Blog Comments

  1. isladar -
    isladar's Avatar
    If I wasn't completely clear, and maybe I was too subtle in the post, but I was completely and utterly lampooning my earlier usage of that imagery. Because it was fucking retarded, and so was I for using it. I moved pretty quickly over to the Auntie/St. Isladar/Valkyrie roleplay, because that shit wasn't cool. Kinda funny that the Reich imagery gained such popularity to begin with. It wasn't okay then and it isn't now.

    So "who are you to judge" response is interesting, because it's all of us. We're supposed to judge us. We're supposed to be looking at the shit we say and going "wow, that's not all right". And changing our behaviour to reflect that.
  2. galkaindaclub -
    galkaindaclub's Avatar
    And Alleya, nobody will ever listen to you or take you seriously if that is how you speak to others.
  3. galkaindaclub -
    galkaindaclub's Avatar
    I think people are aware of the irony of the op. The questions are not about that, but rather the persona and imagery that has been used to gain popularity to become an admin in the first place. The questions revolve around the hypocrisy of such behavior weighed against the punitive actions of late for similar questionable posting decisions. Having said that I'm fully aware that just because there are other problematic issues, it doesn't absolve responsibility to what is/was taking place.
  4. Alleya -
    Alleya's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Tomiko
    I find this to by hypocritical considering the majority of your post is comparing the new rules and such to Hitler/Nazis. I can understand (and agree with) your reasoning for starting to enforce the rules more, but I just feel that the message could have been delivered better since it comes across as what you don't want us to do.
    I find this fucking ridiculous, personally. But then again this is BG so let's take a moment to explain some 8th grade reading comprehension.

    Isla's OP is ironic. Her comparisons to nazis/hitler is a characterization of her opposition, and an indictment of their inevitable overreaction to what should be a simple argument. It's hyperbolic and ridiculous because the kind of people who have such strong reactions to the idea that they shouldn't spout hate speech are ridiculous, hyperbolic people.

    Also, and this has come up quite a few times outside your post, the idea that if only we were NICER to the assholes/sexist/racists, then there wouldn't be so much drama! is just patently fucking stupid. Sorry. Despite what your mother told you, it is a science fact that you catch more flies with vinegar than honey.

    Quote Originally Posted by Akiyama
    I'm curious. Do you have some sort of Hitler-like persona buried within you somewhere? You .. use an awful lot of references to the Third Reich/Hitler related things, yet you quote someone who was 'dumb enough to reference this new change to nazi Germany' as a jackass.
    I'm curious how you can "get it" but also not get it, at all, in any way. Let's step back and think about this for a second.

    "Hey, I have a question, are you actually an anti-Semitic fascist? I'm just asking questions"

    No, shut up, Glenn Beck, why are you on BG, you're supposed to be on the air in 10 minutes. See my above reply for a basic explanation of irony, and then maybe consider reading a book with no pictures in it.
  5. isladar -
    isladar's Avatar
    http://www.ucalgary.ca/cared/intention

    As noted elsewhere, in Human Rights law and anti-racism education, intentionality is irrelevant. It is the effect/impact of the action on the target person/group that is to be considered and takes precedence.
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...061.x/abstract

    Institutional racism—institutional practice that perpetuates racial inequality—does not require individual prejudice or institutional intent, but is a by-product of business as usual.
    http://inside.bard.edu/~ansell/ansell_12.pdf this is a pdf, quote starts on page 20:

    "The new racism actively disavows racist intent... [...] Mainstream social science for the most part has failed to track the emergence of the new racism precisely because of its symbolic re-coding, and most importantly because of its apparently benign race-neutral form. [...] One reason why the new racism has not been obvious to either experts or its general audience is because it is couched within, and not against, both societies' civil religion -- the vocabulary of equal opportunity, color-blindness, race-neutrality, and, above all, individualism and individual rights."
    "Intent" and Equal Protection: A Reconsideration This is just a link to the abstract, I'm citing the full text through the university. This article is speaking specifically about legal intent insofar as it has been used in regards to suits of discrimination against the government, but it applies well, as putting the burden on the offended to prove intent on the part of the person using ugly speech is what we're talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by p.409
    "One may, nevertheless, reach the conclusion that governmental intent is a constitutionally irrelevant consideration which has been inappropriately raised to primary importance in equal protection litigation. By assuming that the strictures of the Equal Protection Clause attach primarily to the process by which decisions are made and not independently to the substance and consequence of those decisions, the Court has endorsed a kind of legal alchemy: the recipe for equal protection involves avoiding impure thoughts while stirring the legislative pot."
    This one is neat as well, emphasis added:

    Quote Originally Posted by p.421
    One of the major problems associated with the intent rule is that it suggests that the locus of the denial of equal protection is in the process of decisionmaking[sic], specifically in the desire of those in power to segregate or otherwise disadvantage the aggrieved. It is similarly assumed that the extent of the injury suffered is commensurate with the extent of the illicit intent.
    Don't have a link because now I'm going poo-crazy, but here is the citation:
    "Heart" Attack: A Critique of Jorge Garcia's Volitional Conception of Racism
    Charles W. Mills
    The Journal of Ethics , Vol. 7, No. 1, Race, Racism, and Reparations (2003), pp. 29-62

    Quote Originally Posted by p. 36-37
    "Hatred is obviously not an act of the will.... But (less obviously) it is not the same as ill-will either. You can have hatred without ill-will, and ill-will without hatred. Clearly, one can have hatred for somebody without acting on that hatred -- there is a difference between having feelings and acting on them. But, I would claim, one can also have feelings without willing on the basis of them. [...] So given these distinctions, to speak as Garcia does of racism as 'essentially' involving our intentions does not follow from his own definition; you can have racial ill-will without any actual intent." (emphasis added)
    From Traditional to Liberal Racism: Living Racism in the Everyday
    Margaret M. Zamudio and Francisco Rios
    Sociological Perspectives , Vol. 49, No. 4 (Winter 2006), pp. 483-501
    Published by: University of California Press

    This is a really interesting article in general, so if you can find the complete text I'd very much recommend reading it. From the abstract, since I don't know how many folks have journal access on the regular:

    The authors conclude that the contemporary "colorblind" discourse of the liberal era suggests an ongoing race project centered on the maintenance of white privilege.
    The above is what I mean when I attack repetitions of "it's fine as long as different from default people don't 'ask for attention' [read: acknowledge issue]".

    Quote Originally Posted by p.484
    One of them major mechanisms at work in our new colorblind society is the primacy of the discourse that obscures both the prevalence of racism and the extent of white privilege (McIntosh 2004). Thus, one aspect of the struggle against racial inequality must be to demystify this discourse, to look at how this seemingly benign discourse around race and the institutions that promote it, put their stamp on a continued racial project where whites benefit at the expense of the racialized Other. [...] The notion of a "colorblind" racism reflects the contemporary race project in its attempts to perpetuate existing structural inequality by obscuring the structural dimension of racial inequality.
    Continuing, the authors then address the fallacy that racism is "'a thing of the past,' something ameliorated during the gains of the Civil Rights Movement..." (p.484):

    Quote Originally Posted by p. 485, emphasis added
    Embedded in this belief is an assumption that racism appears in only one form: explicit behavioral racist acts. This view further limits racism to actions of individuals against other individuals. Thus, if a person believes that he or she (and related friends and family members) is not racist, then racism must only exist in those extreme and rare instances wherein a "die-hard" racist acits in ways that are explicitly racist.
    ____

    If you would like more citation about intent not being a necessary component of racist/sexist language, I would be happy to keep going.
  6. Tomiko -
    Tomiko's Avatar
    "There is an unfortunate tendency to think it's only racist when you say "nigger" with intent to be hurtful. This is what a dumb baby thinks! Racism is racism whether you're just kidding, saying it around 'cool' people [read: racists], or are pig-ignorant! HATE SPEECH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH INTENT. "

    I find this to by hypocritical considering the majority of your post is comparing the new rules and such to Hitler/Nazis. I can understand (and agree with) your reasoning for starting to enforce the rules more, but I just feel that the message could have been delivered better since it comes across as what you don't want us to do.
  7. Akiyama -
    Akiyama's Avatar
    ""The answer, of course, were I to truly wish to bring about the rebirth of the Third Reich … an 'Islareich', if you will""

    I'm curious. Do you have some sort of Hitler-like persona buried within you somewhere? You .. use an awful lot of references to the Third Reich/Hitler related things, yet you quote someone who was 'dumb enough to reference this new change to nazi Germany' as a jackass. I mean I get it. It's a funny persona to have and all, kinda like my shitty LAWL CAKE YO and all that (I actually bake, and it's not people), but.. really. I just felt the need to bring it up out of honest curiosity.

    Thanks.

    Note: I'm not actually referring to you as such, but more asking if this whole act/persona of yours is something actually serious, or are you doing it for the lulz. No actual offense is being made.
  8. isladar -
    isladar's Avatar
    Yeah I didn't find that particular line compelling either. Which is a shame, because the rest of her argument is solid.
  9. Seraph -
    Seraph's Avatar
    Changes seem legit, but did I seriously read an argument that the word 'asshole' is a gender based insult? Someone fell asleep in biology. Hard. That or a case of "my opinion makes it so".
  10. Mina -
    Mina's Avatar
    All hail Auntie.

    Seriously was amused throughout the entire read.
  11. ringthree -
    ringthree's Avatar
    FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK I FUCKING LOVE ISLA!!!!!!!!!

    All hail and what not.
  12. isladar -
    isladar's Avatar
  13. SephYuyX -
    SephYuyX's Avatar
    People from the UK find the banning of the word cunt offensive. That and twat are like the goto name callers.
  14. Sonomaa -
    Sonomaa's Avatar
    its also a caching thing, it should be updating for everyone at some point in the future.
  15. hey -
    hey's Avatar
    There we go. Much better
  16. isladar -
    isladar's Avatar
    It should, damnit.

    edit: So it's applying to all new bans, but not retroactively to old bans because the old image is still on the ftp and getting pointed to. I manually changed the more recent ones, but have asked Ragns to delete or move the old gif.
    Updated 2013-11-05 at 14:04 by isladar
  17. hey -
    hey's Avatar
    It does not seem to apply retroactively?
  18. galkaindaclub -
    galkaindaclub's Avatar
    I also hope you weren't taking it as a personal attack as that was not my intent, but i see you are being self reflective about it and I appreciate that. My point was: I guess I would of felt more comfortable seeing this handled as a group effort that we should all strive for and not tolerate instead of an attacking tone. I'm sure you like many of the people you banned even if you were hurt by their words and actions. A lot of them come through big whether it is forum donations or even personal matters (callisto glasses fundraiser was awesome) or just making it a funny, interesting community.

    Quote Originally Posted by isladar
    Thanks for this!

    Perhaps you're right, and saying bigoted things doesn't automatically make one a bigot. On the other hand, what advantage is there to raising the bar for qualifying as a bigot? Consideration for the feelings of assholes? That's not a terribly high priority for me, to be honest.

    As for my conduct in the past, you're right! I've said absolutely hateful and reprehensible shit. Hell, I remember when the rule was very first put down (by Nikkei, which is so interesting to me now that I think of it), that I objected because I wanted to keep saying "cunt". It was a hilarious word, why shouldn't I be able to say it? Who could possibly be offended by a stupid word? It doesn't mean anything. This is stupid! In fact, I said a lot of awful, misogynist shit because I was an ignorant asshole, and because I was doing what a lot of women do on the internet -- being just as bad, or worse, as the men, so as to be included by them. We've all seen what happens to gals on BG who don't adopt a hyper-misogynistic attitude, I think. Of course, constructing the 'Auntie' idea was a really good solution. It allowed me to be recognized as a woman, but at least partially cut off avenues for people to devalue, otherize, and sexualize me. Plus it's a nice nickname!

    I also started to grow the fuck up. It sucks that it often takes being hurt yourself before you can perceive the hurt of others, but there it is. My objections to the inconvenience of adjusting my language (and holy fuck it is so petty when it's laid out like that, isn't it?) were because I had no comprehension of the possibility of others' feelings and experiences. Once I had a bit more of an idea of what being the target of that kind of hate was like, I started to actually pay attention to the shit that came out of my mouth. And it was horrifying, because I could understand what it felt like. That sucked. It sucks like whoa to realize that you're an awful person.

    When you are told, or maybe realize, that you're an awful person doing awful things, you have two options: You can lash out, avoid self-examination, double-down on your shitty behaviour, and hide behind the behaviour of other awful people to try and justify the continuation of your bullshit. Or you can stop, look at what you're doing, and resolve to change.
  19. isladar -
    isladar's Avatar
    Banned avatar is fixed!
  20. Demosthenes -
    Demosthenes's Avatar
    Owning, taking back I mean.
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast