Friday, November 17, 2006

 
you know what I don't get? trolls.

I mean, they don't show up here, for some reason.

If I am, as Axinar spuriously claims, psychotically popular, I ought to be fighting 'em off left, right and sideways.

what, am I just not controversial enough? I can accept that. I'm wicked-ass boring most days. But, you know, I am as god made me.

Now, from time to time I do hear from the loyal opposition, and folks who feel insulted or hurt by what I've said, and folks who feel compelled to correct factual errors I've made - and that's great. I need to know when I've made mistakes, I need to know there are opposing viewpoints that are reasoned and considered and just as morally cohesive, if you will, as mine. To date, after more than one hundred posts in the six months or so I've been blogging, I've never moderated-out a comment or had to ban a commenter. (oh, wait - I think I got some really lame and transparent spam of some sort, trying to sell me something or other. I deleted that comment.)

But I never ever get that raving, swearing, thrashing, full-psycho-jacket balls-out lunacy that most people consider "troll" behavior. Even the most opposing of the opposing viewpoints and the harshest of personal criticism has had a discernable (occasionally ever-so-miniscule) element of sanity and reason.

Nor do I ever compose comments of my own that contain raving, swearing, thrashing, full-psycho-jacket balls-out lunacy. Never have, never will.

So, when I'm accused of being a troll, and then modded out of a comment thread, it rather gets my voluminous granny panties in a great big old wad.

I know the difference between troll behavior and dissent.

Here goes a troll:

You're what's wrong with America today, you castrating cunt. I wish I could rape you fifty times because women like you deserve it. why don't you shut the fuck up before I jam my dick in that gaping hole under your nose and fuck it 'til you choke on your own blood you disgusting whore. I hope Al Qaeda comes for you first. in fact I'll tell them where you live. then you'll cry for a real man to protect you and I'll laugh my ass off ROTFL

And here is a difference of opinion, albeit a bit more strident and bitchy and maybe even hostile than maybe I should have been:

“Is a DP inherently degrading to women and therefore sexist? I don’t know, and I don’t have to know.

so, a woman’s opinion on what gets up her own ass is not important to this man?

“Is a DP inherently degrading in the minds of men? That’s a much more important question, and that answer is much more disturbing.”

The opinion of Class Man on what gets up a woman’s ass is the important question?

some feminist.


yeah, sure. not my finest hour. But, to call me a troll because of the above comment assumes that I'm also sprinkling "fuck you you fucking cunt" all over the blogosphere like Johnny Badwordseed. Calling me a troll, and then making a grand gesture of moderating me out of further comments because of my terrible trollishness, tells me you can't tell the difference between the human enemas that think it's fun to fuck with people, and people who are working towards a deeper understanding.

how dare you. seriously. how dare you lump me in with those wastes of skin.

It may also tell me you don't care enough about your own position to expose it to rigorous inquiry.

It may also tell me you might not have so much courage in your convictions - which is the nicest way I can think of to call you a chickenshit. make of that what you will.

Further, hollering "troll! troll!", and casting wild-ass aspersions, and not letting me respond, deprives all the other commenters the chance to see any evolution or modification of my opinion, which may lead to further discussion and growth. I now have no chance to say "well, what I meant was", or "that was probably a little hostile of me," or "no, I'm really angry about this because", or anything else that would indicate to the rest of the commenters that I'm willing to actually discuss things like a rational human being.

Personally, I think Mr. Goff owes me an apology.

I'm not saying Queen Me should make the rules for every blogger on every blog. I understand the need for very clear boundaries, and maintaining "safe space", to the extent it can be maintained. And yes, "my blog, my rules" is sacrosanct. But that said, a too-restrictive and entirely arbitrary policy that slaps the "troll" label on every dissenting opinion is no way to maintain a progressive atmosphere.

and how the hell can you call yourself progressive if all dissent is viewed as treason at best, and bullshit at worst?

Comments:
well, trolling doesn't have to be overtly abusive; it can be people who aren't really interested in the discussion per se, but simply want to get a rise out of people. go into a relatively calm place and "innocently" bring up a question that sie -knows- is gonna provoke a food fight on account of there are deep rifts over that issue in that space already.

which doesn't make Goff any less insulting or assy. Yeah; for some people, "troll" is anyone who shows up and doesn't join the amen chorus, or at minimum has a stronger voice than say colmes with Hannity.

It is crap. Throw out what's frankly -already- really provocative material, then act all innocence abused when someone is--surprise!-- provoked. fuck off, really.
 
that is, he already was discussing blahblah, and you were on-topic; it's not like you know a group of feminists is fairly peacefully discussing i don't know sexist imagery in the media, and some clown comes along with, "well, why do all you feminists hate men so much?" that sort of thing.

Goff is rather -special,- isn't he?
 
true enough.

and then there's that whole "concern troll" thing.

I just had to get it off my chest.
 
Goff accused you of trolling because both you and RE were arguing strawmen - not his post, and not the content of Jensen’s article. Or rather, you took one statement of Jensen’s piece and missed the overall point. The moderator explains this in their comments on your posts.

Though I agree with Belledame that in a lot of cases what gets labeled as trolling (or in my case, accusing me of making accusations I didn’t make) is that which doesn’t tow the amen-you’re-awesome line. In this case, you weren’t on topic.
 
lya - Though I appreciate your point of view, I respectfully disagree.

if you had seen some of the following comments I had made, I believe you would see that I was at least somewhat willing to be disabused of my notions of what Jensen really meant.

(ahem)
BUT YOU COULDN'T BECAUSE I WAS ALREADY MODERATED OUT OF THE DISCUSSION BECAUSE I WAS LABELED A "TROLL".
(sorry. it's not you-it's me. I'm not mad at you. I am only quite frustrated. nonetheless I should not be yelling.)

see, 'cuz I think I was on topic, even if slightly hostile. I still do.

AND I think he judged me rather harshly and hastily based on what he assumed to be my behavior on other blogs, as part of the so-called "pro-porn posse". Prior bad acts.

AND god damn it all - I am more than fair to people who disagree with me, even if they disagree in a hostile manner. And if you've been reading me for any length of time, you'd know that there have been folks who have been most...um...disagreeable.

but everyone gets a fair shot here. that's all I ask of anyone else.
 
and further - when I think of "troll", the first thing in my mind is not really someone who's merely yanking the thread off its track. the first thing in my mind is the worst of the worst.

if my only faux pas was that I was off topic, that could easily have been remedied by a reminder (either gentle or forceful) to stay on topic.

but no. Troll I was declared, and thanks to being modded out of existence, troll I will remain.

It's not fair, or healthy.

J'accuse, mon frere!
 
Goff accused you of trolling because both you and RE were arguing strawmen - not his post, and not the content of Jensen’s article. Or rather, you took one statement of Jensen’s piece and missed the overall point. The moderator explains this in their comments on your posts.

I don't think that's so. Rather, antiprincess was arguing something that Jensen may not have meant to say explicitly, but was certainly implying. I think that you can interpret that particular statement as, "I am a man and will therefore focus on diagnosing male interpretations," and still come away thinking that Jensen is presuming to tell women what they should think and how they should prioritize their interpretations.

Plus, there's a difference between, "You don't understand," and, "Stop lying, you fucking troll!" The former is reasonable, and the latter is not.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
Also, some of the off-topic is only valid within the frame of artificial restriction. Jensen and Goff depend on a narrow read to support their arguments, and anyone who contradicts that by bringing in perspectives that don't mesh with it can be accused of a derail.
 
:) piny. dude - you're so articulate it makes me all swoony.

it occurs to me - this may be just another example of my egregious hypersensitivity, tendency to take things too seriously, whadyacallit "white woman syndrome", inability to see things clearly when I'm angry, loss of objectivity, etc.

nonetheless, I want an apology.
 
Also, antip was accused of summoning a posse to troll BB, when in fact not only has she never done anything of the sort, -she did the opposite,- recently; she -came to her defense.-

which all by itself makes me take the author/banninator a lot less seriously in his judgment of what is and isn't honest dealing ("trolling" is by its nature disingenuous).

what it reminds me of more than anything else is the business where Violet Socks posted something a whole bunch of WOC found offensive; they came to her site to argue about it with her; she not only said they misunderstood (which by my lights they didn't; they understood only too well, and were engaging with that particular argument much more seriously than it deserved), but spoke in increasingly patronizing tones. Then, on the "information" that all of the WOC were "Shannon's friends," travelling as a shit-stirring clique, (which they were empathically not, but no matter), she dismissed them and shut down the thread.

If people don't understand what you're saying, it's -just possible- that the problem is in your communication. And if a fair number of people have a problem with what you're saying, it might be worthwhile to consider that actually, you might even care to rethink your position. Particularly if oh for example you're making sweeping generalizations about women, and -women- are arguing with you.

But it's easier to simply go, "oh, you must be one of THEM" and hit the ban button.

Yeah, it's his space, he can do what he likes with it. I've got zero respect for him, though.
 
antip, I don't blame you for wanting the apology, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for one. once a choad, always a choad, you know?
 
:) piny. dude - you're so articulate it makes me all swoony.

it occurs to me - this may be just another example of my egregious hypersensitivity, tendency to take things too seriously, whadyacallit "white woman syndrome", inability to see things clearly when I'm angry, loss of objectivity, etc.

nonetheless, I want an apology.


Thanks.

I don't think so. There's white-woman syndrome, and then there's an aversion to being treated unfairly. That having been said, I'm sure you won't get one.

You know, this same sort of thing came up when I was writing that post about some responses to the Haggard mess--some of them, incidentally, by the same people--and why I might have to write a follow-up. It's one thing to say, "I am straight and therefore incapable of speaking for queers." It's quite another to say, "So my analysis of this event and its place in our culture will not even take those perspectives into account."
 
yep, that's exactly what a lot of 'em do.

of course, then they often whine something to the effect of, "well, what are we supposed to do? if we talk about you, we're doing it wrong! if we don't, that's not okay either!"

to which these days i think my response is,

"Try fucking listening first. That's always a good start."

back to Goff: this bit, I'm sorry, is just -nutty-:

>It is, in this context, sexually as well as economically exploitative of women, and it serves as a special kind of hate speech against women, that is reinforced biochemically by men’s masturbatory orgasms.>

that sounds like whatsername, Reisman, with her "erotoxins" or whatnot.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=8910

"But then a woman named Judith Reisman, who represents something called the California Protective Parents Association, proposed a groundbreaking solution. She told the committee that the stuff on the Internet wasn't speech at all. Instead, she argued, it was a drug. "Erotoxins," she called them...."
 
Goff accused you of trolling because both you and RE were arguing strawmen - not his post, and not the content of Jensen’s article. Or rather, you took one statement of Jensen’s piece and missed the overall point.

O RLY?

You know, frankly, I'm sick of that term "strawman," because it's getting really over-used lately. At which point it loses all meaning. A strawman argument would be, "Why do you feminists hate men?" A strawman argument is not anything that you happen not to see eye-to-eye with.

So please, I would love for you to explain to me how exactly her argument/question constitutes a strawman. And yeah, yeah, I know, you're not under any obligation to explain things to me, if I can't figure it out for myself then that's my problem, etc. ad nauseum...

Ahem.

I, for one, think Antiprincess was right on target in her interpretation - and her legitimate questions to Goff. It's disingenuous to yell "strawman!" at her just because you don't see it her way, or because you think she misinterpreted things. Maybe give her the benefit of the doubt, allow her to dialogue with Goff and his other commenters... maybe she needed to clarify some things, but Jesus, at least give her the chance to do so.

And also... She was being respectful, which is more than I can say for several commenters who responded to her.
 
She was being respectful,

aw Amber.
you give me too much credit. I'm not sure I was as respectful as I should have been, or as I normally am.

but, you know, hindsight needs no corrective lenses.
 
Maybe give her the benefit of the doubt,

which apparently is impossible, due to guilt by association and prior bad acts.
 
Or rather, you took one statement of Jensen’s piece and missed the overall point.

although that has been explained to me I remain unconvinced.

it sounds like there's a great deal of "no, that's not what he meant! it's the act framed by men as humiliating and degrading, with demeaning comments and demeaning mis-en-scene, in pornographic material, that is the problem, not the act itself. isn't that obvious? stop whining, jeez..."

and, well, I went back and read the original Jensen piece, and I still don't get that. I get this:

the act is demeaning because men think it's demeaning.

that's like saying cake is sinful because the advertisement says it's sinful.
 
AP:

You're the general. He felt threatend. Even if you (and I) did not address the whole gist of the OVERALL article, we brought up a valid (and I think rather feministy concern) in whether intended or not, the discussion and the paper itself once again made ALL sexuality about the men. Which is not what people who are supposedly defending women want to hear, and it is NOT like you and I were the only two people who read the whole damn thing to feel that way. It seems several people who read it felt that way. But we did not 'lay back and take it', so, hence, trolls...you know calling someone a troll is a lot like calling someone a strawfeminist or an enabler or...well...NOT WHAT YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE AND THINK, bitch! these days.

Lya:
"or in my case, accusing me of making accusations I didn’t make"

if this comment was thrown in here for me and or BD, perhaps best to talk about it rather than for all of us or any of us to continue to misunderstand things?
 
hey you...you silly person who likes pie, you...I'm speechless with my desire to taunt you a second time. I wipe my grass stained feet on your nice clean carpet. I open your cans of soup and put them back in the cabinet. You *woman* who probably eats dessert first and gives her pets ridiculous names like "Bob".

There...how'd I do? I've never been a troll before but I'm always up for a new experience. I was going for the whole "totally pointless and has nothing to do with the topic" thing.
 
>You know, frankly, I'm sick of that term "strawman," because it's getting really over-used lately

Oh, NO SHIT.

It's not just the femosphere that does it either. It's like, everyone who's ever spent x amount of time in any political online discussion latches onto that at some point.

and it's like,

Look. I know how exciting it is to use these logical fallacy thingies. But please. There -must- be some -other- ones we could break out now and again? "False dichotomy." "Poisoning the well." "Hasty generalization." "Slippery slope." "Fallacy of misplaced concreteness." "Wisdom of repugnance." And of course, "You're either with us, or against us."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Logical_fallacies

Have at it, kids.
 
Hi Rootietoot! I'm glad you stopped by to leave a comment. It's always nice to see people trying new things.

Yes, I do eat pie. I sometimes feel conflicted about it, you know, because lots of people prefer cobbler, and for many good reasons, but back when I started eating pie, it really didn't define your eating habits the way it does now. Why did the meaning of pie evolve over time, I wonder...

my parakeet's names are Henry, Garbo, Ethel and Ms. DeBerd, thanks for asking. Do you have pets?

thanks for letting me know what was up with my soup cans. I thought I had opened them with my mind...

and yeah, I eat dessert first - and sometimes last too. wanna make something of it? ;)

and that, my friends, is one way to deal with a troll that un-trolls them.

I've done it once, I've done it twice, I'll do it again 'til the world looks level. I'll do it 'til my shriveled arthritic fingers can no longer press the keys. I'll do it this way until the internets fall over dead, before I mod comments.
 
or alternately

** blessed silence **

will exterminate the most noxious online pest, in my experience.
 
You know, and another thing...over there of Goff's site, the question, right there at the top, was "Is DP Inherently Degrading"...

Not is it degrading in a porn movie context, is it always or often degrading in a porn movie context, but is the act, itself, INHERENTLY degrading....

AP, we dared to say "no". Which is not what he wanted to hear. Because apparently, with or without porn, we are supposed to think it is.

Orwells discounted re-education and shaming camps, Now Open In a Blog Near You!
 
we are the Goff, prepare to have your comment penetrated!
 
silly me, edit..Inherently Sexist... the rest o' that? stands as posted.
 
Dear Stan & Bob:

"What part of NO do you not understand?"

no love,

the international womens' pro-porn posse
 
I think it's not that they say that it's inherently sexist or objectively sexist, but that they say that male subjectivity should take precedence, and that women should care more about that than about anything else. In other words, they don't have to claim that it's inherently sexist; they're claiming that it is sexist by the only standard anyone should care about. That's what I've got a problem with. It's conceited to say that you can divine the inherent value of any act. It's infinitely worse to argue that these other perspectives exist but don't matter.

And we in turn seem to be quibbling both with that and with the idea that Jensen may presume to speak for men any more than for women--as well as with some of the reasoning that's shaping his logic.
 
but, but...the revolution will be PURE!

Sex sullies the revolution. Disagreement weakens the revolution. Disagreement about sex will destroy the revolution. Asexual monotones unite!
 
It's like post-revisionist traditionalism.
 
but, but...the revolution will be PURE!

Sex sullies the revolution. Disagreement weakens the revolution. Disagreement about sex will destroy the revolution. Asexual monotones unite!


Promise me you'll be there commenting if I ever get off my ass and write about queer men and this kind of bullshit.
 
It's like post-revisionist traditionalism.

Sorry, I stopped when I remembered the word I was looking for. In other words, it's one thing to see everything in terms of male perspectives. It's quite another to hear others and then discard them anyway, all in the name of honoring them.
 
>I think it's not that they say that it's inherently sexist or objectively sexist, but that they say that male subjectivity should take precedence, and that women should care more about that than about anything else. In other words, they don't have to claim that it's inherently sexist; they're claiming that it is sexist by the only standard anyone should care about.>

well so actually then what they're saying is the WORLD is inherently sexist; they're just reflecting reality?

or something. i don't know. my brain hurts.
 
I don't know if it makes sense to break it down that completely, you know, because it seems to me that in order for it to work there has to be some doublethink going on. or good old fashioned lying, i suppose.

well again: Jensen claims he's never met a woman who claimed to enjoy DP; which is not only dismissing RE's talk with him but basically saying he did -not- have that discussion.
 
well so actually then what they're saying is the WORLD is inherently sexist; they're just reflecting reality?

or something. i don't know. my brain hurts.


Sorta. They're saying that this interpretation--the one they attribute to men in general, the one that reads DP as erotic because it degrades and subjugates women--is the dominant one in our culture and therefore the important one to the discussion. What they aren't getting is that this argument re-centers male subjectivity not merely for scrutiny, but also at the expense of subaltern perspectives (e.g. yours). In other words, they're helping to maintain the very system of meanings they purport to deconstruct.

_And_ this system of analysis also inevitably filters down in earnest into their speculation on queer sensibility as gleaned from outsider perspectives on queer acts. They don't merely insist that heterocentrism is important to understanding the reception of queers to our culture, but that it makes sense to assume that queers themselves are heterocentric.
 
I don't know if it makes sense to break it down that completely, you know, because it seems to me that in order for it to work there has to be some doublethink going on. or good old fashioned lying, i suppose.

well again: Jensen claims he's never met a woman who claimed to enjoy DP; which is not only dismissing RE's talk with him but basically saying he did -not- have that discussion.


*Shrug* I tend not to know all the history behind these discussions, so I'm left with face value. Plus, the face-value read helps me to figure out exactly why they make me so uncomfortable. Usually, the argument can be attacked on its own terms without pointing to doublethink (did you get that from the wiki chart?), at least IME.

That having been said, that's not quite right. He says he's never met a women outside the pornography industry; I assume that Renegade is included in that. Why that should disqualify those women, I'm not sure. He could be talking about hearing them specifically in porn contexts, but I doubt it.
 
Heeeee. I'm rereading it, and oh, how I love the observation bias. No one wants to tell Robert Jensen that they've done this, and women don't want to talk about a pretty slutty sexual practice being degrading. Therefore, no one's doing it. QED.

I think this is how the Christian Right gets its figures on the percentage of the population that's queer.
 
and RE very specifically told him she was into it BEFORE she got into pr0n. of course, he could not believe her; but well, that's rather rude.

and then consider that the people who were just being dismissed as part of a posse if not outright banned were other women who were also trying to say, gee, i like DP too!

so.
 
but see, apparently that is very bad, because if even a couple of women say, well, i like it, then men might get Ideas. you know, that therefore it's -not- inherently sexist, cause on account of here's a woman who likes it. and we wouldn't want that.

brain still hurting.
 
and now i'm curious as to how exactly he conducts his -research?- i mean presumably he doesn't just sit around on the Internetz and wait for wimmins to come to him, right?
 
I think he just tries to talk to them and assumes that there's nothing flawed in that approach. I think he's just too tone-deaf to consider otherwise. Honestly, it's even more baffling than when Hugo describes his incredible rapport with his students--some of them, I don't doubt, but are you sure?

Has anyone ever announced that they find this guy off-putting? Or do they just worry that it would result in even more hypotheticals like the ones that grace this article?
 
but see, apparently that is very bad, because if even a couple of women say, well, i like it, then men might get Ideas. you know, that therefore it's -not- inherently sexist, cause on account of here's a woman who likes it. and we wouldn't want that.

Right. You didn't see Elaina complaining about how he had introduced this assertion that was irrelevant even if it was true, which it wasn't. Or wondering if maybe his picture wasn't as broad as he thought.
 
I am SO out of the loop.

First, Piny, what happened to your "Crazy Tranny" blog? Never read it, but I'd like to!

I only got one troll comment in my entire year plus of blogging. Something like "Kaka likes getting gang raped by Duke frats boys" or some shit.

I agree 100% with your defination of "trolls." A troll is not mere difference of opinion as many thing but yes, statements like "Fuck you, cunt, you're a fast ugly dyke and suck my dick."

Anyhow, someone has to fill me in on why AnitP and Belle's names are mud on BB's blog and others.

What the hell did I miss?
 
oh well, -me,- i started off long ago by coming to BB's blog and flaming the shit out of then-Dim, because i thought he was being appalling (on IBTP; this was about when i lost my taste for the place for good); sort of like these doodz here, only more so. paternalistic, totally wrongheaded. BB drove us (there were two others, one unrelated) in a fury, calling us "shrieking harpies" and bringing down the ban hamma. well, fair enough, i -was- trolling (but he shouldn't have been wearing that short skirt).

i mocked 'em a few times (never back at there spot; here and there) and then tempered it wrt her, at least (I've never stopped smacking him, especially since his whole trying to tag a friend of mine "pro-kiddie-porn"). by then i was fighting with other radfems. then i started getting friendly with a couple of radfems, or at least having discussions. somewhere in there i started blaming Twisty for everything (well, when you point a finger, three more point back at you...) it's been a process. mostly i've moved on to other shit by now, but occasionally, as here, i have a flare-up of pissiness, usually because someone is assy to/around a friend.

antip can speak for herself. i probably tarred her by association by posting with a lot more animosity than she did on her blog, back when she first started it.

then again, she -was- moved to start it in the first place, (specifically trying to sort out her differences with the radfemosphere) before i ever met her; and well, she can tell you about that bit herself.
 
"there spot"="their spot." jesus.
 
i don't often get trolls (she said, daring the heavens). mostly spambots. recently some assy person who was having conniptions in several places wrt something else altogether; that seems to have been a drive-by.

and once lizard girl came by and posted fifteen one-word comments in a row. if it's not some external substance issue, then i don't know what to think, truly. the child ain't right.

other than that...well, again, knock wood.

sometimes people come by and are very angry about something; in most cases we've actually ended up having some sort of dialogue. that's a bit different in my book.
 
a bit more detail wrt the Dim and how It All Began:

initially it had to do with the BDSM wars (which, silly me, i hadn't even realized -was- a war, in this day and age). what sent me over the edge was the discovery that Dim was a straight man explaining to the public how kink was, from a -radical feminist- perspective...including lgbt folk. And got pride of place on IBTP, whereas those of us who (this quickly became a familiar theme) tried to talk about -our actual experience- were, well, it wasn't pretty. made one lj friend off of it; we both agreed that then--as here!--the -real- problem was "speaking for." Specifically, d00d speaking as a "radical feminist" whilst tromping all over the place and talking out of his ass AND patronizing women in a "woman's space," which kinda sorta defeated radfem or even feminism 101, we both agreed.

and, again, as here, i have extra-special problems with the heterosexism of it all. The arrogance and presumption, all wrapped up in a "radical" banner.

then later came the pure-D assiness directed at people i had gotten to care about and respect, and well, game on.

which, speaking of pure-D assiness: piny, i found your "angry scientist" blog. OH MY HEAVENLY DAYS. Not only a transphobic asshat, but this is a "no correlation between HIV and AIDS" person, apparently? Fuck me, i'm sorry, but there is a limit, with the frootbattery.

>Why is it legal to incite violence against women, but not minority groups?

NEXT.

...oh, jesus, this is ANOTHER dude? Better and better. Just...hope they shrivel up and fall off, dude. For your own good, really. jesus.

http://angryscientist.wordpress.com/
 
i am sorry, this is morbidly fascinating me. and if i don't do it in the comments, i'll be -really- tempted to do a whole post for all the world to gawp, and that would be wrong, for several reasons.

"An Angry Scientist is what I am, angry at misuse of science and language and resulting abuse of power by people in power, mostly rich white guys. I am a white guy of ethnic minority, not in power or rich, partly because my views are too unorthodox."

Yes; yes.

"He's a rebel..."

Presumably, as a white male, power and richness would have been his, had he not gone the way of the lonely dissident. Makes it rather...neat, doesn't it?

>Science has been corrupted to the extent I have to profoundly distrust what many scientists are up to. Depends on the person, certainly, but I bet some are up to cloning themselves.>

Well, in -that- case it really only takes one, ultimately, wouldn't you say?...

Damn. My dad's a scientist; it's true, I don't always know what he's up to. Maybe I'd better ask him.

"Dad? If you were participating in a sinister self-cloning experiment...you'd tell me, right?"

"Sure, hon."

>Some men pretend to respect feminism, but living up to that is not easy for a man, and I doubt more than a few try very hard. Male feminism often is a trick to get laid. A dirty little not so secret. I do try very hard, but I am weird, particular, not some handsome hunk, so I had to try harder. >

Uh.

>If you read between the lines, you may soon see what makes me weird.>

Do I -want- to?...

eep. I'm tellin' you. That's, what, six for six, or seven for seven (mentally counts), that i've encountered now; well, and not including the Famous dudes we're discussing here, plus thingie, Stoltenberg. every last one of 'em: creepy with a capital Kreep. call me prejudiced; until i see evidence of another sort, i'm holding to it. do not trust men who ID with radical feminists.

and this one hasn't even gotten to the anti-pr0n crusade! and i STILL think he's creepier than a bug under a rock!
 
Wait, what's your roster? Jensen, Goff, Dim, Angry Scientist...?
 
uh. guy called Jimmy Ho ("Alas a Blog is dead to me"); guy called Rich something; guy who i mostly encountered on the VC I was on; don't actually think he was even a radfem, but he sure was an annoying little entitled twerp who liked crashing the eros conf and flinging Dworkin at people...someone else. yeh, real helpful. i tend not to stick around, once there. someone who i found posting at BB's once't, clicked through, didn't stick around.

oh, and radgeek. who i guess (maybe) has more credibility than a lot of the others, and isn't -only- an antiporn/radfem; but godDAM i find him smackable. smugly backlash in the HOUSE. i thought.

and Stoltenberg, who doesn't have a web presence, but is some serious "ew."
 
Oh, and I loved this, ftr, just skimming quickly through the Den to see if i could find the name i was thinking of, and found this:

Cynical stated: Blah blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda yadda Blah blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda yadda Blah blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda yadda Blah blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda yadda Blah blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda yadda Blah blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda yadda Blah blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda yadda Blah blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda yadda Blah blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda yadda

That's what my brain processes when listening to or reading the ramblings of know-it-all men who insist upon dominating conversations about women's issues
Cool Aunt.


***

n.b. this is CA snarking at someone of course who argued with the anti-pr0n position. -then,- yes, we call them out.

bless her little kidneys.

also note: term coined: "pornsturbating."
 
Oh, please. Lya...spare us.

The only reason Stan Goff decided to butcher AP's response is the same reason he butchers everyone else who dares to call him out on his bullcrap: He is so totally immensed in the antiporn radicalfeminist notions of innate male domination and female submission (with his distinct touch of pseudo-Marxist alchemy mixed in for good measure) that he simply can't even allow for a dissenting position to pollute his brain space.

I can remember when he had his little "debate" earlier where he savaged Nina Hartley for daring to respond in kind to his colleague Chyng Sun's "analysis" on porn; as long as he thought that you were suspectible of being converted to his radfem fundamentalist point of view, he allowed you to remain (though you had to endure the ad hominens of the likes of Sam (Genderberg), Jimmy Ho, and the rest of the Fighting Antiporn Keyboard Brigade). The minute, though, that he figured out that you couldn't be turned and that you actually had a legitimate point to make, out came the charges of "trolling" and being part of the "porn posse" and being "pro-pimp" and "pro-rape"...and you got run pretty quick, too.

Sorry, but repeated claims of "That's not what he said" combined with bleatings about "misrepresentation" and accusations of "trolling" and being part of the "pro-porn posse" combined with direct editoring of a comment (I mean, why not simply respond in a seperate comment or simply ignore it altogether??) cannot ignore the fact that AP had struck a nerve by having the gall of representing an alternative view that Goff and his minions would rather not hear from.

Of course, it's his blog to do as he wishes, and if he wants to be such an ass about dissenting opinions, well, more power to him.

Knowing him as I do, you will be waiting a lonnnng time for that apology.


Anthony
 
thank Gaia he's got that pesky male urge to dominate well under control though!

oy. Jimmy Ho.

"Alas a Blog is dead to me."

i want to make it into a needlepoint sampler and send it to Amp. pure comedy gold.
 
and I'll repeat: I probably wouldn't have noticed the alternating host responses with comment--a lot of people do that, it's the content of the responses that makes it respectful or honest or whatnot (or not). but his, what was it? going to insert "ourselves" (again: is this the royal "we?" does he have a cobag? him and Mr. Hat? what?) right inside the comment...

i think the doc needs to stop showing him all the dirty pictures, if you get my drift.

also, "How to Stop Being a Self-Righteous Control Freak in Six E-Z lessons" might help. except it probably should deal with the SEXX or PR0N at all, 'cause he's already got that bit pretty well covered by now; he could probably use some help in a few other areas though, i am thinking. except for, if it doesn't have any pr0n or SEXX would it hold his interest for six--oo, shiny PATRIARCHY!
 
while i can't claim to be as knowledgable as a seasoned campaigner like belledame (to whom much respect) i believe a classic distinguishing feature of yer troll is the inability to write without giving the impression of drool spilling from their lips as opposed to gobbets of wisdom or even a reasoned argument. this would seem to indicate you aren't a troll - but you knew that, so stop being so insulted - i could compare you to a chair but no intelligent person would put a cushion on you and sit down, surely. the stupid comparison makes only the comparer look ignorant, not you.
just write more!
 
I'd be willing to play troll for you every now and then if you feel like it's something you're lacking...

hur hur, u is a stupid cnt and i wouldent evn want to feck u onluy if i was drunk andstuff

see? I'm a natural. I personally only ever got one and he was a dissapointingly good speller but it was ever so much entertainment. Let me know if my services are needed, tata
 
Wow. Guess I've missed a lot in the time I've been gone.

I know how you feel. I've been labeled a troll on several occasions for comments I didn't think necessitated it. Ill-considered questions? Sure. But trollish? I like to think not.

As for belledame's point, that's true, but how much of that is the reaction of a group of people who are comfortable within the echo chamber, and simply aren't interested in hearing the, as you so eloquently put it, "reasoned and equally morally cohesive" opposing view? Good post, sorry I haven't been around in a while.
 
>Though I agree with Belledame that in a lot of cases what gets labeled as trolling (or in my case, accusing me of making accusations I didn’t make) >

Not sure what you're referring to here, but if it's the temper-loss of RE and me at RE's place, y'know what, it might've been unfair; but no one's stopped you from coming back and clarifying or trying to engage further either. No one brought down the ban hammer. No one said, "never darken this doorstep again." You made a remark that made RE's and then my knee jerk. Subsequent posts ought to have at least given some indication as to why. That may or may not be sufficient for you; but again, it's your own decision to not engage directly further.
 
oh, and, no one leapt to the conclusion that you were part of some sort of clique with a sinister Agenda rather than speaking for yourself, even if in doing so you do/did end up agreeing strongly with a number of other people. at least, I hadn't.
 
Do not worry. traitor male feminist Jack Goff has deleted his blog. Seems like a troll pretending to be him has pissed off the whold fem-radical blogisphere. hahahahahahahahaha. Wonder who would have done something like that!!!hahahahahah
 
wrong goff, moron.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?