lightgigantic's ban: Sexual Harassment, Trolling, Lying

[Kittamaru]

Whatever; if someone is going to sexually "abuse" me by telling me I have a tiny penis over the internet, I'm not going to have a crisis over it. It's innocuous, it has no backing.

Bells, farting in your chair for hours and hours while you trade venom on a forum isn't healthy. Time to blow some steam elsewhere -- literally.

No, but someone posting unflattering, naked pictures of you, or using convincing lies to slander your name, or using the ability to find information to threaten you by knowing your address and your habits... you DO realize assault has nothing to do with actually attacking the person, it's the fear inflicted, right?

I am getting a little impulsive. I first replied to blanket statement here http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...nd-quot-Personhood-quot&p=3162940#post3162940 with a polarizing Nietzsche quote, and am failing to make an adequate differentiation.

Perhaps it would be wise to... ah... step back and restrain yourself a little? Because the way I read it, that statement was like saying you would have preferred the person in question to have been aborted instead of born... to me that's a pretty damn deep insult.

 

[Yazata]

Attacks and abuse happen everyday here on Sciforums. And it isn't just the board's rank-and-file participants doing it. The moderators, or at least a few of them, do it too. And they don't just do it occasionally, in fits of anger. They do it regularly and in a calculated fashion.

Some here on Sciforums (a few are moderators, others aren't) apparently think that there are two classes of people, the righteous ones and the evil ones. The righteous get a free pass to be assholes while their own sensitivities must always be respected. (They are the good ones who are fighting evil, after all.) And their targets must always behave inoffensively like saints while their own sensitivities can be freely violated. (They are evil, so they have it coming.)

That looks like the school-yard bully principle to me, and it isn't a good thing. Dressing it up in political-correctness doesn't make it any prettier.

(It's why I'm reminded of a fundamentalist church or an Islamist madrasah when threads take that direction.)

I think that if Sciforums is going to improve, it's important that moderators don't behave this way. They should be promoting thoughtful discussion and discussion board civility all around, no matter whether they agree with the ideas being expressed or not. What appear to be bad ideas are best responded to in a friendly fashion with good thoughtful well-informed posts, not with insults and rudeness that are only going to piss people off and harden them against everything you say. It's very important that moderators try their best to set an example, dialing the childish stuff in. They mustn't make it worse, let alone intentionally provoke it.

 

[GeoffP]

Whether or not lightgigantic was harassing Bells - and it might have been so - the above is true. Worse still, there's an animosity towards whistle-blowing here: I recall the dire imprecations one mod/admin made after one of my earlier fights for fairness. Maybe the current situation is what he intended by that. I'd like to think not, but I've learned a few things in the last while.

 

[wynn]

No, you can't rape someone over the internet... but you can still attack them and abuse them through it.

Why is it that when an ordinary poster reports having been abused by a moderator, that the poster's feelings are considered irrelevant, and one gets told that in fact no abuse took place?


I was once told by a moderator to "grow a thicker skin" when I reported Bells.

Then again, I would bet you also subscribe to the "oh, you got beat up in schools on? Well, learn to fight better" philosophy...

"Learn to fight better" may be a good advice to give and follow when dealing with equals.

But here, we are not dealing with equals.

Here, ordinary posters have to contend against those who have the power to censure, punish and silence.

As long as you have the power to delete my posts and issue warnings, infractions and bans to me, we are most definitely not equals.

And there is no issue of "fighting better." Because of the inequal distribution of power, the roles are already set; even before an ordinary poster says anything, it is already clear who will win, who will be right: the moderator.


This is worse than kindergarden.

 

[Kittamaru]

You do realize part of why the Religion sub forum went unmoderated for so long was because the moderator in charge of it felt it unfair to judge in a forum he himself had a vested interest in, right?

He knowingly and willingly stood by to prevent any possibility of acting out of self interest...

 

[wynn]

AThe moderators, or at least a few of them, do it too. And they don't just do it occasionally, in fits of anger. They do it regularly and in a calculated fashion.

But maybe this in fact is mature behavior, and we with humanistic sensitivities are the retards and idiots?

Look, who gets on top? The abusive, the aggressive, the blamers, the bullies. They get their way. They win.

People concerned with justice, fairness, kindness - they get trampled down.

I think that if Sciforums is going to improve, it's important that moderators don't behave this way.

But maybe Sciforums is improving? It's a dog-eat-dog world, and some moderators are doing their utmost to make Sciforums a dog-eat-dog place.

They should be promoting thoughtful discussion and discussion board civility all around, no matter whether they agree with the ideas being expressed or not. What appear to be bad ideas are best responded to in a friendly fashion with good thoughtful well-informed posts, not with insults and rudeness that are only going to piss people off and harden them against everything you say. It's very important that moderators try their best to set an example, dialing the childish stuff in. They mustn't make it worse, let alone intentionally provoke it.

Maybe this humanism is simply outdated.

 

[wynn]

You do realize part of why the Religion sub forum went unmoderated for so long was because the moderator in charge of it felt it unfair to judge in a forum he himself had a vested interest in, right?

He knowingly and willingly stood by to prevent any possibility of acting out of self interest...

Which moderator are you talking about? Skinwalker?

 

[Kittamaru]

Which moderator are you talking about? Skinwalker?

Not one of the Religion sub-forum moderators, I do apologize, I should have been more specific; if he wishes to state that case here he can do so though

Believe me when I say some changes are on the horizon as to how things like this are handled, and how certain areas of the forums are moderated. For example, I just joined on to help moderate the PseudoScience sub forum and will be trying to help keep things civil therein (though I know I need to work on biting my own tongue at times)

 

[GeoffP]

You do realize part of why the Religion sub forum went unmoderated for so long was because the moderator in charge of it felt it unfair to judge in a forum he himself had a vested interest in, right?

He knowingly and willingly stood by to prevent any possibility of acting out of self interest...

That's a positive, ethical example. No one disputes that. There are many good moderators here. No one is objecting to them.

What we're not happy about is the ones who abuse their power. They break the rules of SF and it's simply written off. I once had a mod who, while admitting he was drunk, proceeded to try and hand out infractions to me. These were overturned on review, but the point is that it happened in the first place.

It's not a poster vs. moderator issue, it's a question of the posters being harassed by a few mods, who are not disciplined in any sense as seriously as posters when they break SF rules - and they do break those rules. It's hurting the forum; there are a couple simple redresses that could be made. One hopes that they will.

 

[Kittamaru]

*nods* Sadly restraining ones emotions can be trying... it is something we try to help each other with to prevent such issues of abuse

 

[CptBork]

Whatever; if someone is going to sexually "abuse" me by telling me I have a tiny penis over the internet, I'm not going to have a crisis over it. It's innocuous, it has no backing.

If someone said that to you here, that would be grounds for a ban just based on the fact that it's a vulgar personal attack. There are websites like bodybuilding.com with forums intended for that sort of thing, not here. Without speaking about LG's thread which I've barely glanced at so far, using someone's gender as an excuse to launch lewd insulting personal attacks is also highly inappropriate, no matter how thick their skin. If Hillary Clinton were talking to a group of people and one of them said "yammer away honey, you're just giving everyone blowjobs at this point, maybe you should go give one to Bill because he's acting like he hasn't had one in decades", you think she'd take it the same way as someone yelling "you're a bullshitting liberal"? Do you think no one else would notice the difference?

 

[CptBork]

*nods* Sadly restraining ones emotions can be trying... it is something we try to help each other with to prevent such issues of abuse

That's why they invented this thing called the apology, so people can make mistakes from time to time and have a chance to correct themselves without ruining their working relationships with everyone else. Sometimes you don't even need to assume all the blame, you can just apologize for playing a role in the escalation, take a brief timeout to chill out, and then back at 'er with a positive refreshed attitude.

 

[GeoffP]

*nods* Sadly restraining ones emotions can be trying... it is something we try to help each other with to prevent such issues of abuse

I agree. I'm always looking for those that can help with such a cause. There are so few willing, of course.

 

[Trapped]

I'm sorry if my joke caused any offense, but I don't think it was right to reason my ban on a 'sexual harassment charge.'

I'll have you know, I am no sexual predator and I don't like to be cast in such a light. What I am guilty... maybe perhaps, was an untimely joke. But I harassed no one sexually and claiming my ban had to do with that is just flat out lies. Anyway, the whole ban thing of four members was clearly just to satisfy that after no one can say they were targeted on.


On the contrary, we were.

 

[James R]

WillNever:

You can't rape someone over the internet. And if someone is feeling victimized, it's time to turn the computer off and find a real hobby. Gasbag Bells needs to get a life.

You can't physically rape somebody over the internet, but you can make them feel unsafe and unwelcome.

Telling victims that they should go away when some internet troll abuses them is not very helpful. The troll is the problem, not his victim. If anybody needs to get off the computer, it's the troll or harasser.

 

[Trapped]

Telling victims that they should go away when some internet troll abuses them is not very helpful. The troll is the problem, not his victim. If anybody needs to get off the computer, it's the troll or harasser.

Since you are feeling righteous today James, maybe you will hear me out? I was not acting like a troll at all. I made on simple joke... then in a following post replied, ''all jokes aside now..'' and I continued in a serious manner.

Now... trolls don't admit their actions - in my case, I simply couldn't have timed a joke much worse I suppose, but on the same hand, the catering of the ''victims'' needs here are being exaggerated somewhat. If my joke had been intended to cause harm, which it clearly didn't, I would have deserved the punishment for sure.

 

[James R]

It's done, Trapped. You had a day off, along with 3 other people. Move on with your life.

 

[Trapped]

It's done, Trapped. You had a day off, along with 3 other people. Move on with your life.

I'll accept it and move on if you can promise me that this won't be a catalyst or free pass for moderators to think they dish out bans... on wrong charges of sexual harassment or any other which might be wrong.

 

[Ophiolite]

Sexual harassment can, in some cases, be an attempt at sex. But as in many cases of sexual assault, it is more often about power. It is often about men trying to put women in their place, with an implicit threat of sexual or other violence if they do not toe the line.

Some people on internet forums may have developed a thick skin over the years, such that harassing and inappropriate comments are water off a duck's back to them. Others will not have. This is why the perception of the recipent of sexual harassment (on the internet or elsewhere) is so important. What is inconsequential to one woman may be frightening and threatening to another.

Bells has explained in detail her reaction to being told that she was, in effect, giving blowjobs to people by daring to disagree with them.

Captain Kremmen may well argue that he doesn't get upset when somebody implies that women ought to give blowjobs to the men on an internet forum. Ophilolite may well argue that women should just put up with sexualised abuse by men and grow a thicker skin. Ripley may well point out that he knows of thick-skinned women who tell him that they shrug off sexual harassment by returning fire. And cornel may well argue that words on the internet aren't really sexual harassment at all because they don't involve physical threats.

But it looks to me like you all want to turn a blind eye and play down the victimisation of women.

You should be ashamed of yourselves.

I have reported this post in the following manner:

False accusation by JamesR that I am condoning sexual harassment of women. I find this offensive and hurtful. I request a public retraction and apology.

I trust the staff will take into account my feelings in this matter. In a period of our history when we rightly are seeking to redress the bias, prejudice and exploitation of women in society it has become all too common for those accused to be judged on minimal evidence, knee jerk reactions, or worse. Being falsely accused of telling women to accept sexual harassment, as JamesR has blatantly done, can place my career in jeopardy. I suspect that is rather more significant, at least to me, than Bells feeling uncomfortable or unwelcome.

This is not one I shall be setting down until JamesR retracts his accusation. You James are the one who should be ashamed, ashamed of playing free and loose with the facts.

 

[James R]

Here's the original comment:

5. Sexual harassment in the workplace, in social settings, in, well, the real world is to be decried. But a comment on an internet forum? Get real. If it is directed against a young person, or one who has suffered such trauma in their lives, OK prompt action is appropriate. Bells, you're a big girl. Turn the other frigging cheek. Use an equivalent to "If I valued your opinion I'd be offended." And that's the point: we don't need to get upset, offended, or hurt by things said to us. We can choose to react, or not. The mature person will make the right choice.

First sentence: Ophiolite says that sexual harassment in the "real world" is to be decried. Next sentence implies that Ophi does not think the internet is the "real world", and therefore, apparently, people should "Get real" before they complain about sexual harassment on the internet.

Am I reading this wrong so far?

Next sentence: Ophi suggests an exception if the online harassment is directed against a young person, or one who has suffered trauma in their life.

Now, I wonder whether the average internet misogynist troll will (a) be able to judge whether the person they are talking to is young; (b) be able to accurately assess past traumas the person they are addressing may have had; and (c) care about either of these mitigating factors.

What we get from Ophi then is advice to "turn the other cheek" if you're a "big girl", because then, presumable, the exception for young people doesn't apply. Being the internet and not "real life", sexual harassment of "big girls" is acceptable. It's just immature of a "big girl" to get upset about being sexually harassed on the internet.

----

Then comes the inevitable complaint about being moderated, in this case for posting this quite offensive comment in a thread in which the sexual harassment of the "big girl" you mentioned is being discussed, thus potentially condoning or even adding to the harassment.

What you should be doing, Ophiolite, is apologising to Bells, and to other members of sciforums in general, not attacking me for pulling you up on this.

If you really don't hold the views you expressed, then clarify what you wrote, apologise, and then we can kiss and make up.

Alternatively, you can keep pretending that it's somehow my fault when you express unsavory views.

I have reported this post in the following manner:

False accusation by JamesR that I am condoning sexual harassment of women. I find this offensive and hurtful. I request a public retraction and apology.

First, clarify your own position on this matter. Then we'll see if I have falsely accused you or not.

Being falsely accused of telling women to accept sexual harassment, as JamesR has blatantly done, can place my career in jeopardy.

Are you more worried about your career, or are you worried about the "big girls" whom you said should just "suck it up", in effect?

I suspect that is rather more significant, at least to me, than Bells feeling uncomfortable or unwelcome.

Then now is your chance to make it utterly clear that you didn't mean what you appear to have said in the post quoted above.

This is not one I shall be setting down until JamesR retracts his accusation. You James are the one who should be ashamed, ashamed of playing free and loose with the facts.

I will retract my assumption that you think internet sexual harassment of "big girls" on the internet is just fine once you have clarified your actual position on this. It appears you have caused me to misunderstand your position.