The “Derailing” Train Stops Here, Folks; or, How to Get Banned From Commenting on Lisa’s Blog Posts
Published by Lisa Kansas October 24th, 2008 in Punkass!, Blogitics, UncategorizedDid I mention in a previous thread that I’ve never been drawn to the field of child care? I should throw “teaching” in there too. I don’t mind tutoring, and have done a fair amount of that since my high school days, but as far as attempting to control an unruly class of children or adolescents day-in and day-out, MEH! No thanks!
Yet I find myself somewhat in that situation now. And I’m not even getting PAID for it. Talk about rubbing salt into the wound…
Now, on the off-chance that all the out-of-control behavioral issues we have all been witnessing over the past few weeks in the site comments genuinely springs from ignorance of the non-willful variety, I am going to lay out a set of guidelines for commenting on all my posts in future. Should a commenter violate them, he or she will be politely or snarkily, depending upon my mood at the moment, reminded to re-read this post and amend his or her behavior. Should a commenter then continue to disregard this, he or she will be banned from that comment thread. Should a pattern of behavior emerge on multiple comment threads, he or she will be banned from the site, period. These guidelines can be revised at any time, depending upon my whim; any attempt to argue with me about the unfairness of any part of it will most likely be ignored and also tip the scales of justice out of favor of the arguer. This ain’t a democracy, folks; it’s a blog.
Rule #1: NO THREAD-JACKING
What is thread-jacking? It’s when you insistently refuse to discuss the subject of the blog post you are commenting on. The subject that you are attempting to force the author and other commenters to discuss instead may or may not be related, superficially or otherwise, to the blog subject; that is irrelevant. Sometimes a set of blog comments flows naturally into humor or discussion of a related or even unrelated topic; that can be perfectly fine, or it can be thread-jacking. What distinguishes the two situations tends to be the attitude of the person penning the off-center comments. I am quite capable of discerning the difference between constructive exploration of a sub- or side-topic and a flat refusal to discuss the topic at hand for personal or ideological reasons, and I will not hesitate in future to exercise that judgement and cut any non-constructive explorer off at the knees. So, engage in this at your commenting peril from here on outward.
Rule #2: NO TIT-FOR-TATTING
What is tit-for-tatting? It’s when you take every issue that a blog writer tries to discuss and reorient it to apply to your personal life or crusades. This can be summarized as the No one has suffah’d as I have suffah’d! mindset. Now (gently, as to a small child): Nobody is suggesting that you, Joe Schmoe, have not suffered. Nobody is suggesting that your suffering doesn’t matter. Perhaps, Joe Schmoe, you can start your own blog to address the issues that you have suffered through in the past and/or are currently suffering through today, or the issues of whatever subset of humanity you are most interested in. However, Joe, we do not respect your laziness at attempting to save yourself the trouble of doing so and just vent over on our blog that we are taking the time and energy to create and maintain. Whatever the issue is and the subset of humanity it is described as affecting here at Punkassblog, that is the subject of the blog and that is what will be discussed. Again, as in Rule #1, that does not mean that we can’t veer off-topic in the slightest; however, as stated in Rule #1, I am quite capable of distinguishing between humorous or constructive exploration and pendantic or destructive obsfucation. I will call you on it, and if you don’t desist, you will be gone, first locally, then globally.
Feel free to question the dictator further on this thread, if you need or want clarification.
Why aren’t you talking about tomatoes on this post? I think tomatoes are important and delicious.
It really would help the point to sink in if you were wearing thigh high leather 3 inch heeled boots and bending a riding crop while you say it….but then maybe that’s just me.
I’ve no intention of “derailing”, and I think I’ve shown that by desisting when told I was doing so.
Meanie.
Note to all: This was not aimed at any specific person, unless of course your name DOES happen to be “Joe Schmoe;” in which case, it wasn’t actually aimed at you either and I apologize for helping society make a mockery of your name. Really.
Actually, the real name is Joseph Shmoo, so it’s OK.
There is a danger that tangential thinkers may be misunderstood on occasion.
I’m just sayin’.
My advice to tangential thinkers would be: Make it clear that you are not attempting to minimize and/or divert the specified topic at hand in any way, and phrase your tangential topic as a suggested topic of discussion, and do not refuse to discuss the topic at hand if nobody takes you up on your tangent. Like you would in a conversation with a group of people you consider at least friendly acquaintances. It’ll probably work out.
PS to Fac: I am working on the topic we discussed as my next “Feminist Dissident” post.
Cool, but you have to at least respond to me once in a while for it to be any fun.
Someone tell Factory that a man technically owns this site. Maybe he’ll respect a man’s authority to own a blog that can’t immediately be commandeered by men who want to use it to spread the gospel of misogyny.
Amanda, if you want Factory specifically and/or MRAs in general to be banned from posting here at PAB, you can just say so. I at least would feel obligated to comply. If that is what you were trying to say on the other thread where you made a remark about it, I apologize for being slow on the uptake; I thought you were just making an observation about Pandagon.
However, deliberately trying to pick fights with Factory specifically (or just an MRA in general) on a comment thread like this, where at least this specific MRA is clearly trying to be conciliatory (the personal remarks he makes to me, about leather and suchlike, are the product of a pre-existing relationship dating back some years, not a sign of disrespect based on my gender, if that’s where that’s coming from–he has made no such remarks to any other feminist blogger or commenter on here, I offer as evidence of that) and I am trying to maintain as much freedom of speech and lack of ideological rhetoric as possible, really totally undermines the whole point of me even having written it. For instance, if you were an MRA and you made the above remark, substituting any specific feminist poster for Factory, “woman” for “man” and “misandry” for “misogyny,” I would warn you that that was a good example of the kind of disrespect that I wasn’t going to let slide past and I would issue you a warning. I can’t do that, though, obviously.
So I am forced into hypocrisy, which is making me fairly unhappy right now. If there are rules to posting or commenting on PAB that I am unaware of that I’m violating or have violated in the past, if you (or Marc) can please let me know what those are, I would really appreciate it. If what I write about and/or how I approach other bloggers on here or commenters isn’t what you or he wants for this site, please definitely let me know that.
I’m really at a loss as to how to proceed otherwise.
Not to put too fine a point on it Amanda, and others who wish to see me and others like me gone, I absolutely HATED feminists until I met and started debating Lisa. For what it’s worth, my ideals haven’t changed much, but my ability to empathize has increased and sometimes I even agree with her (hell, even other feminists).
The reason I am here, chatting with any who care to, is precisely because of attitudes that cause people to dismiss MRA’s based on the fact that they’re MRA’s (much like I used to outright tell anyone self identifying as a feminist to “fuck off”, literally, in real life, and yes even if they were hot - immediately after identifying as such).
Call it old age, but I don’t see a lot of value in that anymore.
Part of the reason I am here is to share perspectives, rather than letting fear mongering and micharacterization take hold. I would hardly call myself a “prominent” MRA, but I tend to share a lot of the same perspectives as a lot of other MRA’s, so I feel I make an OK representative. There are many who would disagree, but I don’t see them here…
If no one wishes to get a perspective from “the other side”, then my value here is limited, and I will move on. I just think there’s some value in understanding, and want to give it a try.
If you’d rather not, say so.