My little temp-ban · 8:57pm Mar 1st, 2013
I have felt the blow of the almighty banhammer! Because I used what I consider to be the right gender pronoun for a semi-famous pony author, (and trying to defend myself against some rather unkind words) I have been b& from a group for a week.
I'm not angry, not really, but I am not happy either. I didn't call for violence, nor did I use intemperate language so I'm not sure it is fair. But, as the saying goes, life isn't meant to be fair. And in my own defense, I posted the "offending" post before seeing the warning to post no more.
The whole thing seems to me an example of liberal bigotry, which brooks no disent. The whole thing reminds me of this:
In happier news, I'm a university student again, and I saw Les Miserables the other night, and it was amazing!
Is this incident perchance related to a certain author that is well-known in the TCB community?
878131
It is indeed. I regret now writing my honest opinion. I knew I'd cop some flack for it, but I felt I could not participate in what I think is wrong. The thing is, I actually have no animosity towards the person in question, but aparently that is a lie - I am in fact a hateful bigot.
The CB is an interesting idea, but I think that many times (and particularly this person) people write it as a misanthropic rant. I see humans as flawed, having light & dark within themselves, so the idea of "total depravity" irks me.
878157
4.bp.blogspot.com/-C66TFtHHSoo/UQtSYgoqtlI/AAAAAAAABHg/iViRzoaHJmE/s1600/I+called+it+1.jpg
You know, I mostly just ignore
herhimIT entirely, because usually I find IT is not worth my attention; I've got loads of better things to do with my time than pay attention to IT.I would also like to add to the list of grievances about TCB that most of the stories seem to be relatively cut-and-paste from the original premise, with the only major difference being the author's opinion on the ethical stance of the ponies. AKA, either Ponies are just & pure saviors or malicious & intolerant monsters (at rare times, they are somewhere directly in between the two, portrayed as misguided and/or panicky but not malicious). Honestly, the stories where the ponies are malicious & intolerant monsters are generally better... maybe that's because I root for the underdogs.
EDIT: What group were you b& from, just to be clear? If you don't want to say it publicly, send me a PM. I'm pretty sure that I've narrowed it down to two candidates.
Huh, even I haven't gotten banned from anything, and I thought I'd cheesed off most everybody by this point.
Of course, on the other hand, aside from reading and mostly enjoying the original story, I've stayed away from Conversion Bureau stuff due to severe lack of giving a care. It puzzles me that people can get so riled up over the not-exactly vital and urgent question of whether men ought to be transformed into cartoon ponies. I mean, seriously, is there nothing more urgent on our plates?
Sooner or later, I'm going to read some of Chatoyance's work just because her synopses make her stories sound so interesting. I don't usually like to mix nanoprobes and other sf phlebotinum with my magic ponies simply because I prefer to enjoy separate tastes separately and at their full strength, but I'm willing to give it a shot. If it turns out her stories are angry anti-human hate fests, I'll . . . well, chuckle, probably. I mean, we're all the same species here, right? A condemnation of humanity coming from a human is ultimately an exercise in self-criticism, and I can't really oppose that completely even if it's inept.
878186
Somehow I have the feeling you're not talking about the clown.
Transphobic fuckery is a punishable offense for ACB members, whether or not said transphobic fuckery actually occurs on our forum.
You're banned for 72 hours.
895036
Thank you, Mr thought policeman.
898404 Most groups don't encourage or tolerate bigotry among their members. It hardly makes us the thought police.
898492
Ah, but who decides what bigotry is and is not? I consider my experience an example of liberal bigotry, where they can say whatever they like, and so can you (you in this case being a non-liberal) - so long as you agree with liberal ideas. Also, I find your claiming of extra-territorial powers disturbing.
Surely as an individual, PT is allowed to speak his Mind? If you'd bothered to ask, rather than just reacting he'd of told you that he used "it" not because she is/was a he at birth, but because she (and yes I'm using female pronouns but I don't like doing so) is not a very nice person.
898541
Racism, sexism, transphobia, and the like. Notice that these are traits people have, rather than things they're saying.
Quite frankly, some ideas shouldn't be tolerated. If, for instance, someone in our group said that black people were subhuman, they'd get the boot pretty quickly.
I'm an administrator in a group. Part of my responsibility is deciding who is and isn't allowed to be in that group at any given time. There's nothing extra-territorial about it. If we as a group decide we don't want bigots around, we're going to deal with them accordingly. We have no power over someone once they leave the group.
898590
For the record,I'm not transphobic, as I have no fear of them, irrational or otherwise. The use of X-phobia / phobic to denote disagreement with a group is frankly a weak construct; from the common Homophobic to the equally ludicrous Christophobia. It serves only to demonise and mock any opposition, no matter how it is expressed.
Some of the ideas I think ought not to be tolerated, are ones I'm sure you think ought to be promoted with vigour. How do we prevent rules or laws from being written that could prevent free expression?
Within the group, yes you can censure such things as "blacks are subhuman" but for you to claim the rights you hold as an admin of a group to statements made outside said group is a tad authoritarian.
898770
So you get banned for ignoring the rules that are stated right in the group a number of times, complain about it here, and when the admin of the group gets pissed at you for still being a prickly fuck about it, you have the gall to call this 'authoritarian' and 'thought police'? If George Orwell was alive right now I'm pretty sure he'd slap you for even thinking of using those terms for this situation. How about, instead of complaining when you get yelled at and banned for ignoring the rules, you simply shut up about it and accept your punishment? Or do you have to have the last word on this or something?
898992
The main of your comment can be replied to by asking; Did you even read the PM I sent you? Possibly not, as I stated quite clearly that even though I disagree most heartily with you, I hold you no ill will and take my temp ban with good grace. I have not, nor will I attack the group or members. Sadly, some cannot resist the temptation to call others names like "a prickly fuck". Civil discourse is a wonderful thing, allowing those of opposing views to understand one another as fellow beings and not living "strawmen" to be knocked down out of hand. Look up G.K Chesterton and George Bernard Shaw. One was an ardent Catholic, the other a committed Atheist. Despite this, they were good friends or "friendly enemies".
What George Orwell may or may not do were he alive and reading my words is of no consequence as he doesn't have monopoly of the use of 'authoritarian' and 'thought police'. Also, I'm sure you're aware that Animal Farm is anti Communist? They too loved to tell people what to say, write and generally control every aspect of life. So though it is on a much, much smaller scale I think the words are appropriate.
My final word, on this blog of MINE, is that everyone is entitled to speak their mind is as civil a manner as is possible, so long as it doesn't call for violence or discrimination.
899104
What PM are you talking about? I received no message from you. And I'm sorry if me using the word 'fuck' offends your kindly disposition, perhaps you can do me the courtesy of not acting so smug in return? I'm not asking you to not be civil, I'm asking you, after you were repeatedly told several times to not break the rules of the group. Which includes misgendering Chatoyance, and then acting under a guise of 'civil discourse' when you are respectfully told to stop posting several times. I'm not strawmanning you at all, I'm calling you a prick, an asshole, etcetera because you are acting like one. You think we're having a discourse, but we are not. You broke the rules, you got banned, nothing else to say about it.
I'm not saying Orwell had a monopoly on those words, I'm saying he'd be insulted to see you use 'authoritarian' in response to being temporarily unable to post in a group on a private internet server, where there the laws of the U.S or U.K or whatever state you are in do not apply so long as you are not doing anything illegal. Which is petty as fuck if you ask me. And while what you did was not outright illegal, you also cannot complain of being oppressed when the only law that counts here is the law of the admins and the moderators and such. This is the internet, your precious 'freedom of speech' means jack shit here. Especially when you're using the term just to justify your shitposting and acting like an asshole on the internet. And I don't want to get into a separate argument on Animal Farm here, but Animal Farm was hardly what I would call 'Anti Communist.' It was Anti-Stalinist/Totalitarian, and while you might not see much difference between the terms, Orwell was an ardent socialist, and despised what Stalin turned the Soviet system into.
Funny how you say this doesn't call for discrimination, considering this whole blog started because you were punished for discriminating against someone. L-o-fucking-l.
899138
Mea Culpa, I sent Warwulf one to that effect, and was going to send you one too, but I didn't but I thought that I had. I apologise if being a little more "formal' comes off as smug, it is not my intention.
As I say in my blog, I don't believe calling someone who is biologically male "he" to be "misgendering" nor nor I consider it discrimination. I understand that many find that offensive, and in retrospect maybe I ought to have bitten my tongue and used "she" in place of "he". But the past is the past and cannot be undone.
All I can do is go carefully in future.I apologise for any offence I did cause, and will try to avoid it, but if I'm insulted for my opinions, should I not defend myself? This is my blog, I didn't ask you to come here to start an argument which unfortunately, we seem to be having since you say we're not having a discourse.
899205
Formality is not why I think you're being smug, I think your being smug because your using all these off-topic examples just to put up a facade of a point, when none of them really relate to the situation at all.
Well that's exactly what misgendering and transphobia is, discrimination. You don't get to pick and choose what's discrimination and what's not, you're using a term for someone that they don't like or they find genuinely offensive. And even if it's not discrimination, it's rude as all hell to refer to someone politely and how they prefer when talking to them, but then acting the complete opposite when talking about them with someone else. I don't care if that's what you think or if you're not gonna change your mind, because that's not what I want. I want you to realize you broke the rules, and you were getting punished for that, that's all. The past can't be undone, but that doesn't mean you can't learn from your mistakes and not say the things which are clearly not permitted in the group in the future.
That's fine if you're going to avoid this shit in the future, but this isn't about defending yourself. This blog post is an obvious attempt to get the last word in an argument after you were banned after you were told to stop doing something. Not bringing up any of the discrimination stuff here, because basically, you did something that's against the group rules, the mods told you to stop several times, and you didn't. That's called being punished for breaking the rules, it's not about insulting your opinions; that just goes along with it quite well. And if you didn't want to start an argument on your public blog, maybe you shouldn't have posted this in the first place just so you could complain about your ban? What were you expecting, none of the mods to see this if they ever browsed on your profile? And an argument is just a less polite way of saying discourse, it doesn't matter at all what the fuck we call it, because the main point of this conversation is that you're mad about being banned, and I'm responding to that.
"And I'm sorry if me using the word 'fuck' offends your kindly disposition, perhaps you can do me the courtesy of not acting so smug in return?"
Followed by,
"You don't get to pick and choose what's discrimination and what's not, you're using a term for someone that they don't like or they find genuinely offensive. "
I believe the term was 'prickly fuck' and was found to be offensive to the blog-operator, (and myself, TBO) and I don't see you being banned for having said it.
Only reason I commented here was to respond to that. The rest of the blog I agree was a bit of a whine about being banned at all, and while I may or may not agree with the circumstances of the ban, I felt the need to point out that, for you, at least, offending someone with your words was a one way street, you may feel free to offend all you want, but want to see bans handed out when you or someone you like is offended.
Nice.