Flaming on Libcom

147 posts / 0 new
Last post
Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Dec 23 2006 12:58
Flaming on Libcom

I typed this on the Flaming thread in Libcommunity, but on second thoughts, it's really feedback. Sorry for the duplication.

Serge

For what it's worth, I think the level of flaming has definitely got worse on Libcom since the big hack. Either that, or the fact that a lot of people dropping off Libcom after the hack makes the flaming appear much more widespread.

As far as I know, flaming is only really allowed in the Libcommunity section, but these days it seems to be endemic in most of the main threads - mainly by people who are tolerated because they've got some wit and intelligence to their flaming, are politically sussed in spite of their behaviour, or simply have just been around a long time.

It's not only the obvious flaming that I see as a problem. There is a tendency for people to engage in a bit of playground bullying - a bit like a pack of dogs going for the weakest. This behaviour can sometimes be fired up by people who are not exactly flamers but are much more subtle about using snide and cutting comments. What this kind of behaviour has to do with anarcho-communism... well, I'm fucked if I know.

Another problem is the constant hi-jacking of serious threads. The number of discussions which bear little or no relation to what they are supposed to be about seems to be increasing. I suspect that occasionally this is due to some people actually wanting to divert threads into their own personal agendas or vendettas. It's just another kind of flaming, as far as I'm concerned.

In truth, I've never really understood this flaming lark. Why people should treat others in this way just because they're on a computer is beyond me. We all know that these people would be unlikely to talk to others in the same way at a meeting, or in the street. So why do it on here?

That said, not wanting to sound hypocritical, I'm sure that in the heat of the moment, I've spoken to certain people unkindly on Libcom from time to time. But I do generally try to avoid such unpleasantness. There are certain people on Libcom however, who see such behaviour as a legitimate first response to people they know nothing, or very little about.

I've always liked Libcom. There are many interesting people on here, some of them I'd definitely call comrades. But the current trend of flaming at first sight is making a lot of the discussion on here not only unpleasant, but really tedious as well.

What to do about it? Well, I'm not an admin. But I think the people who take care of Libcom should seriously look at how it's going. If you've got the power to boot people off, then use it. Otherwise, I can only see Libcom further degenerating into troll city.

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Dec 23 2006 14:49

I'll agree with Serge - though I'm not sure the flaming is worse right now - but I can't tell if that's true or I'm just more acclimatised to it, which is a bad thing in itself. I remember when I raised this as a 'newbie' (a patronising term in the way used) and there was an attitude from admin that 'newbies' should be treated more gently by veteran posters, implying that they should be allowed to become acclimatised to the normal mode of discourse/shitslinging on here before getting used to having the boot put in. This struck me then as a miserable resignation to the inevitability of routine flaming - which is a copout IMO, and as I asked then, is it linked to the social links some of the worst flamers have with the admins? Having said that, OctaveGarnier should have been banned the other day for his sicko posing in 5 mins. flat, and I presume he's no pal of admins.

I appreciate admins have limited resources for moderating etc, and could volunteer myself - but maybe I don't spend enough time on here to monitor threads, also my tolerance would be somewhat less than is allowed at present.

I suggest 3 strikes and you're out - banned for a set period; to be applied to all posters, including admins and friends of admins.

Dundee_United
Offline
Joined: 10-04-06
Dec 23 2006 15:29

That is a sensible suggestion comrade.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Dec 23 2006 15:31

It's a good idea in principle, but as I've said elsewhere, I think people do need to consider how the admins here might feel about such an increase in their workload.

Lone Wolf's picture
Lone Wolf
Offline
Joined: 1-03-06
Dec 23 2006 22:38
Ret Marut wrote:
, OctaveGarnier should have been banned the other day for his sicko posing in 5 mins. flat, and I presume he's no pal of admins.

Exactly!! It IS bizarre he wasn't!!

I appreciate admins have limited resources for moderating etc,

Which is why they need to go back to delegating to mods more as they used to in the good ol' days before the imposition of anal sex fantasies on to an femme unknown to a new poster was considered acceptable..

and could volunteer myself - but maybe I don't spend enough time on here to monitor threads,

I think you probably qualify.. grin

also my tolerance would be somewhat less than is allowed at present.

No bad thing with the anal scenario..

I suggest 3 strikes and you're out - banned for a set period; to be applied to all posters, including admins and friends of admins.

Good idea - physician heal thyself, I am my own best policeman etc etc..

Love

LW X

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Dec 24 2006 21:59
madashell wrote:
It's a good idea in principle, but as I've said elsewhere, I think people do need to consider how the admins here might feel about such an increase in their workload.

Yeah this is the problem.

At the moment neither myself, rkn or Zoe have any regular access to the internet, and John sounds pretty busy as well, so nearly half the admins aren't around regularly, and for me at the moment even keeping up with discussions I want to read is hard, let alone reading/editing/splitting/moderating flame-fests.

There's a load of stuff on this site that needs doing other than moderating the forums - which usually comes last on my list of jobs because it's never ending (and I have to spend enough time breaking up arguments at work so fucked if I'm going to do it at home all the time).

Overall I think the past year has been better than the one before in terms of the amount of abuse, but having caught up a little bit the past couple of days it does look like things have got frayed a bit.

In addition - a quick look at this: http://libcom.org/blog/libcom/november-forum-stats-01122006 shows a massive increase in traffic - a tripling from 4,000 posts/month last year to around 12,000+ now, that's more than 1,000 posts per month per admin - just to read, let alone moderate/edit/split/ban/unban/deal with complaints about bannings/not bannings etc. etc.

We might be able to have more technical flexibility with people moderating individual forums and stuff a bit later on, but not for 2-3 months at least.

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Dec 25 2006 14:55

How about a simple Libcom "etiquette" page that's easily visible and which says that people should aim to be fraternal and comradely and not let these forums become like so many bourgeois forums? Obviously if there is something like this already on Libcom, then fine. But I don't know where it is, so it would need to be more visible.

Also, how about a simple little reminder on each page... a kind of "think before you type" message, or "be comradely, this is not your average run of the mill bourgeois forum..." or something snappier? Anything to discourage all the show off, egotistical, competitive, capitalistic, smart arse, insultive and abusive stuff... kind oflike, "we are revolutionaries, and that's not the way we do things here."

I think a lot of the "bad behaviour" is possibly because people get carried away with the moment, and forget who they're talking to. When we get pissed off, we're not dealing with the class enemy here, just someone we may have a strategic or tactical diference, or have a different ideological nuance on a particular issue.

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Dec 25 2006 22:59

I'm sorry Serge, but I still fail to see what's "bourgeois" about being sassy? In fact, the entire concept of being nice cos you're a revolutionary smells really off to me.

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Dec 25 2006 23:45

Alan, I wouldn't term certain comments on Libcom as simply being "sassy". If it was just that, there wouldn't be a problem. However, people who post on here can often be downright abusive, insulting and totally lacking in any sense of comradeship. The desire to win an argument at all costs, often by twisting the arguments of others, and by belittling, or insulting, strikes me as neither communistic nor solidaric.

This is a public forum, and (although I don't know the stats) is possibly becoming one of the first English language ports of call for people intersted in anarchist communism. If we advertise ourselves as a bunch of smart-arsed know-it-alls with a low tolerance threshold for those who might disagree with us on anything, then I suspect that any new people would not stay long with Libcom.

I personally know people who have looked at Libcom, found some of the stuff on here interesting, but tell me they haven't the confidence to participate in the discussions due to its often agressive or competitive tone - and because they personally might not know loads about libertarian communism, so they feel intimidated about posting on here. I know others who are not timid people, and who are very sussed politically, but see Libcom as full of people who just like to disagree for the sake of it, and pick political fights as if it's some sort of game.

I've always liked Libcom, have had lots of interesting discussions on here, and also like many of the people who use it. But I have to say, I'm now getting a bit tired of some of the sniping, attacking, derailing and insulting that goes on. Libertarian communist it ain't.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Dec 25 2006 23:49

alright serge, i hope i've addressed some of your points on other related threads recently, but yeah the etiquette guide is a good idea, it's in the pipeline, we're just real short for time at the mo.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Dec 25 2006 23:55
Quote:
How about a simple Libcom "etiquette" page that's easily visible and which says that people should aim to be fraternal and comradely and not let these forums become like so many bourgeois forums? Obviously if there is something like this already on Libcom, then fine. But I don't know where it is, so it would need to be more visible.

You could always write one for us...

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Dec 26 2006 00:12
Mike Harman wrote:
You could always write one for us...

I wrote this ages ago when someone made a similar suggestion after Willswilde blew up.

New posters - please read this first!
Hi,
you are about to enter a very particular environment. For those who have never participated in debate on forums it can be a daunting prospect. You should have taken a look at some of the debates going on to get a flavour of what you are entering into. The behaviour of posters has generally improved and matured over time, but still sometimes gets harsh. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, the seriousness of the problems of this crazy sick world should generate passion if we are to challenge them. But that is quite different from ego-driven, competitive personal mud-slinging. It depends on the intention and sincerity of motive of those involved.

But bear in mind that the net is a quite alienated form of communication - there are no facial gestures, tones of voice, body language etc to measure more accurately the level of seriousness of comments or how friendly they are meant to be. The emoticons attempt to counter this, but there is plenty of scope for misjudging of meaning and tone.

Remember also that for some people the net is sometimes an outlet for the repressed emotions that individuals have no outlet or courage to express in daily life. As one poster said, "It is in part also the nature of the medium, a little like being drunk and secretly an asshole and as soon as you are drunk, the asshole comes roaring out. The internet has that effect of cancelling out that socially self-conscious inhibition that allows some modicum of decency in disagreement."

The forum format encourages an assumption of intimacy that is often quickly shattered when disagreement rears its head. For example, things easily degenerate into ego wars, one side valorise/over-hype their cultural or political tastes/viewpoint against another - 'my subjective consumption preferences/ideology are superior to yours' etc - which are little more than petty ego battles, when taken at all seriously.

There is plenty of amusing banter, but also at times a pretty high level of clued in/informed debate, alongside the worthless crap. Don't assume that what is a new mind-blowing political revelation for you, that you are aching to share with the world, is as unique and unheard of as you think - this is a common error of some new posters. Look around the site in the library, history, thought, ideas etc sections and you may see related information.

Bear in mind that your statement enters a (semi) public realm and may be read by quite a number of well informed persons and be responded to from several different different angles. So it helps to have considered your position and its logic fairly thoroughly before posting it. But there is no shame in being corrected. If you don't approach this collective exchange competitively but with a view to mutal clarification, it raises the quality of experience for all involved. But some people are sometimes, well - just plain rude arrogant arseholes. If you don't wanna get wound up, don't take the bait (sometimes easier said than done, admittedly). And don't invest too much expectation, it can't replace what's missing in all our social relations under capitalism - set your expectations low and you might occasionally get surprised.
Sermon over.

PS - should also be do's & don'ts - no long c & p's etc, plus info on how to do quotes etc when posting, differences between libcommunity and no flaming threads. Also glossary; Flaming, trolling, BTW, IMO, lol etc. (for foreigners/computer innocents etc)

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Dec 26 2006 00:32

good stuff ret, that could be the centre of a good guide yeah.

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Dec 26 2006 00:38

Okay, try putting the following brief message on each forum page, with the words "etiquette page" (or whatever you want to call it) hyperlinked:

Think before you flame.
Keep it comradely!
See our etiquette page for more info.

Suggested text for "etiquette page":

The Libcom Forums are a point of contact for those interested in libertarian communism or class struggle anarchism; a place to discuss ideas, thought, organisation and action. Sometimes it's even a place to chat, joke and make new friends and comrades on the net; comrades who you can organise for action with away from the net.

We are people who want to see a better society than the one we all live under now. That is, a society based on freedom, equality, social and economic justice and solidarity. So with this in mind, we always try to keep these forums comradely and aim to ensure our discussions with each other are fraternal. In other words, it is not intended as a place to vent our frustrations, show off our supposedly "superior" knowledge and analysis, nor is it a place where we insult or abuse others.

It goes without saying that it is real people who contribute to these forums, people who (apart from occasional differences over tactics, strategy, or the odd ideological disagreement over certain issues) are basically our comrades, rather than class enemies.

In other words, it's about solidarity. So think before you flame.

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Dec 26 2006 00:40

Ha ha... well done, Brickburner. Much better than my effort!

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Dec 26 2006 02:06

We could use some of both. I like 'think before you flame' - like a health warning.tongue Whether anyone takes any notice of it all is another matter.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Dec 26 2006 02:21

I like a lot of both. There probably needs to be a division somewhere between the introduction to this specific forum, forum howto/etiquette and rules as such. That's where it gets a bit sticky.

Serge - I think having a message on every page could get annoying really quickly when you've seen it 1000 times, but it could maybe go in a sideblock for registered users (those who might post) which people can turn off by choice, and otherwise linked in a sticky and in notes. Something like thay anyway.

Ret wrote:
PS - should also be do's & don'ts - no long c & p's etc, plus info on how to do quotes etc when posting, differences between libcommunity and no flaming threads. Also glossary; Flaming, trolling, BTW, IMO, lol etc. (for foreigners/computer innocents etc)-

We could definitely do with that, used to have something basic but dunno where it is now if anywhere, and things have changed anyway.

Peter Good
Offline
Joined: 18-04-05
Dec 26 2006 12:08

Ret and Serge, Two excellent posts. Thanks for them.

I was with a comrade this week who stopped posting on this site some months back. Quote: "While the Anarchists are busy calling each other cunts the BNP around here [West Yorkshire] are signing on new members hand over fist".

For me, the real issue with Flaming, and to some extent Trolling, is that we should identify it for what it is. It's no different from workplace or schoolyard bullying. All the ingredients are there. You can see it rationalised as "just a wind-up" or "I'm only joking". And the big bullies soon get apologists clustering around them. "It's only a bit of fun" "He's a nice guy once you get to know him" [The same thing was said about Herman Goering....]

Meself, I think modern upbringing has much to answer for. Kids spend years locked up in bedrooms learning how to deal with ethical problems by way of play stations. If something's a threat then all that's necessary is to zap it out of existence at the press of a thumb. Anonymity is on hand as well. Give yourself a romantic pen name and you can fire off anything you want and at the same time minimise any emotional kick-back. Ethically, it's a real problem. There are lots of kids out there with scant experience of face-to-face encounters manifesting real poorly formed social skills.

Flaming has it's real life equivalent. We've all come across characters who turn up at Anarchist meetings on a mission to "prove" how "free" they are. I've known guys who deliberately start smoking weed despite the danger it put the meeting's host under. Others seem at peace only when mouthing off endless challenges or undermining the chair.

The ultimate problem with bullying is that once it takes a hold there isn't much you can do about it. Eventually it comes to overshadow everything. It worms itself into the fabric of the structure and ends up destroying everything.

I am not for banning people. Like the Book Fair, a free society will be made up of medieval types, tree-huggers, cyrpto-Marxists, Anarcrisps, museli-munching Guardian readers, etc. All I would ask is that power games are flagged up right from the start.

Peter Good (TCA)

Moh Kohn
Offline
Joined: 22-12-06
Dec 26 2006 13:21

I've just had an idea hit me- more nuanced rules for the forums. Right now there's "flaming" vs "no flaming" as the only rules. But the level of shit-slinging and topic drift that's fine in thought is no good for organise. I'd like to see a stricter on-topicness enforced in organise than in the other forums.

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Dec 26 2006 13:51
guydebordisdead wrote:
Serge Forward wrote:
The desire to win an argument at all costs, often by twisting the arguments of others, and by belittling, or insulting, strikes me as neither communistic nor solidaric.

Backed.

Quote:
I personally know people who have looked at Libcom, found some of the stuff on here interesting, but tell me they haven't the confidence to participate in the discussions due to its often agressive or competitive tone - and because they personally might not know loads about libertarian communism, so they feel intimidated about posting on here. I know others who are not timid people, and who are very sussed politically, but see Libcom as full of people who just like to disagree for the sake of it, and pick political fights as if it's some sort of game.

I can also add that loads of peole I know including college mates, interested teenagers who are new to anarchism and ever older wsm members won't go anywhere near these forums because of the accepted level of abuse/flaming that goes on. They think I'm mad for sticking around here.

A little late for you to suddenly take the moral high ground isn't it? I mean, I hate to be personal, but if you don't consider yourself part of the inter-personal dynamic that some claim is so unwelcoming, then we have a problem.

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Dec 26 2006 13:54
Peter Good wrote:
For me, the real issue with Flaming, and to some extent Trolling, is that we should identify it for what it is. It's no different from workplace or schoolyard bullying. All the ingredients are there. You can see it rationalised as "just a wind-up" or "I'm only joking". And the big bullies soon get apologists clustering around them. "It's only a bit of fun" "He's a nice guy once you get to know him" [The same thing was said about Herman Goering....]

Meself, I think modern upbringing has much to answer for. Kids spend years locked up in bedrooms learning how to deal with ethical problems by way of play stations. If something's a threat then all that's necessary is to zap it out of existence at the press of a thumb. Anonymity is on hand as well. Give yourself a romantic pen name and you can fire off anything you want and at the same time minimise any emotional kick-back. Ethically, it's a real problem. There are lots of kids out there with scant experience of face-to-face encounters manifesting real poorly formed social skills.

grin

This is a joke right?

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Dec 26 2006 14:09
Serge Forward wrote:
Alan, I wouldn't term certain comments on Libcom as simply being "sassy". If it was just that, there wouldn't be a problem. However, people who post on here can often be downright abusive, insulting and totally lacking in any sense of comradeship. The desire to win an argument at all costs, often by twisting the arguments of others, and by belittling, or insulting, strikes me as neither communistic nor solidaric.

I actually agree with this much. I think it's a real pity when threads descend into posters trying to exactly ascertain what X or Y said in order to "prove them wrong", instead of actually tackling the issues they illuminate and imply. It's a legacy of the crude, bourgeois, proto-Leninist and ultimately pro-capitalist binary dichotomies that some posters use as a means of rationalising a world that I don't actually think they understand. It's rarely as simple as one person being right and another being wrong, and, contrary to what at least one admin has told me, it isn't a question of picking your side in debates on the basis of who's holding the positions.

I also think that the practice of intertextuality (that is, the dragging of debates and grudge matches across the forum by certain posters) should be severely discouraged.

Moreover, some posters on here can be extremely conceited in their condescension of those less educated and read than them. It really isn't a crime to not be as intelligent as Revol68 (as if a true intellectual would be so scathing of those without Philosophy degrees).

I think the sorts of behaviour I've outlined above are far more damaging than the typical whingeing about being called a "cunt". I mean, for fuck's sake, if you can't handle it from an anarchist online, how are you gonna handle it from the loud-mouthed conservative workmate or the union rep who are desperately trying to undermine your activities?

That said, at times, I can see how the above behaviours are actually very pertinent. Some individuals and posters don't deserve the time of fuckin day and they need to be told that. It's entirely reasonable to remind Raw that him and his laughable and more than a little homoerotic crew of WOMRADES have attacked and physically threatened members of the Libcom admin, and that his mission statement on here seems to be to disrupt the resource. In the event of Gangster returning, it'd be entirely prudent to remind him that he probably needs professional help. etc etc. The idea of everyone being equal before the law is bourgeois. I want every individual and situation judged on its merits, which is why Rattail will get more of my time than name removed - admin.

Stripey's picture
Stripey
Offline
Joined: 30-10-03
Dec 26 2006 14:37
Ret Marut wrote:
"It is in part also the nature of the medium, a little like being drunk and secretly an asshole and as soon as you are drunk, the asshole comes roaring out."

I learend a Newfie saying recently: "My Gran always says: what comes out drunk went in sober."

Stripey's picture
Stripey
Offline
Joined: 30-10-03
Dec 26 2006 14:44

I really like the idea of an Nettiquette page. I don't think Ret's text explaining why people are being arseholes should be as prominent as tips for not being one.

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Dec 26 2006 15:44

For the nth time, the accusations towards Rattail aren't fair. He's not the worst behaved poster on Libcom. You're pursuing a personal vendetta in a fashion that even he'd blush at. It's ridiculous, seriously.

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Dec 26 2006 15:59

Yes, I would like to express sincerest solidarity with revol at this difficult time in the face of these vicious, insulting, arrogant and uncomradely attacks. I can't imagine what he has done to provoke them?

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Dec 26 2006 16:04

Can we keep stuff about revol onto his very own thread? thanks.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Dec 26 2006 18:48
revol68 wrote:
p.s. I see know one has bothered getting on Arfs back for acting like a numpty troll, refusing to discuss the issues and instead resorting to personal abuse and false arguments.

I did (see the last line):

Devrim wrote:
arf wrote:
i wonder if women will be given the same rights as humans by 2056?

Apart from the fact that this has nothing to do with the subject being discussed, which some people may be interested in, in the vast majority of western countries women do have exactly the same rights as men. In the UK for example the only difference I can think off is in the laws of succession. That probably would stand up in law if there was somebody to challenge it. Admittedly this is not true all over the world, but the situation of women in countries where they have equal rights suggests that rights are not the problem.

arf wrote:
oh, btw - that "women/feminists have no sense of humour" crap? thats part of the denial of humanity i'm talking about. a smallish part, sure, but still important.

Nobody said anything about women not having a sense of humour. It was said about you.

Why don't you go, and troll on another thread.

Devrim

I think though that if you try to be reasonable with people like it just encourages them, so I ignored her reply.

Devrim

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Dec 26 2006 19:58

i noticed how i was accused of trolling and going off topic on that thread when i made a point that was entirely on-topic.

thread opener:

Quote:
Some questions: are this report's conclusions fanciful bullshit, expressing only Capital's desire for an ever more submissive and stratified workforce? Or: will a class/caste hierarchy evolve amongst our future robot fellow workers? Will they have gender conflicts? Will they become ideal recruits for some anarchist & communist groups (or do they already have enough robotic membersTongue )? Will some robots work in the sex industry? Will Lone Wolf be counselling depressed robots in the future? Will there be a militant direct action movement (Artificial Intelligence Liberation Front?) in the tradition of animal rights/anti slavery activism etc? What will the robots' take on anarchism/communism be?

my point, as i expanded on after devrims blatant flaming, was which human rights are robots gonna get?
devrim however is using the thread to waffle on about whether or not "real artificial intelligence" is possible. thats not really on topic but i wouldnt tell him to fuck off like he did me, because it might be interesting or relevant to the discussion in some way - going a little bit off topic is not always detrimental to a thread and we all know that.

so devrim - all i can see is that youre 'ignoring' my response to you on that thread because you made a stupid error and you're too much of a proud idiot to admit it.

so what we have here is revol bitching and whining about people treating him still a fuck lot better than he treats them, like he actually cares anyway? and devrim pulling the old transparent double standards crap, as if devrim gets to decide on his own what is relevant or not to a topic and who is allowed to comment on it.

get a fucking grip the pair of you.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Dec 26 2006 20:37
arf wrote:
but i wouldnt tell him to fuck off like he did me.

Firstly, I didn’t tell you to ‘fuck off’, nor did I call you a:

arf wrote:
fuckwit

or a:

arf wrote:
fool

Or an:

arf wrote:
idiot

In fact I never swore at you at all, or insulted you. All I said was that Jack’s comment:

devrim wrote:
was said about you.

not women in general.

Secondly:

arf wrote:
like he did me.

Why do you assume that I am a man. It is a unisex name in a language that I presume you are not familiar with.

Finally, it wasn’t on the topic of the thread at the time.

Devrim

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Dec 26 2006 21:05

yes it was on topic devrim - it just went over your head is all. and even so, you could've just said, "excuse me, could you expand on that, how is it relevant?" when you didnt get it, and i would have. but you didnt do that - instead you picked up on jack already flaming me and chose to join in, responding with a load of stuff about how women are so equal with men in the eyes of the law, and then told me:

Quote:
Why don't you go, and troll on another thread.

which, you know, is just a "fuck off" without the swear, and the insult is right there too, pretending it isnt is just dishonest of you. so i flamed you back - hell yeh - did you think id just do what i was told instead? and i assumed you were a guy because you had the nerve to tell me to fuck off a thread after you alone had judged my one sentence comment as "off topic" and unworthy, a position of such assumed superiority that i thought you being male was likely. you're now implying im some sort of racist because your name is unisex? how the fuck does that work then?

and btw, what exactly does "people like it" mean devrim? it sounds rude and condescending to me, like you think you are better than i am. another insult you apparently didnt make?

do you lot even listen to yourselves? i point out that some humans - women - are denied humanity and human rights, so jack tells me i have no sense of humour (a clear example of one of the ways men deny women their humanity - we dont 'get' or make humour) then devrim refers to me as "it" and basically says he's* decided, like it's his right to decide, that my comments are worthless, therefore i can fuck off, or my further comments will be ignored - like i don't even have the right to talk, or be heard! i mean - i couldnt even make this shit up!

some of you have some very serious unexamined issues with sexism to be working on there. dont even try to fucking pretend its just a problem with me, ive only been posting back here a month or so, and ive pretty much kept myself to only commenting on the threads on feminism and 'womens issues'.

*(yeh, i'm still assuming you're a he until you say otherwise dev - dont blame me, blame the patriarchy wink 'human' is default male, after all)