Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
The "but" kind of negates your "I'm sorry." You should stop doing that.
For future reference, you should just type it like this: "I'm sorry if my joke caused any offense."
lightgigantic's ban: Sexual Harassment, Trolling, Lying
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
- Status
The "but" kind of negates your "I'm sorry." You should stop doing that.
For future reference, you should just type it like this: "I'm sorry if my joke caused any offense."
Because this is a cautionary tale, there have been mistakes from both sides. I was man enough to admit that it is possible that my joke was untimely. This won't change. However, the reason in which I was banned for was uncalled for. There was no way my actions justified a ban on ''sexual harassment'' charges. I have never been sexually explicit towards anyone in any personal way at any time at this site.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I'm still not convinced that the 'blowjob' exchange was sexual harassment. Here's how that went down:
Bells was obviously angry, and some of the things she was saying were insulting and abusive. EF told Bells (in post #1038) that responding to trolls with crazy over-the-top insults is like giving them a blow-job, it's precisely what they want. In post #1039, LG 'challenged' Bells not to respond to EF in her 'clearly illustrated ad hom smearing fashion'. There was no mention of blowjobs in that post. Bell's post #1040 was addressed to EF and quite insulting. He was a 'dishonest hack', 'mentally disabled', a 'liar', a 'retard' and a 'pervert'. EF kept his cool in post #1041, continuing to make his argument. Bell's post #1042 was addressed to LG, where she asked, 'Is this the part where I give you a blow job, or am I permitted to show my disgust at your dishonesty and trolling'? LG replied in post #1043, saying, 'Guess you opted for the blowjob...yet again.'
Apparently for that, LG was deemed guilty of 'sexual harassment' and banned permanently.
The posts I'm paraphrasing are here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?124255-Redux-Rape-Abortion-and-quot-Personhood-quot/page52
It's clear that the phrase 'blow-job' was being used metaphorically, to mean the orgasmic pleasure that internet trolls experience in making other people so angry that they lose control. Bells seems to have been using the phrase to mean 'giving opponents what they want'. She was seemingly suggesting that if she calmed down, as LG 'challenged' her to do, then she would be surrendering and giving him what he wanted. LG in turn simply pointed out that her continuing on in her combative fashion meant that she was continuing to play into the hands of trolls by giving them what they want.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't perceive any hint of sexual-harassment in that exchange.
(And this just for general information: As somebody who once lived half a block off Castro Street in San Francisco, I can say with absolute assurance that men give each other blowjobs too. That's just a fact that some of you might be surprised to know. Giving blowjobs isn't something that's gender-specific to women. Using the word in the presence of a woman doesn't automatically constitute an offense against political correctness, or against anything else for that matter, except maybe prudishness. It's probably not a word that one would use at work, but most of the insults that people throw around with such abandon on Sciforums, moderators among them, aren't things that people could get away with saying at work.)
I haven't read all of the 1100+ posts on that other thread. (That would be cruel and unusual punishment.) So maybe there's something else there that I'm unaware of. But in my view, all the righteous talk in this thread about not tolerating sexual harassment is kind of beside the point, if there wasn't any sexual harassment to begin with.
Bells was obviously angry, and some of the things she was saying were insulting and abusive. EF told Bells (in post #1038) that responding to trolls with crazy over-the-top insults is like giving them a blow-job, it's precisely what they want. In post #1039, LG 'challenged' Bells not to respond to EF in her 'clearly illustrated ad hom smearing fashion'. There was no mention of blowjobs in that post. Bell's post #1040 was addressed to EF and quite insulting. He was a 'dishonest hack', 'mentally disabled', a 'liar', a 'retard' and a 'pervert'. EF kept his cool in post #1041, continuing to make his argument. Bell's post #1042 was addressed to LG, where she asked, 'Is this the part where I give you a blow job, or am I permitted to show my disgust at your dishonesty and trolling'? LG replied in post #1043, saying, 'Guess you opted for the blowjob...yet again.'
Apparently for that, LG was deemed guilty of 'sexual harassment' and banned permanently.
The posts I'm paraphrasing are here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?124255-Redux-Rape-Abortion-and-quot-Personhood-quot/page52
It's clear that the phrase 'blow-job' was being used metaphorically, to mean the orgasmic pleasure that internet trolls experience in making other people so angry that they lose control. Bells seems to have been using the phrase to mean 'giving opponents what they want'. She was seemingly suggesting that if she calmed down, as LG 'challenged' her to do, then she would be surrendering and giving him what he wanted. LG in turn simply pointed out that her continuing on in her combative fashion meant that she was continuing to play into the hands of trolls by giving them what they want.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't perceive any hint of sexual-harassment in that exchange.
(And this just for general information: As somebody who once lived half a block off Castro Street in San Francisco, I can say with absolute assurance that men give each other blowjobs too. That's just a fact that some of you might be surprised to know. Giving blowjobs isn't something that's gender-specific to women. Using the word in the presence of a woman doesn't automatically constitute an offense against political correctness, or against anything else for that matter, except maybe prudishness. It's probably not a word that one would use at work, but most of the insults that people throw around with such abandon on Sciforums, moderators among them, aren't things that people could get away with saying at work.)
I haven't read all of the 1100+ posts on that other thread. (That would be cruel and unusual punishment.) So maybe there's something else there that I'm unaware of. But in my view, all the righteous talk in this thread about not tolerating sexual harassment is kind of beside the point, if there wasn't any sexual harassment to begin with.
Then you apparently do not understand what sexual harrasment is. I read your comment and it was clearly sexual harassment. This will be my only post to you on this, I do not want to drag this out. I really hope that you have enough empathy to understand how your 'joke' could be considered sexual harassment and learn from that.
Bells
Staff member
If I may just butt in to this public hazing about something that in reality, does not really concern any of you..
After about 10+ pages of trolling in the name of devil's advocacy and having your argument misrepresented and lied about from both and one refusing to answer a simple question - the very basis of that thread - many of us were angry. I had called EF's position disgusting and all the rest of it, because by that point, he had claimed that in his view, if saving a "baby" resulted in killing a woman sooner (if she was ill - as with a real life case I had presented in the thread), then so be it. When this was said, the thread literally exploded. Many of us expressed the exact same sentiment to this form of argument.
Perhaps you can explain to me why I was the only one singled out for saying this stance and saying it was acceptable to kill women to save a baby and for declaring that a terminally ill woman was simply not worth that much, was disgusting, amounted to my giving the men making this argument a blow job? After all, I was not the only one who responded to this latest argument as angrily as I did. So why was I singled out and told that my disgust at EF's argument was tantamount to my offering blow jobs? Why wasn't this made to Tiassa and Randwolf who had expressed similar angry disgust?
See, when you single out the only woman participating in the thread at that point and make such comments to and deliberately ignore the men who were making the exact same argument as I was, then you have to ask yourself why I was singled out for such a blatantly sexual comment. When I responded angrily and made it clear this was offensive and why I had deemed it offensive, LG then responded and told me that I had gone the way of giving blowjobs "again" with more talk of my supposed hysteria.
And that is what you are missing.
In everyone's review of what was being said by me and 'the other side', no one took time to notice that I was not the only one expressing angry disgust at some of the arguments being made in that thread. And yet, I, as the only woman participating in that thread at that point, was the only one singled out for the blowjob comment and it was said in a manner that distinctly put me - as a woman - in the place I supposedly belong - on my knees with my mouth where it apparently belonged. When I pointed this out, the position was doubled down and the comments became even more sexual and EF then commented that my merely responding to him would merely bring him "pleasure" and LG declared that I had gone the way of the blowjob "again". Why wasn't the same comment made to the men who expressed the same angry disgust as I was? Why weren't Randwolf and Tiassa, for one example, told that their expressing disgust at some of the obscene arguments made by EF and supported by LG, amounted to their offering blowjobs? Why was I, the sole female, singled out for it?
You know, you can all say whatever you want about me. But please, if you are going to attempt to interpret what happened from your armchairs, at least have the decency to look at all the facts.
So, since you have declared that there wasn't sexual harassment to begin with, can you explain why it's not sexual harassment to single out the only woman in a discussion and tell her that her role in that discussion was tantamount to offering blowjobs, while ignoring the men who were making the exact same argument? I am absolutely curious.
There was no sexual harassment in that exchange.
Interestingly, early on in the thread Trippy and Tiassa brought up this:
Tiassa argued that the abortion issue in fact is so black and white with no middle ground, no nuance.
So he attributed all of us who think there is some nuance into the camp that opposes his, never actually allowing us to be heard.
The whole thread was then just pretty much in line with the dualistic framework early on sketched out by Trippy.
For starters, you were the only woman in that discussion??
Really??
From the thread statistics:
Bells 165 Posts
wynn 116 Posts
quinnsong 6 Posts
Trooper 3 Posts
wegs 1 Posts
Orleander 1 Posts
I don't know about the gender of the other posters, but at least the above are female.
You most certainly were not the only woman in that discussion.
He told you several times that it has nothing to do with you being female.
You're a Drama Royalty, and because you are a moderator, you get away with it.
Bells
Staff member
I take it you missed the part where I said "at that point" in the discussion?
"when you single out the only woman participating in the thread at that point"...
You had not participated for a few days, after you called James an idiot for questioning your "triage" model.
Bells
Staff member
You consider 7 pages - about 129 posts - of complaints, misrepresentations, being insulted and made fun of for reporting sexual harassment, getting 'away with it'?
Right..
Well carry on.. Please, don't let me interrupt my getting 'away with it'.
Riiight. Because if one is only reading, one isn't participating ... and if one doesn't jump at your beckoning, then one isn't pariticpating either.
You apparently cannot read.
Or at least you are unable to understand the difference between calling someone an "idiot" and calling something "idiocity."
I guess in your mind, it's the same to say to someone "You're an idiot" and to say to them "I think that which you did yesterday at lunch was idiotic."
That explains your information assimilation difficulties.
You are getting away with it.
You misrepresent people, lie about them, harass them - and you get away with it.
Now I'm curious.
Bells
Staff member
Because I knew you were reading the thread or monitor your activities on this site...?
Just to clear up something, it was James who interpreted your argument as you calling him an idiot. I merely repeated what he said. Had you been reading the thread, you know, participating in it, you'd have known this already.
As I said, please, carry on. Don't let me interrupt you.
Apparently you do know such things and do such things, if you think you can claim that I didn't participate.
Because, by golly, if I don't reply in the way that you expect I should, then I'm not participating!
And merely repeating after him absolves you from any and all responsibility for what you say ... riiight ...
*tsk tsk*
What in Gods name are you talking about???
I said in a reply to Bell in order to make some light of a bad situation (again, another wording to say untimely), ''if it was a younger bradd pitt would you have had a different view'' this was added with a joke smiley face given as ''
''I then, immediately, not later... not the next day... but straight away replied, ''all jokes aside...'' and then continued with a serious question which I think I was tagged with my innapropriate ban for sexual harassment. In no fucking way did I sexually harass anyone, and I will call for a further one day ban on myself for using swear words in the public. But you are a disgrace to even propaganda the rubbish my statement implies any sexual harassment. You can go to hell and drown in the devils sorrows for your blatant lies you pile of crap.
Did you accuse me of somehow insulting you?
If so, are you so incapable of reading a post which is clearly marked as a joke, and a proceeding post confirming it is a joke and that I was trying to make light of the situation?
look Bells... I'm sorry this person said what they said to you. Some of us do have morals... what he said to you was wrong and ... perverted.
It's time for you to break this up, give me another days ban (because no doubt I need one after all the shite I have had to endure being called a sexual harasser... unless you are in fact claiming I have sexually harassed you) and then lock the thread and call it a day.
I think this is the most efficient solution.
Bells
Staff member
Let me be clear about something. Firstly, that response was to another individual. I don't exactly understand why you are applying it to yourself. Have I even spoken to you about this? No, I don't think I have. While I am somewhat curious as to why you are making yourself the victim here (the shite you have had to endure?), I don't really wish to pursue this point with you any further.
Secondly, I reported sexual harassment in private. When it became public knowledge that such a report had been made, you and others literally made it worse for me with jokes about whether I was offering oral sex, etc. Did you think it was appropriate to joke about me and to me in that fashion knowing what was going on, in direct response to my disgust of what was going on? If you must know, your jokes only compounded my humiliation and harassment.
I'm not going to ban you Trapped. I just don't wish to talk to you about it any further.
Okay Wynn. You participated by reading the thread....Wynn said:
- Status