us to three Styx threads and two Hell ones. Those are what is being discussed.
You are tin-eared to my point. You're the one who co-opts the missing trans voices to bolster your position.
How am I doing that? What I've said is that it can feel as if one's being is being attacked in regards to race and homosexuality even though there are representatives and a general feel of support, so what must it be like to not have that? I am not saying I speak for anyone. I am speaking from my experience as a human being to where their experiences as human beings might relate.
It saddens me in that Eutychus’ personal disclosure of his journey to overcome difficulty with some people, has been weaponised against him.
In my experience such personal disclosures are costly, and little respect has been given to this cost on this thread. Further I would comment that Eutychus has not lashed out at this lack of respect for his personal disclosure.
It troubles me in that these forums might move towards conducting themselves in terms of this (quite base) identity discourse: ‘well, he would say that wouldn’t he, look at how he used to be’ (with the subtext of people never really change do they).
If this move happens, then it seems to me that people might (reasonably) refrain from offering the fruits of their lives, struggles, growths and experiences.
If this move happens, then it seems to me that people might (reasonably) refrain from offering the fruits of their lives, struggles, growths and experiences.
It has been noted that this has already happened, and is happening.
If this move happens, then it seems to me that people might (reasonably) refrain from offering the fruits of their lives, struggles, growths and experiences.
It has been noted that this has already happened, and is happening.
Then I guess that maybe there's no room for us fallen broken sinners, getting things wrong, breaking what we should mend and love.
Still, as long as we can tell Eutychus he's wrong, maybe that's ok.
If this move happens, then it seems to me that people might (reasonably) refrain from offering the fruits of their lives, struggles, growths and experiences.
I wouldn't have started a Hell thread on this, and I'd rather not be posting alongside some of the posts challenging Eutychus because they are so personalised, but I have found Eutychus to be posting on the transgender threads in ways that do not feel unbiased.
Personally, when Eutychus was posting on the Transgender thread it has felt aggressively challenging. Some of which was because I was caught in the cross-fire of his challenges to others, but some was stuff I got thrown at me. And I was left with a bad taste in my mouth by the insistence of linking Rachel Dolezal to transgender - starting here on page 33 of the Transgender thread, continuing through another post on that page, moving to a third post on the next page and continuing to an initial fourth post on p35 when I started discussing the case in depth as the posts weren't going away. That whole discussion was aggressive and continued for the rest of the page and on to page 36. Whereupon Eutychus dropped out. Nor was he the only admin challenging points of view aggressively, but this thread has Eutychus's name on it.
The bad taste in the mouth is partly because of the nature of the posts and partly because the Rachel Dolezal case has been used frequently by people denying the reality of transgender, she does herself in her memoirs, comparing transracialism to transgender. The insistence on pursuing that case felt as if Eutychus was denying the experiences of transgender people.
And as a shipmate it feels really vulnerable to be arguing against admins in this way.
If this move happens, then it seems to me that people might (reasonably) refrain from offering the fruits of their lives, struggles, growths and experiences.
It has been noted that this has already happened, and is happening.
Then I guess that maybe there's no room for us fallen broken sinners, getting things wrong, breaking what we should mend and love.
Still, as long as we can tell Eutychus he's wrong, maybe that's ok.
All judgement.
Asher
Read the damn thread, both threads, and try reading for comprehension.
Shipmates have the options of staying or going, posting or not posting, and not much else. We can choose to post outside the rules, but our stay here isn't likely to be long if we persist in doing so. What happens to shipmates who can't or won't follow the rules is that they stop being able to post in either the short or long term.
Admins can stop shipmates from posting by closing their accounts, they can close threads and otherwise stop shipmates from posting. We're posting on trust that this doesn't happen to us when we're posting on the Ship.
I felt vulnerable when I was arguing against two admins on that transgender thread, because I was sensing annoyance and irritation. I know that it wasn't all directed at me, but I was putting myself into the firing line. And as I've been one of the vociferous shipmates posting on the transgender threads various, trying to get things changed, that added to the feeling of vulnerability.
If this move happens, then it seems to me that people might (reasonably) refrain from offering the fruits of their lives, struggles, growths and experiences.
It has been noted that this has already happened, and is happening.
Then I guess that maybe there's no room for us fallen broken sinners, getting things wrong, breaking what we should mend and love.
Still, as long as we can tell Eutychus he's wrong, maybe that's ok.
All judgement.
Asher
Read the damn thread, both threads, and try reading for comprehension.
I have read this thread and some of the other. I wasn't so much thinking of your posts @doublethink . More thinking about the ship's very own thought policeperson.
No, they haven't. but I did think several times before getting into that debate and continuing it because it felt dangerous. And was very conscious of being careful to ensure I was playing by the rules.
No, they haven't. but I did think several times before getting into that debate and continuing it because it felt dangerous. And was very conscious of being careful to ensure I was playing by the rules.
Can you provide examples of any of this happening in the past?
If the direction of the discussion made you feel so uncomfortable, why didn’t you either say so on the thread, PM a Host or opt out of that particular tangent? B62 redirected the discussion as soon as someone else pointed it out.
I was disappointed by the response to someone sharing their real life story. Because their point about the thread lacking direct personal experiences is spot on. I know getting people’s details right is important, but wouldn’t it have been kinder to point out their mistake via PM. Doing it publicly looked petty and may discourage others from sharing similar stories.
If this move happens, then it seems to me that people might (reasonably) refrain from offering the fruits of their lives, struggles, growths and experiences.
It has been noted that this has already happened, and is happening.
Then I guess that maybe there's no room for us fallen broken sinners, getting things wrong, breaking what we should mend and love.
Still, as long as we can tell Eutychus he's wrong, maybe that's ok.
All judgement.
Asher
Fucking hell. If everyone who was not perfect were called to Hell for it, EVERY. SINGLE. SHIPMATE. would have their own permanent thread in Hell. Though some would be more active than others, of course. It is bullshit that Euty was called here for past behaviour. It is for his current posting.
I have referenced his past behaviour on the Ship because shows a pattern. One that his present posting still reflects.
It is not that he is not perfect. It is not that he has not finished his journey forwards. It is that he refuses to see where he currently is.
Ck: What are you vulnerable to when arguing with an Admin who is aggressively challenging what you say?
I don't think there is a culture of persecution on SOF. But it is normal to be concerned about posting on a thread where the challenge to a host was shut down in a tone-deaf manner with inaccurate reasoning.*
It is also natural for any group to circle wagons against perceived threat, at least occasionally.
It is also natural for people with no power to feel the threat of those who have it.
What are we vulnerable too? Hosts filter present behaviour through past behaviour. Both actively and passively.
*Arguing this is Styx yes, but I am referencing it here in illustration, not in pursuit of that behaviour.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
In your opinion, lilBuddha. Opinions vary about the evidence.
In any case, it's a valid Hell call if any of us is just fed up with anybody else. I was puzzled by it, and said why. But that's just me.
Do H&A hold grudges and might any such grudges affect their ruling? Not in my experience. And I've been a Host for years. One of Erin's wise guidelines remains our standard. If someone gets under your skin, don't Host their posts.
In your opinion, lilBuddha. Opinions vary about the evidence.
In any case, it's a valid Hell call if any of us is just fed up with anybody else. I was puzzled by it, and said why. But that's just me.
Do H&A hold grudges and might any such grudges affect their ruling? Not in my experience. And I've been a Host for years. One of Erin's wise guidelines remains our standard. If someone gets under your skin, don't Host their posts.
Holding grudges is different to having posting behaviour leave an impression. It would be extremely atypical of a human to look at every, single post on its own merit without referencing the past interactions with that person. In fact, it would make interpreting other people's posts a nightmare, as it is both reasonable to remember past behaviour and an actual feature of our reasoning.
Our implementation is often faulty, but the practice is normal.
Whilst grudge is a bit too far, bias isn't. Again, we would not be typical humans if we had none.
Your hosts are indeed atypical humans, in that we all have the patience of saints and the judgement of Solomon.
I'm ruling that accusations of systematic bias/grudges by hosts and admin is out of bounds for Hell, because something of that magnitude is clearly and unequivocally Ship's Business. If you want to open up a Styx thread, then do so. If you want to use one of the existing threads, then you can do that.
It is bullshit that Euty was called here for past behaviour. It is for his current posting.
Take that and your subsequent comment about me shutting down the thread to Styx. I have explained my reasoning fully there. That you think that reasoning is inadequate has already been made clear.
No, they haven't. but I did think several times before getting into that debate and continuing it because it felt dangerous. And was very conscious of being careful to ensure I was playing by the rules.
Can you provide examples of any of this happening in the past?
@Tubbs - I can't point to anything like that happening in the past and I'm not saying more than: personally this is what I felt. It's not an accusation of bad behaviour on the Ship, it's an account of what it felt like to challenge two admins on a thread.
I have been in debates and discussions with most admins over the years, but it's been rare that it's been so combative outside a thread in the Styx requesting a change of direction.
If the direction of the discussion made you feel so uncomfortable, why didn’t you either say so on the thread, PM a Host or opt out of that particular tangent? B62 redirected the discussion as soon as someone else pointed it out.
I did opt out of that tangent until the posts kept being reiterated. I was posting on the thread throughout and hoping that ignored, the question would go away, but Eutychus kept issuing the same challenge - as listed above.
I was disappointed by the response to someone sharing their real life story. Because their point about the thread lacking direct personal experiences is spot on. I know getting people’s details right is important, but wouldn’t it have been kinder to point out their mistake via PM. Doing it publicly looked petty and may discourage others from sharing similar stories.
I was really grateful that @goperryrevs posted their personal experience but didn't post thanks because by the time I rejoined the thread the next day, several other people had posted and the thread had moved on in a different direction entirely.
eta - and cross posted with the world - but I really am not calling out policy here.
It saddens me in that Eutychus’ personal disclosure of his journey to overcome difficulty with some people, has been weaponised against him.
In my experience such personal disclosures are costly, and little respect has been given to this cost on this thread. Further I would comment that Eutychus has not lashed out at this lack of respect for his personal disclosure.
If this move happens, then it seems to me that people might (reasonably) refrain from offering the fruits of their lives, struggles, growths and experiences.
It has been noted that this has already happened, and is happening.
Then I guess that maybe there's no room for us fallen broken sinners, getting things wrong, breaking what we should mend and love.
Still, as long as we can tell Eutychus he's wrong, maybe that's ok.
All judgement.
Asher
Fucking hell. If everyone who was not perfect were called to Hell for it, EVERY. SINGLE. SHIPMATE. would have their own permanent thread in Hell. Though some would be more active than others, of course. It is bullshit that Euty was called here for past behaviour. It is for his current posting.
I have referenced his past behaviour on the Ship because shows a pattern. One that his present posting still reflects.
It is not that he is not perfect. It is not that he has not finished his journey forwards. It is that he refuses to see where he currently is.
I've got no beef with you, but I gotta say that on some of these threads you're coming over as a bully.
@Curiosity killed - I appreciate that you've called a cross-post, but your post is time-stamped a good half-hour after my explicit instructions to take this very serious tangent to Styx, or drop it.
You might not be questioning policy, but you clearly have issues with the Ship's crew. Those are dealt with in Styx. End of.
I feel a wee bit sad at this thread because in varying degrees(!) I like and respect virtually all the posters here, pretty much. Or have felt the benefit of their posting at different times. And it's a shame to see some folks at odds with each other.
I think if we we had been having this thread as a conversation of the 'round-the-kitchen-table-over-several-beers' variety it might've been a bit easier in resolution, or at least in understanding.
Sometimes our friends can make us feel angry too. And that's okay.
Hell is the Ship's safety valve (as well as its bilge). If we get pissed off with shipmates for things they've said on the boards, and talking to them on the thread in question doesn't reach a satisfactory conclusion, then Hell is here - for everyone, however longstanding and whatever role - to thrash it out if possible, and quarantine the fall-out if not. Apologies will not always be forthcoming, and reconciliation is sometimes not at possible.
But what happens in Hell stays in Hell. If you find a particular poster rings all your bells in a thoroughly discordant fashion, then that's what the scroll wheel is for. I can't do that in Hell, of course, but I do in Purgatory. Obviously, you should all be more like me, but I know that's going to be a struggle for some of you.
And I was left with a bad taste in my mouth by the insistence of linking Rachel Dolezal to transgender - starting here on page 33 of the Transgender thread, continuing through another post on that page, moving to a third post on the next page and continuing to an initial fourth post on p35 when I started discussing the case in depth as the posts weren't going away. That whole discussion was aggressive and continued for the rest of the page and on to page 36.
I would like to offer some clarification of this.
@Curiosity killed if anyone reads the posts above it will be plain to see that there was a very simple reason for them being repeated: nobody was answering the question.
Whereupon Eutychus dropped out.
After a host post by @BroJames advising people to take a break and cool it. Posting in my capacity as a shipmate, I do my best to respect the hosts like everybody else. I simply took his hostly advice.
The bad taste in the mouth is partly because of the nature of the posts and partly because the Rachel Dolezal case has been used frequently by people denying the reality of transgender
I had no idea of this, and at no time was that my intention. Her case got me thinking about the limits of self-identification, and that was all. My penultimate comment on the thread explicitly said I wasn't seeking to draw any direct comparisons:
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not comparing any trans person to Rachel Dolezal or her story. I am probing what I see as possible limits to the principle of self-identity.
I now realise that Dolezal was an unhelpful example to use in that respect, because since I stopped posting on that thread it has been explained to me elsewhere how her case has regularly been used to trans-bash (I can see how it could be, but I had no idea it is, apparently, frequently used as such), and so was likely to push some sensitive buttons, but I honestly wasn't aware of this when I asked the question, and nobody said anything to that effect on the thread in response.
I wasn't going to post on this thread again after this post on July 8, because I don't like being a part of unevidenced personalised bashing of people.
However, this thread started again the way it did here on July 13, when I had been involved in the conversation referenced above, with the first query on July 9, and the subsequent queries on July 10 and July 11. The conversation on the Transgender thread did appear as anti-trans because that's the way Rachel Dolezal is usually used in that context. It really wasn't going to go well to dismiss the query with "that's an anti-trans trope", with the people involved on the thread at the time, not just you, but others. (Barnabas62 did say that case was used by anti-trans groups here, but that was after you stopped posting.) Arguing out the differences between gender and race seemed to be a better way to go.
I am really sorry the way that this whole discussion is becoming so personalised and that you've been the person who has been singled out for attack. (Before Doc Tor's host post yesterday I was in the middle of putting evidence together to take someone else on the thread at the time to Hell, too, because I didn't feel the singling out was fair.)
I now realise that Dolezal was an unhelpful example to use in that respect, because since I stopped posting on that thread it has been explained to me elsewhere how her case has regularly been used to trans-bash (I can see how it could be, but I had no idea it is, apparently, frequently used as such), and so was likely to push some sensitive buttons, but I honestly wasn't aware of this when I asked the question, and nobody said anything to that effect on the thread in response.
Thanks for that, @Eutychus, very much appreciated.
ISTM that the self-defining comparison with Dolezal is a lesser version of when people making the point about the morality of sexual attraction try comparing LGB to pedophilia - as you know, that gets stomped down pretty quickly here, for good reason. There’s the kernel of a logical point in there somewhere, but it’s essentially a largely unhelpful red herring. Generally society trusts people when they verbalise their inner life. Occasionally there are exceptions (if someone tells me they’re Napoleon reborn, I’ll take that with a pinch of salt), but it’s a better default to take people at face value.
I’d like to echo the sadness about stuff getting so personal between people whom I value and respect (that includes you, of course). I appreciate that Hell is a safety valve and everything, but it’s still sad. There have been times over the years where I’ve disliked certain Shipmates, but it’s nice that that’s not the case now.
And I’m mostly glad I shared what I did on the purgatory thread, but there is a tinge of regret. It’s easier being honest with strangers on the internet than real life, but that doesn’t mean it’s actually easy.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
You did good, all three of you, in those recent posts. And goperryrevs, I thought your Purg post was both vulnerable and very helpful.
I've got no beef with you, but I gotta say that on some of these threads you're coming over as a bully.
I'm not sure how I could bully Eutychus. Were he a timid poster with no supporters, I could see this as being possible. This is more the equivalent of a small person having a go at a larger person who is hanging about with his mates. Whilst questioning the validity of the action is still valid, framing it as bullying is less so.
And I was left with a bad taste in my mouth by the insistence of linking Rachel Dolezal to transgender - starting here on page 33 of the Transgender thread, continuing through another post on that page, moving to a third post on the next page and continuing to an initial fourth post on p35 when I started discussing the case in depth as the posts weren't going away. That whole discussion was aggressive and continued for the rest of the page and on to page 36.
I would like to offer some clarification of this.
@Curiosity killed if anyone reads the posts above it will be plain to see that there was a very simple reason for them being repeated: nobody was answering the question.
Whereupon Eutychus dropped out.
After a host post by @BroJames advising people to take a break and cool it. Posting in my capacity as a shipmate, I do my best to respect the hosts like everybody else. I simply took his hostly advice.
The bad taste in the mouth is partly because of the nature of the posts and partly because the Rachel Dolezal case has been used frequently by people denying the reality of transgender
I had no idea of this, and at no time was that my intention. Her case got me thinking about the limits of self-identification, and that was all. My penultimate comment on the thread explicitly said I wasn't seeking to draw any direct comparisons:
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not comparing any trans person to Rachel Dolezal or her story. I am probing what I see as possible limits to the principle of self-identity.
I now realise that Dolezal was an unhelpful example to use in that respect, because since I stopped posting on that thread it has been explained to me elsewhere how her case has regularly been used to trans-bash (I can see how it could be, but I had no idea it is, apparently, frequently used as such), and so was likely to push some sensitive buttons, but I honestly wasn't aware of this when I asked the question, and nobody said anything to that effect on the thread in response.
The problem for me is that this is part of your pattern. Re-framing a fuck up as not one or as a lesser one. And this is not even the first time you have used a racist analogy to cover less than sensitive approach to LGBTQ+. The problem here is not that Dolezal has been used to bash transpeople regularly, but that she has been used this way at all.
Also your post represents your typical "apology": I had no idea that was offensive, but what I really meant was...
when the better response would be. Fuck me, that was wrong. I apologise.
Or, in this case Fuck me, that was racist and transphobic. I apologise.
I've got no beef with you, but I gotta say that on some of these threads you're coming over as a bully.
I'm not sure how I could bully Eutychus. Were he a timid poster with no supporters, I could see this as being possible. This is more the equivalent of a small person having a go at a larger person who is hanging about with his mates. Whilst questioning the validity of the action is still valid, framing it as bullying is less so.
I've got no beef with you, but I gotta say that on some of these threads you're coming over as a bully.
I'm not sure how I could bully Eutychus. Were he a timid poster with no supporters, I could see this as being possible. This is more the equivalent of a small person having a go at a larger person who is hanging about with his mates. Whilst questioning the validity of the action is still valid, framing it as bullying is less so.
Reframing a fuck-up?
The irony, it burns....
What am I reframing?
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
And this is not even the first time you have used a racist analogy to cover less than sensitive approach to LGBTQ+.
Where else?
I read all the posts in Purg and DH and I don't recall anything like that. You must have something specific in mind. I don't remember anyone making an issue of any such comment either.
I don't claim an infallible memory of course. I read a lot of words.
I've got no beef with you, but I gotta say that on some of these threads you're coming over as a bully.
I'm not sure how I could bully Eutychus. Were he a timid poster with no supporters, I could see this as being possible. This is more the equivalent of a small person having a go at a larger person who is hanging about with his mates. Whilst questioning the validity of the action is still valid, framing it as bullying is less so.
Reframing a fuck-up?
The irony, it burns....
What am I reframing?
You've just told us that what you have done and continue to do re Eutychus does not constitute bullying, because (as you see it) he is not "a timid poster with no supporters" and it is impossible for "a small person having a go at a larger person who is hanging about with his mates" to be the same thing as bullying. Have I got news for you. You need to look into the dynamics of bullying, as size has very little (if anything) to do with it. You are a human being. He is a human being. End of story.
And besides, what qualifies you to judge the emotional impact this is having on Eutychus? You may see him as this emotionally invulnerable person, but frankly, I don't know of any such in real life, let alone on the Internet. And I am willing to bet that you have no real-life acquaintance with Eutychus, and therefore your estimation of the impact you are having is just plain bullshit.
You just don't know. I don't know. But in the absence of knowledge, it is best to assume that you have the capability to create real pain, and to walk carefully.
Sheesh, I thought you would have learned that from all the #MeToo type threads you have been involved in, whether those have to do with gender, orientation, race, or what have you. Random strangers on the internet can certainly bully, even if they have absolutely no relationship to the person they are bullying and have never had contact before. And that is not your case with Eutychus.
And this is not even the first time you have used a racist analogy to cover less than sensitive approach to LGBTQ+.
Where else?
I read all the posts in Purg and DH and I don't recall anything like that. You must have something specific in mind. I don't remember anyone making an issue of any such comment either.
I don't claim an infallible memory of course. I read a lot of words.
I'd have to trawl though the Old Ship to find multiple examples, but the one I remember directly is the Felbrigg Hall lanyards thread. He spent the thread trying to make it not about homophobia. He inserted conditions for acceptance of minorities* and same-sex marriage into. And also managed to inappropriately insert Rachel Dolezal into that conversation as well.
*And he apologised for the tangent, but not for the racism it contained.
Not that I need his apology, but it demonstrates a common tactic which is to use words that appear conciliatory without acknowledging the real error.
And I was left with a bad taste in my mouth by the insistence of linking Rachel Dolezal to transgender - starting here on page 33 of the Transgender thread, continuing through another post on that page, moving to a third post on the next page and continuing to an initial fourth post on p35 when I started discussing the case in depth as the posts weren't going away. That whole discussion was aggressive and continued for the rest of the page and on to page 36.
I would like to offer some clarification of this.
@Curiosity killed if anyone reads the posts above it will be plain to see that there was a very simple reason for them being repeated: nobody was answering the question.
Whereupon Eutychus dropped out.
After a host post by @BroJames advising people to take a break and cool it. Posting in my capacity as a shipmate, I do my best to respect the hosts like everybody else. I simply took his hostly advice.
The bad taste in the mouth is partly because of the nature of the posts and partly because the Rachel Dolezal case has been used frequently by people denying the reality of transgender
I had no idea of this, and at no time was that my intention. Her case got me thinking about the limits of self-identification, and that was all. My penultimate comment on the thread explicitly said I wasn't seeking to draw any direct comparisons:
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not comparing any trans person to Rachel Dolezal or her story. I am probing what I see as possible limits to the principle of self-identity.
I now realise that Dolezal was an unhelpful example to use in that respect, because since I stopped posting on that thread it has been explained to me elsewhere how her case has regularly been used to trans-bash (I can see how it could be, but I had no idea it is, apparently, frequently used as such), and so was likely to push some sensitive buttons, but I honestly wasn't aware of this when I asked the question, and nobody said anything to that effect on the thread in response.
The problem for me is that this is part of your pattern. Re-framing a fuck up as not one or as a lesser one. And this is not even the first time you have used a racist analogy to cover less than sensitive approach to LGBTQ+. The problem here is not that Dolezal has been used to bash transpeople regularly, but that she has been used this way at all.
Also your post represents your typical "apology": I had no idea that was offensive, but what I really meant was...
when the better response would be. Fuck me, that was wrong. I apologise.
Or, in this case Fuck me, that was racist and transphobic. I apologise.
The Dolezal discussion continued for a number of pages and no one – absolutely no one – on the thread pointed out the way this case has been used against the trans community. Not either publicly or by sending a PM. It was ruled off limits as soon as another Host pointed it out backstage. It would have been ruled off limits earlier if someone had spoken up.
It’s easy, when you’re talking about something you’re unfamiliar with, to blunder into areas you really shouldn’t. If no one is willing to point them out, you won’t know and you won’t learn to be better. I’m so grateful for the people who’ve done that for me over the years, but assumed the best (ignorance) rather than the worst (~isms). I’m even more grateful them now having seen what I could have got.
How about a fuck me, it would have been better if someone had said something? No ... thought not.
I couldn't find a clear link demonstrating the Rachel Dolezal case being used as an anti-trans case when I looked. The way that thread had gone and the way I was challenged for accusing people of being transphobic and anti-trans, across the various threads, when I was pointing out anti-trans sources to comments or links, I didn't feel able to say that it's an anti-trans trope without some proof. And there's a limit to how much time I want to spend digging in anti-trans sites.
The Rachel Dolezal conversation was happening at the same time - July 9 to 11 - as a series of posts and comments with quantpole, that I recognised as coming from anti-trans sources and challenged here.
@lilbuddha I remember Eutychus's stance on the Fellbridge Hall lanyard case as coming from an misunderstanding of how much acceptance is expected from various venues. He was arguing from the point of view of if the Hall was a church as against a café - which Leorning Cniht pointed out shortly before that thread wound up.
Comments
That isn't even a Boycott Starbucks level of intensity.
If black people had advocacy at that intensity, chattel slavery would still be legal.
It is problematic with no representatives on the Ship. But 'comments which are actually on the thread' is what got us to three Styx threads and two Hell ones. Those are what is being discussed.
Thank you, Anselmina. I was going to chime in with a similar issue at a place where I used to teach - classes' makeup carefully and deliberately selected to reach the maximal diversity possible among applicants of race, class, culture, gender, etc. learning to problem-solve together (maybe) IN class only to have everybody break down in to non-diverse groups at lunch. (And our curriculum was basically unmasking "isms" and sorting out effective ways of dealing with same -- apparently with zero success!)
Asking the question is not inherently transphobic.
Posting a dodgy link the first time is not inherently transphobic.
Posting them many times, after the problem with their sources are continually brought up? At that point, does it matter if he is transphobic? The result is the same.
The thread in Purg is nearly two thousand posts, how long is long enough?
You are tin-eared to my point. You're the one who co-opts the missing trans voices to bolster your position.
It saddens me in that Eutychus’ personal disclosure of his journey to overcome difficulty with some people, has been weaponised against him.
In my experience such personal disclosures are costly, and little respect has been given to this cost on this thread. Further I would comment that Eutychus has not lashed out at this lack of respect for his personal disclosure.
It troubles me in that these forums might move towards conducting themselves in terms of this (quite base) identity discourse: ‘well, he would say that wouldn’t he, look at how he used to be’ (with the subtext of people never really change do they).
If this move happens, then it seems to me that people might (reasonably) refrain from offering the fruits of their lives, struggles, growths and experiences.
Asher
It has been noted that this has already happened, and is happening.
Then I guess that maybe there's no room for us fallen broken sinners, getting things wrong, breaking what we should mend and love.
Still, as long as we can tell Eutychus he's wrong, maybe that's ok.
All judgement.
Asher
That is exactly the kind of baggage that a good many of us have to carry around. It takes a saint to say, "No - he's not like that".
Personally, when Eutychus was posting on the Transgender thread it has felt aggressively challenging. Some of which was because I was caught in the cross-fire of his challenges to others, but some was stuff I got thrown at me. And I was left with a bad taste in my mouth by the insistence of linking Rachel Dolezal to transgender - starting here on page 33 of the Transgender thread, continuing through another post on that page, moving to a third post on the next page and continuing to an initial fourth post on p35 when I started discussing the case in depth as the posts weren't going away. That whole discussion was aggressive and continued for the rest of the page and on to page 36. Whereupon Eutychus dropped out. Nor was he the only admin challenging points of view aggressively, but this thread has Eutychus's name on it.
The bad taste in the mouth is partly because of the nature of the posts and partly because the Rachel Dolezal case has been used frequently by people denying the reality of transgender, she does herself in her memoirs, comparing transracialism to transgender. The insistence on pursuing that case felt as if Eutychus was denying the experiences of transgender people.
And as a shipmate it feels really vulnerable to be arguing against admins in this way.
Read the damn thread, both threads, and try reading for comprehension.
Admins can stop shipmates from posting by closing their accounts, they can close threads and otherwise stop shipmates from posting. We're posting on trust that this doesn't happen to us when we're posting on the Ship.
I felt vulnerable when I was arguing against two admins on that transgender thread, because I was sensing annoyance and irritation. I know that it wasn't all directed at me, but I was putting myself into the firing line. And as I've been one of the vociferous shipmates posting on the transgender threads various, trying to get things changed, that added to the feeling of vulnerability.
eta punctuation
I think that on this topic, the admins have been conspicuous in not seeming to get personal.
Asher
I have read this thread and some of the other. I wasn't so much thinking of your posts @doublethink . More thinking about the ship's very own thought policeperson.
Should've been clearer.
Asher
And have they in your case?
Can you provide examples of any of this happening in the past?
If the direction of the discussion made you feel so uncomfortable, why didn’t you either say so on the thread, PM a Host or opt out of that particular tangent? B62 redirected the discussion as soon as someone else pointed it out.
I was disappointed by the response to someone sharing their real life story. Because their point about the thread lacking direct personal experiences is spot on. I know getting people’s details right is important, but wouldn’t it have been kinder to point out their mistake via PM. Doing it publicly looked petty and may discourage others from sharing similar stories.
It is bullshit that Euty was called here for past behaviour. It is for his current posting.
I have referenced his past behaviour on the Ship because shows a pattern. One that his present posting still reflects.
It is not that he is not perfect. It is not that he has not finished his journey forwards. It is that he refuses to see where he currently is.
It is also natural for any group to circle wagons against perceived threat, at least occasionally.
It is also natural for people with no power to feel the threat of those who have it.
What are we vulnerable too? Hosts filter present behaviour through past behaviour. Both actively and passively.
*Arguing this is Styx yes, but I am referencing it here in illustration, not in pursuit of that behaviour.
In any case, it's a valid Hell call if any of us is just fed up with anybody else. I was puzzled by it, and said why. But that's just me.
Do H&A hold grudges and might any such grudges affect their ruling? Not in my experience. And I've been a Host for years. One of Erin's wise guidelines remains our standard. If someone gets under your skin, don't Host their posts.
Our implementation is often faulty, but the practice is normal.
Whilst grudge is a bit too far, bias isn't. Again, we would not be typical humans if we had none.
I'm ruling that accusations of systematic bias/grudges by hosts and admin is out of bounds for Hell, because something of that magnitude is clearly and unequivocally Ship's Business. If you want to open up a Styx thread, then do so. If you want to use one of the existing threads, then you can do that.
Shit or get off the pot.
DT
HH
Take that and your subsequent comment about me shutting down the thread to Styx. I have explained my reasoning fully there. That you think that reasoning is inadequate has already been made clear.
DT
HH
@Tubbs - I can't point to anything like that happening in the past and I'm not saying more than: personally this is what I felt. It's not an accusation of bad behaviour on the Ship, it's an account of what it felt like to challenge two admins on a thread.
I have been in debates and discussions with most admins over the years, but it's been rare that it's been so combative outside a thread in the Styx requesting a change of direction.
I did opt out of that tangent until the posts kept being reiterated. I was posting on the thread throughout and hoping that ignored, the question would go away, but Eutychus kept issuing the same challenge - as listed above.
I was really grateful that @goperryrevs posted their personal experience but didn't post thanks because by the time I rejoined the thread the next day, several other people had posted and the thread had moved on in a different direction entirely.
eta - and cross posted with the world - but I really am not calling out policy here.
I've got no beef with you, but I gotta say that on some of these threads you're coming over as a bully.
You might not be questioning policy, but you clearly have issues with the Ship's crew. Those are dealt with in Styx. End of.
DT
HH
In discourse with our enemies, most of us regard some weapons as 'out of bounds'.
For me at least some of the weapons picked up to use against Eutychus would fall foul of the Geneva protocol.
Of course, many clergy get to 'enjoy' this kind of fun at the hands of their parishoners...but to see it here is- sad.
Asher
Enemies? Eh?
I think if we we had been having this thread as a conversation of the 'round-the-kitchen-table-over-several-beers' variety it might've been a bit easier in resolution, or at least in understanding.
You know, the people who irritate us, make us angry. The ones we feel like lashing out at.
Asher
Hell is the Ship's safety valve (as well as its bilge). If we get pissed off with shipmates for things they've said on the boards, and talking to them on the thread in question doesn't reach a satisfactory conclusion, then Hell is here - for everyone, however longstanding and whatever role - to thrash it out if possible, and quarantine the fall-out if not. Apologies will not always be forthcoming, and reconciliation is sometimes not at possible.
But what happens in Hell stays in Hell. If you find a particular poster rings all your bells in a thoroughly discordant fashion, then that's what the scroll wheel is for. I can't do that in Hell, of course, but I do in Purgatory. Obviously, you should all be more like me, but I know that's going to be a struggle for some of you.
tl;dr C5 is your friend, Hell less so.
I would like to offer some clarification of this.
@Curiosity killed if anyone reads the posts above it will be plain to see that there was a very simple reason for them being repeated: nobody was answering the question.
After a host post by @BroJames advising people to take a break and cool it. Posting in my capacity as a shipmate, I do my best to respect the hosts like everybody else. I simply took his hostly advice.
I had no idea of this, and at no time was that my intention. Her case got me thinking about the limits of self-identification, and that was all. My penultimate comment on the thread explicitly said I wasn't seeking to draw any direct comparisons:
I now realise that Dolezal was an unhelpful example to use in that respect, because since I stopped posting on that thread it has been explained to me elsewhere how her case has regularly been used to trans-bash (I can see how it could be, but I had no idea it is, apparently, frequently used as such), and so was likely to push some sensitive buttons, but I honestly wasn't aware of this when I asked the question, and nobody said anything to that effect on the thread in response.
I wasn't going to post on this thread again after this post on July 8, because I don't like being a part of unevidenced personalised bashing of people.
However, this thread started again the way it did here on July 13, when I had been involved in the conversation referenced above, with the first query on July 9, and the subsequent queries on July 10 and July 11. The conversation on the Transgender thread did appear as anti-trans because that's the way Rachel Dolezal is usually used in that context. It really wasn't going to go well to dismiss the query with "that's an anti-trans trope", with the people involved on the thread at the time, not just you, but others. (Barnabas62 did say that case was used by anti-trans groups here, but that was after you stopped posting.) Arguing out the differences between gender and race seemed to be a better way to go.
I am really sorry the way that this whole discussion is becoming so personalised and that you've been the person who has been singled out for attack. (Before Doc Tor's host post yesterday I was in the middle of putting evidence together to take someone else on the thread at the time to Hell, too, because I didn't feel the singling out was fair.)
ISTM that the self-defining comparison with Dolezal is a lesser version of when people making the point about the morality of sexual attraction try comparing LGB to pedophilia - as you know, that gets stomped down pretty quickly here, for good reason. There’s the kernel of a logical point in there somewhere, but it’s essentially a largely unhelpful red herring. Generally society trusts people when they verbalise their inner life. Occasionally there are exceptions (if someone tells me they’re Napoleon reborn, I’ll take that with a pinch of salt), but it’s a better default to take people at face value.
I’d like to echo the sadness about stuff getting so personal between people whom I value and respect (that includes you, of course). I appreciate that Hell is a safety valve and everything, but it’s still sad. There have been times over the years where I’ve disliked certain Shipmates, but it’s nice that that’s not the case now.
And I’m mostly glad I shared what I did on the purgatory thread, but there is a tinge of regret. It’s easier being honest with strangers on the internet than real life, but that doesn’t mean it’s actually easy.
Also your post represents your typical "apology":
I had no idea that was offensive, but what I really meant was...
when the better response would be.
Fuck me, that was wrong. I apologise.
Or, in this case
Fuck me, that was racist and transphobic. I apologise.
Reframing a fuck-up?
The irony, it burns....
I read all the posts in Purg and DH and I don't recall anything like that. You must have something specific in mind. I don't remember anyone making an issue of any such comment either.
I don't claim an infallible memory of course. I read a lot of words.
You've just told us that what you have done and continue to do re Eutychus does not constitute bullying, because (as you see it) he is not "a timid poster with no supporters" and it is impossible for "a small person having a go at a larger person who is hanging about with his mates" to be the same thing as bullying. Have I got news for you. You need to look into the dynamics of bullying, as size has very little (if anything) to do with it. You are a human being. He is a human being. End of story.
And besides, what qualifies you to judge the emotional impact this is having on Eutychus? You may see him as this emotionally invulnerable person, but frankly, I don't know of any such in real life, let alone on the Internet. And I am willing to bet that you have no real-life acquaintance with Eutychus, and therefore your estimation of the impact you are having is just plain bullshit.
You just don't know. I don't know. But in the absence of knowledge, it is best to assume that you have the capability to create real pain, and to walk carefully.
Sheesh, I thought you would have learned that from all the #MeToo type threads you have been involved in, whether those have to do with gender, orientation, race, or what have you. Random strangers on the internet can certainly bully, even if they have absolutely no relationship to the person they are bullying and have never had contact before. And that is not your case with Eutychus.
*And he apologised for the tangent, but not for the racism it contained.
Not that I need his apology, but it demonstrates a common tactic which is to use words that appear conciliatory without acknowledging the real error.
The Dolezal discussion continued for a number of pages and no one – absolutely no one – on the thread pointed out the way this case has been used against the trans community. Not either publicly or by sending a PM. It was ruled off limits as soon as another Host pointed it out backstage. It would have been ruled off limits earlier if someone had spoken up.
It’s easy, when you’re talking about something you’re unfamiliar with, to blunder into areas you really shouldn’t. If no one is willing to point them out, you won’t know and you won’t learn to be better. I’m so grateful for the people who’ve done that for me over the years, but assumed the best (ignorance) rather than the worst (~isms). I’m even more grateful them now having seen what I could have got.
How about a fuck me, it would have been better if someone had said something? No ... thought not.
The Rachel Dolezal conversation was happening at the same time - July 9 to 11 - as a series of posts and comments with quantpole, that I recognised as coming from anti-trans sources and challenged here.
@lilbuddha I remember Eutychus's stance on the Fellbridge Hall lanyard case as coming from an misunderstanding of how much acceptance is expected from various venues. He was arguing from the point of view of if the Hall was a church as against a café - which Leorning Cniht pointed out shortly before that thread wound up.