Well, this doesn’t deserve it’s own thread, and I won’t hijack this thread, but I guess a quick clarification is in order. Please forgive.
The thread was posted, the usual homophobe accusations were made, and I came in to posit that it wasn’t that big a deal because it’s a private school and they can make that decision. Many Pit threads turn into debates (look at this one) so I was offering an opinion that differed from everything that had been posted to that point. Very shortly afterwards, it was made clear that the thread was for people that wanted to bitch about the issue. I acknowledge that, was directly accused of being a “gay-hater”, and left the thread.
Didn’t really see the point in continuing to read it after that.
I hadn’t noticed him sneak any bdsm into unrelated topics for some time, and thought that he had stopped that foolish action. I’m only aware of the fantasy film thread he started that had a missleading title about films that need to be explained, but even it that he was pretty clearly talking about the Gor based film ‘deathstalker’ or whatever it was called in the OP. Seemed very easy to avoid. Calling someone a prude seems analagous to the sometimes common misrepresentation of people and ideas on this board as being homophobic sometimes employed by posters here. How is he making people uncomfortable if this isn’t about bondage but about the way he acts irrespective of his post contents? And should we not laugh at people who are uncomfortable about the idea of bondage in the same way we can laugh at those uncomfortable with the idea of furries or cross-dressers etc. ?
Allow me to try, as a dispassionate observer of that kerfuffle and of duffer in general.
Seems to me that duffer has some auto-responses that at times kick in before rational thought. One is to see protests against some action affecting a protected class taken by an authority figure (school head, government official, etc.) as just more goddamned liberal whining. “What, y’all are up in arms because some private school said they don’t want that person around? Hey, they’ve got the right to set their own standards!”
Now, he’s right in that a private school can (within limits) shun persons whom the school authorities find antithetical to the school’s principles. Excalibre and the others bitching about the school’s actions weren’t attacking that as impermissible per se. Rather, the outrage was over what the shunning said about the school’s principles. It seems to me that duffer conflated the two grounds for complaint, was called on the appearance of homophobia his response suggested, and couldn’t untangle the two issues – given where he’s coming from – sufficiently to explain why he’d erupted.
I don’t believe he’s homophobic. I do believe he has certain hot buttons that when pressed overcome his ability to assess dispassionately what’s before him, and that he himself doesn’t see how his kneejerk reactions color his perceptions.
Oh, and duffer, if you’ve waded this far into my swamp, yes, I’m well aware that my own knee jerks just as vigorously on certain topics. Also, while there are times I’d cheerfully strangle you, overall I like you. This isn’t intended as a slam, just a stab at explaining the seemingly inexplicable.
:: sigh :: And while I was composing all that duffer wandered in and explained himself. What the hell, I’ll post it anyway.
Again, it wasn’t about being uncomfortable with bondage. It was being uncomfortable about the feeling that he was getting off on people who MIGHT be uncomfortable about bondage.
And why should we laugh at people who feel that way? :dubious:
Not to be maudlin, but I would wager that it’s a big deal to gay kids who are at that school. You have absolutely no idea what it’s like to be 15, know that you’re gay (even if you haven’t said the words yet), and have that kind of bullshit constantly shoved at you by authority figures. It’s a big deal.
That aspect had never occured to me. Not because I don’t care about it, it just never was a part of my thought process in that thread. It wasn’t malicious, it was something that was just never an issue in my thinking. I never meant to offend anyone, but I guess it happens from time to time. That’s why I left the thread. I wasn’t adding anything to it and the general mood wasn’t one that allowed for a counter-point. Like I said, most Pit threads turn into debates. That wasn’t one of them. When I realized that, I left. It was the best I could do.
And dammit, ETF! Would you stop trying to explain my posts and intent in a way that makes me sound almost human? You’re killing my street cred! Fumbling around in the dark is quite enjoyable. Everytime I run head-first into a wall it’s like a mini-Christmas gift. Always a surprise, invigorates the senses, causes bodily harm and no way to return it for a refund. Why do you hate my happiness in life? What did I ever do to you.
lissener has something of a habit of taking an extreme point of view in a debate, one which has very little to do with what was actually being said, then argues that point to smithereens.
lissener, if you’re still reading this:
No, she implied that him being suspended solely for jerkish behavior was as utterly ridiculous as trying to sell someone the Brooklyn Brodge; that he was suspended for both the subject matter and the jerkish hijacking. This is perfectly clear to everyone except you. See the straw now?
You know, that’s how I saw it at first. But if you look at the thread, duffer’s response was a complete non sequitur. Now, putting myself in his shoes - if I had said something that (a) made no sense and (b) made me look like a homophobe/anti-semite/racist/puppy-kicker, I would own up to what I said. I’d try to explain what I meant, and apologize for sounding like a jackass. I do that sometimes - Lord knows I have a big mouth, but I try to fake like a grown-up when I say something offensive or assinine.
That’s not what duffer did. Now, it could be that he just kneejerked when he saw the thread. Which in itself reflects something frankly wrong with him - that the original injustice is irrelevant when compared to the spectre of liberal whining. But all would have been cool if he’d admitted that no one had even tried to make the imaginary point he was responding to. Instead he tried to blow it off with some crap about how he didn’t realize it wasn’t a debate thread (sort of incomprehensible in itself, as there was nothing to debate in the thread.)
Either duffer is just completely unwilling to own up and admit that he said something dumb even when it makes him look like a homophobic jackass, or else he’s found a slightly more socially acceptable way to be a homophobe - couch it in defending the poor, poor Religious Right, all ganged-up on. :: shrug :: That’s how I see it. This board gives a rather limited view of the world - frankly, there’s a lot of homophobia in the real world. Some of the homophobes on the board are open about it - witness our beloved post-birth abortion candidate Clothahump. But given that this board is not really welcoming to homophobia and that homophobia is still sadly prevalent, it seems silly to pretend that there’s no “closet homophobes” around here, as it were. Maybe duffer isn’t, but he certainly did a good job of faking like he was one. You’d think that he’d want to clear his reputation if he wasn’t. Which is why it strikes me that he doesn’t really see it as a bad thing at all.
I guess I don’t see where he’s coming from. If I said something that made me look like a bigot, I’d want to clear my name. duffer sure didn’t try. He just put himself right back up on his usual cross. Poor, poor duffer. All those mean liberals listening to what you say, and responding to it. How dare they? duffer, you came across as a homophobe. If you aren’t, then it seems to me like it’d be pretty logical for you to admit that you expressed yourself badly. Your unwillingness to do so leads me to suspect that you probably are a bit homophobic.
You’re funny? Well, go figure. I have never read anything by you that could be construed as funny. Your tone tends towards sanctimonous to the righteous. I perceived a lecturing tone in your post that quoted me.
Granted-I never thought you were “going after me”–I found your post churlish and irrelevant to mine. I was replying to Excalibre, who does’t appear to have an issue with my reply. Oh, and btw, I don’t “pound a meme”–you quarrel with others re posting what they mean and come out with this pompous nonsense? Whatever. :rolleyes:
IMO, EC’s sense of martyrdom (if it exists) is all up to him. Hmm…perhaps it would make him happy to think that we want him to wear a hairshirt and chains…no! Put him in a comfy chair! The worst thing you can do for a guy like that is treat him nice…(that’s another joke).
I also don’t froth at the mouth–at least not for you. (psst-another joke! I got a million of 'em…). Nowhere did I advocate for your banning–but if you should happen to leave, I won’t be using any Kleenex. See the difference? I’ll wait with Maureen, if you need me to.
Bottom line: It matters not one bit to me if or why EC is suspended. If he is hijacking multiple threads and acting like a jerk, all I can say is that I haven’t seen it. Then again, I pay very little attention to most poster’s personal habits, so to speak. The little attention I have paid to EC leads me to agree with Guin –EC seemed to revel in squiking people out and then act disingenuous-I believe that was a recent Pit thread. Oh, dear–perhaps I am “pounding the meme” again. I hate when that happens!
Duffer --I dunno who wins or loses here, as luck would have it, we probably all do.
Maybe if I try again, the coding will look more reasonable.
You know, that’s how I saw it at first. But if you look at the thread, duffer’s response was a complete non sequitur. Now, putting myself in his shoes - if I had said something that (a) made no sense and (b) made me look like a homophobe/anti-semite/racist/puppy-kicker, I would own up to what I said. I’d try to explain what I meant, and apologize for sounding like a jackass. I do that sometimes - Lord knows I have a big mouth, but I try to fake like a grown-up when I say something offensive or assinine.
That’s not what duffer did. Now, it could be that he just kneejerked when he saw the thread. Which in itself reflects something frankly wrong with him - that the original injustice is irrelevant when compared to the spectre of liberal whining. But all would have been cool if he’d admitted that no one had even tried to make the imaginary point he was responding to. Instead he tried to blow it off with some crap about how he didn’t realize it wasn’t a debate thread (sort of incomprehensible in itself, as there was nothing to debate in the thread.)
Either duffer is just completely unwilling to own up and admit that he said something dumb even when it makes him look like a homophobic jackass, or else he’s found a slightly more socially acceptable way to be a homophobe - couch it in defending the poor, poor Religious Right, all ganged-up on. :: shrug :: That’s how I see it. This board gives a rather limited view of the world - frankly, there’s a lot of homophobia in the real world. Some of the homophobes on the board are open about it - witness our beloved post-birth abortion candidate Clothahump. But given that this board is not really welcoming to homophobia and that homophobia is still sadly prevalent, it seems silly to pretend that there’s no “closet homophobes” around here, as it were. Maybe duffer isn’t, but he certainly did a good job of faking like he was one. You’d think that he’d want to clear his reputation if he wasn’t. Which is why it strikes me that he doesn’t really see it as a bad thing at all.
I guess I don’t see where he’s coming from. If I said something that made me look like a bigot, I’d want to clear my name. duffer sure didn’t try. He just put himself right back up on his usual cross. Poor, poor duffer. All those mean liberals listening to what you say, and responding to it. How dare they? duffer, you came across as a homophobe. If you aren’t, then it seems to me like it’d be pretty logical for you to admit that you expressed yourself badly. Your unwillingness to do so leads me to suspect that you probably are a bit homophobic.
After you take a few breaths to calm your outrage and stop hitting the submit button, please scroll up and read post 187. You apparently missed it.
Even after stating I made a piss-poor post in a thread I was obviously not allowed in, you still suspect I’m a homophobe.
You don’t have to tell me what you suspect, dipshit. You’ve already stated what you believe. Too bad. I don’'t feel like tying you up and gagging you anymore. I don’t think it would be as exciting as it was would have been. A damn shame.
Oh, hell. I decide to wait until late to check back to the boards and this thread just zips off into the stratosphere.
Excalibre : My point about free speech is simply this : while I certainly am not suggesting that the SDMB become anything-goes for all manner of expression, I think expression that is merely offensive - not inflammatory, incitatory (Did I just make that word up?) illegal or otherwise directly harmful - should not be grounds for banning, and the reason I think that is this :
Poster A believes in declawing cats. A great throng of the SDMB thinks Declawing Cats is Wrong. They coordinate to complain about Poster A’s posts every single time he says something that they can possibly trump up to convince the Mods that they consider it offensive. With a policy of banning folks for saying offensive things, abuses can happen.
Now, that isn’t necessarily what happened here. But, I find it difficult to believe that so many folks can get so worked up about something that concerns me so little.
As for hijacking threads - well, generally, it’s a bit rude to hijack someone’s thread, but sometimes, it takes things off in an interesting new direction. I don’t think that should be a bannable offense either.
And it’s true that we’re no jury, and this was no trial - but in the absence of official word from the moderators, we’re almost assuredly going to speculate. And come to our own conclusions.
Feh. I’m tired. Do you at least see my POV on this one? Rational minds may disagree.
But the very grounds of your argument are suited to a discussion of legal limits to freedom of speech, not what works on a message board. Whether it’s inflammatory or offensive is irrelevant - if it’s constantly repeated in ways that stop other conversations from happening, or if it consistently involves trying to trick people into having a conversation with you, that’s a problem. Issues like that don’t have any counterpart in the real world, but they matter when it comes to having a reasonable conversation on a message board.
Except that the problem is not with Evil Captor’s beliefs. Believe it or not, we’re not a bunch of prudes dedicated to stopping all expression of sexual thought. The problem is the manner he uses to express his sexual interests. It’s irritating to anyone who’s reading the threads and doesn’t always want to discuss slavegirl fantasies.
Some people are different from you. No, really.
Not doing it once, of course. But deliberately doing it, over and over, after the mods have asked you to stop, always to talk about one pet issue?
Well, I don’t see why it shouldn’t be.
Most of what you’re talking about is simply not relevant to what Evil Captor did. Maybe you didn’t run into his Café Society whackfests. In that case, then the problem might not be clear to you. If you never saw him do it, maybe it’s hard to understand why it annoyed a lot of us.
I can’t believe EC was actually suspended for the above-cited posts. As vicious and jerkish as some threads get on this board, his postings were fairly tame in my opinion, and at least somewhat literate. Has anyone read any screwball321’s stuff?
Sifting through the arguments of EC’s detractors, I’m inclined to imagine that the subject matter simply struck some as obscene – or at least politically incorrect – and they in turn decided to teach him (and us) a lesson and campaigned for his censure. Dopers are always breaking off political hijacks in threads, is sort of a trademark of this board, particularly during election years. As such, EC’s activities don’t strike me as being any more egregious than those sorts of hijacks, unless you just can’t stomach BDSM.
One of the foundations of my reasoning comes from personal experience on this board, as several months ago I posted a question about the mechanics of the BDSM industry and it was deleted by a mod because “people are gonna jump all over it” among other reasons.
If after four pages and tons of explanations, you still haven’t figured out that it’s not because anyone on the board has a problem with slavegirl fantasies, then you’re stupid. You hold this opinion because you’re too stupid to read the stuff the rest of us have written and then understand it. That or you’re so pathetic that you’re just trying to attack the character of everyone who disagrees with you. But I’m betting on stupid.
Sorry. I probably would have found a slightly more politic way of putting it had we not had six other morons before you popping up with the same idiocy. At a certain point I find it difficult to suffer fools any longer.
Yeah, but you need to put it in a blender for it to come out right. (I think the similarity between “SDMB” and “BDSM” was once used as a reason not to create a board bumper sticker.
The “is this being treated differently because of the content?” question is kind of a non-starter, to me. The hijacks probably wouldn’t stick out or bother people as much if the content was non-sexual - though they’d still be annoying - and if the content was different, Captor’s apparent satisfaction in the hijacking or misleading titles wouldn’t be as creepy or irritating.
I only think of Clapton when the handle is abbreviated EC, personally.
