Did you guys know that Evil Captor likes bondage? With bonus fuck-off for Miller!

I corresponded with her for a little while after her banning, and I’m fairly well convinced that that was the one thing she wasn’t lying about.

Maybe it’s because Evil Captor isn’t a misogynist. Msmith talks about gender roles in society, EC talks about what turns him on. And the LJ or snarkboard or whatever plotting here was certainly what pissed me off and drew me into this thread on EC’s side.

That, and, from the links provided in this thread, Evil Captor actually stays in context with the conversation. What he posted, he didn’t post to intentionally irritate half of the population of the board. I pitted msmith for intentionally derailling threads about relationships and turning them into pissing contests for his own entertainment. I don’t like his views, and I think his overall tone toward women is misogynistic, but the original point behind the pitting was his methodology. Evil Captor was pitted, in short, because he likes bondage.

Oh, and BTW, pointing to one of my threads as proof of popularity is just freakin laughable. I do not now, nor have I ever in the past, belonged to the LJ Bitch Brigade. I’m given to understand they hate me like poison.

There was no “plotting” on the snark board at all that lead to this. There actually was a concerted effort in one case to aggregate links leading to a poster’s eventual banning - that poster being Kaitlyn, the possible-transsexual. I was certainly not part of that, and I think that kind of plotting is rather disgusting.

But nothing similar happened with Evil Captor at all. There was a thread there about Evil Captor having posted yet another gratuitous reference to bondage; someone listed links to threads he wrote in strict chronological order, and inkleberry reposted that list here. But it’s not as though there was any sort of “Calling all snarkers: Get this onto the SDMB, quick!” It was a conversation about the SDMB that happened in another location (as happens quite commonly - as has been pointed out, there are lots of LiveJournals and so forth devoted to talking about the SDMB outside the SDMB. That’s not really surprising, is it? Any large group of people will also include smaller subgroups that discuss the community amongst themselves. There’s plenty of ancillary SDMB groups, or groups primarily composed of SDMB members, that are well-known and some people participate, and others don’t.

There was certainly not “plot” afoot in this instance. It was just a bunch of people having a conversation about Evil Captor, some of whom agreed with me that he posts about his interest too often and others who didn’t. inkleberry decided to start a pit thread here - apparently, hearing about Evil Captor’s interests once too often rankled her, but all she did was take a list of links, add more to them, and repost them as part of her pitting.

There is no large group of people who’ve decided to “take Evil Captor” down, or start some sort of deliberate pile-on, or anything of the sort. Defending Evil Captor because you believe some sort of large-scale plot against him is occurring is ridiculous and paranoid. inkleberry’s thread was shut down (in accordance with usual practice) because there is a strong wall of separation between this place and all other boards. That doesn’t mean there was a group of people carefully orchestrating some plan.

It’s just that some of us have been annoyed with Evil Captor for some time, and it happens to have been discussed off-board before it was discussed here. I bet you any doper gathering has people talking about others as well. It may seem rude to have a conversation behind Evil Captor’s back, so to speak, but as inkleberry pointed out, that happened spontaneously in her living room as well. That happens all the time, online and off, and it’s silly to be shocked or horrified by it. Evil Captor could certainly find every other SDMB-related forum in existence if he wanted to know if anyone was talking about him, but I don’t think any person alive would bother to do that. Likewise, we sometimes have pit threads devoted to people who don’t hang out in the pit. (How many lekatt-related pittings have there been, for instance?) There is no special facility to inform a user any time their name has been mentioned in a thread they don’t happen to run into, either. (Though you can do vanity searches.) Your friends talk about you when you’re not around, too, as do your co-workers. Nothing in this instance was more “devious” or “underhanded” than any conversation about absent people that happens anywhere.

Uh, no, he wasn’t. Plenty of people like bondage. I’m not averse to it myself, and it’s a ridiculous strawman to claim that I just was upset at his sexual interests and decided to Pit him for it. That’s a major insult to me, and I think I have made it quite clear in this thread that I don’t have anything against any of his sexual activities at all. I was just tired of hearing about them. And no, threads he posted in didn’t turn into hijacks to discuss bondage - a point in his favor, as I detest deliberate hijackings. But he brought it up in instances that I saw as gratuitous. You may not agree, but do not assign me motives that are completely contrary to the ones I’ve shown.

So the standard now is, "I will complain about people who are ‘tiresome’’?

Evil Captor, I’d say keep talking about whatever floats your boat. And just to spite the squicked-out, I suggest changing your signature to, 'Whip me, beat me, call me trash!"

Everyone else, get a life. Tolerance for people’s harmless hobbies, no matter how ‘squicky’ you may find them, is a wonderful thing.

Um, yeah. Hasn’t that always been the standard? A lot of people get complained about for being tiresome. That’s probably why most pittings occur.

I’m not even going to respond to your question about my ability to distinguish between fantasy and reality, or between movies and real life.

But I still disagree with you.

Your fantasies take place within your moral universe; they are not free of context just because they’re not “real.” Few of us would disagree that there is a moral distinction between fantasizing about sex with your monogamous adult partner and fantasizing about raping and killing small children. EC’s fantasies are obviously not as morally “disgusting” as my second extreme example, but they exist somewhere along that spectrum of “disgustingness.” That EC can watch a depiction of a crime of sexual violence and become aroused by it is, within my moral universe, comparatively disgusting. Not as disgusting as if he were to come across a real rape and refuse to help, but still it exists at a place along that spectrum that I am extremely uncomfortable with. Frankly, I think it betrays a lack of humanity and empathy.

I’m not saying that everyone should feel the way I do. Of course, the universe will never be perfect until everyone does, but for now I’m content just to try to explain my own responses, speaking for no one but myself.

I certainly wasn’t trying to twist your words, and yes, I disagree with you; they seem to be relevant to the threads linked. So, with that in mind, I apologize for misinterpreting your intent and will ammend my post to: “it seems Evil Captor was pitted because he posts too frequently about liking bondage. As opposed to, say, posting too frequently about liking cars, or Star Trek, or Harry Potter or child rearing or any other topic people go on about ad nauseum, me included sometimes.” K?

This is outrageous, and is tantamount to “playing the race card.” It’s like suggesting that Reeder drew fire for being a liberal, or that anyone who disagrees with Al Sharpton is a racist.

His inappropriate interjections for no apparent reason beyond a weird kind of message board exhibitionism is what’s being pitted. The content of those hijack-bombs is not irrelevant to this discussion–just as race is not necessarily irrelevant to a discussion of Al Sharpton–but it’s not the sole reason for EC’s being pitted, as you claim; it’s not even the primary reason.

So, should I just operate on the assumption that you didn’t bother to read the post directly above yours?

Actually, I’d say most pittings are because someone is being either offensive, or stupid. Although I suppose you could argue that you’re offended by his tiresomeness…

I’d disagree. I don’t place a moral value on fantasies, only on actions. Both fantasies have the same moral value, which is null. I suspect I’m in the minority on that one, though.

Who are you talking to, and about which posts?

Well I believe that we’re the sum of our thoughts, and not just of our actions. Otherwise we would all be defined by what we get away with.

Hm. I thought it would be fairly evident that I was speaking to you. And, this
post. Which also would have been fairly evident, had you actually taken a few seconds to, I don’t know, scroll up.

I would agree with this, in large part because I don’t see the possibility in not thinking about something you “shouldn’t”, and because I certainly have fantasies that I simply would not enjoy in reality. I just don’t bring them up constantly (and frankly, some of them are a lot more disturbing than anything Evil Captor posts, and you can bet the sexual revolution live-and-let-live stuff would not be offered up in my defense.)

Look at the fucking time stamp, you pompous asswipe.

Anyone’s “moral universe” is so subjective as regards sexuality as to be worthless as a legitimate reference point in this kerfuffle.

I hope everyone can agree that at least EvilCaptor doesn’t literally shit in threads. Because not everyone enjoys warm, steamy piles of lucious fecal matter streaming over their face and sliding down their throat.

Go figure.

Go grab some pamprin, you whiny pussy.