This topic is locked - please do not try to restart it.
Informed_Debate's profile . Informed_Debate group posts
 |
| mq1965 |
This follows on a little from the banning of ClassAct and some of the arguments about her, both before and after she was banned.
For someone who was never directly personally offensive to anyone she took an awful lot of very personal abuse directed at her. Without wanting to get into the merits or otherwise of her views, and trying to make this more general than about her specifically, I wondered about the reasons for that.
It seemed to me that whilst much of what she said was undiplomatic, to put it mildly, and as time went on also increasingly self-caricature, that there was usually a grain of truth in what she said. That little grain of truth was usually something which actually most of us do feel a little uncomfortable with, a recognition that most people do have little niggling prejudices, no matter how hard they try, that humanity isn't actually very idealistic, that we are actually largely responsible for our own condition etc.
These were things that remind us that the world isn't quite as nice as we'd like it to be, and probably never will be. Worse, that we ourselves are not quite as nice as we'd like to be and probably never will be. And we are to blame for many of our own failings.
My feeling is that the quite extraordinary amounts of vitriol directed at her were not so much because of her views - plenty of people say more offensive things on here without getting quite so hammered - but because what she said touched a raw nerve, and made us feel a little uncomfortable about ourselves, something people don't like.
Is it possibly true, in this specific case but also in general, that we tend to react badly to being told things that disturb our cosy world view, our security or our confidence in ourselves, even if those things may well be true?
And even if they aren't true, isn't it valuable to have someone who will occasionally kick against the cosy consensus of how things should be, stir things up and make people examine their own views more carefully rather than just complacently agreeing they are right? Aren't any views, even those that are clearly right, better for being tried and tested rather than just lying around unchallenged and unexamined? Don't we need someone prepared to be different, to speak out and suggest things that may even seem taboo to most, if we are to flourish and develop intellectually?
| 27 Jan 12, 12:32 AM wonderer UK, 5 yrs  |
Yes. I often try to post in ways which will make people think, and I enjoy reading many posts which challenge my thinking, especially if they are well argued and don't resort to banality, discourtesy, disparaging others, and levels of repetition which make reading someone's posting history seem a bit like listening to a scratched LP. If Class Act 2005's antics were supposed to challenge our thinking then she was a fail. She just annoyed people. And - on the subjects where she got repetitive - I don't think she had much of interest to say. The recent thread on Tallulahme's blog (which CA2005 didn't post on) covered her territory far better than any of the threads she contributed to. ETA: the blog is here http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/posts/323290/0#...
"Wisdom begins in wonder” (Socrates) Edited 27 Jan 12, 12:34 AM by wonderer | ||
| 27 Jan 12, 1:24 AM Doghouse_Reilly UK(MK), 6 yrs |
Some people have a knack for being incredibly insulting without ever looking like they are doing it deliberately. Such people are best removed from polite discourse because, whether they know it or not, they are harming the conversation. The principles of free speech date back to an era before the internet and anonymity and such like. Fact that if you want a good conversation you have to have boundaries, and you have to enforce them. Not every opinion is valid. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. | ||
| 27 Jan 12, 1:38 AM wonderer UK, 5 yrs |
A further thought, because I failed to give the OP credit for this point. I guess if CA had been constantly posting that "the moon is made of green cheese" on random threads,or even "All people born in April are criminals and should be incarcerated" she wouldn't have caused much offence and would have just been ignored as some kind of nutter; an annoyance because she would dilute the threads, but not distract them. She'd insult a few people but not in a way they would take seriously,because her assertions would be completely devoid of credibility for most people. As MQ says, the fact that some of her obsessions had an element of credibility, or at least enough of a hint of an element of credibility and annoyance to cause people to respond, made her a worse nuisance because instead of merely diluting a thread, she distracted and diverted them, and also got people's backs up. I guess if you want to be an effective troll you need to be able to convince at least a few people that there may be something in what you're saying. You don;t need to be right of course; just be annoying and have sufficient hint of credibility to divert a few people. "Wisdom begins in wonder” (Socrates) Edited 27 Jan 12, 1:54 AM by wonderer | ||
| 27 Jan 12, 2:58 AM Muzzlehatch UK(TN), 7 yrs |
She was however offensive to whole swathes of people on here. A bigot is probably a reasonable description. She held views and was not prepared to alter them, despite evidence to the contrary. It may have been the fat issue that got her banned, but let's not forget her other targets. The poor, the poorly educated, tattooed people, smokers, and as for age differences... All this from someone who constantly flaunted their supposed wealth and education. Yet she herself could barely put a coherent sentance together. Will she be missed? Not by me, her arguements had been made to the point of tedium. Has she disappeared? No, I think her status is now such, that her name will crop up every time someone mentions something similar. "Ooh, that's the sort of thing CA would have said." That will slow down over time, as people move on/forget. This is the internet, there will always be trolls. If CA was one, it was a masterpiece. Lasted for years! Owner of The Croppery Dungeon and Breakfast. Organises The St Leonards munch. | ||
| 27 Jan 12, 3:43 AM AnEnglishMaster UK(ME), 5 yrs |
How awful. Such a thoughtcrime could never be something that other members of IC could be accused of, clearly. For the record; I don't like tattoos. I don't like piercings. I don't like skinny women. I don't like foul language. I don't like some of the stuff AClassAct posted. I don't like the lack of care shown in many of the posts on this website. I don't like the kind of reverse pride demonstrated by those who seem to make it a point of honour to stand up for their right to post comments which are virtually incoherent because of their atrocious spelling and grammar (let me be clear, before someone attacks me - I am not talking about ANY individual - it just irks me when people assume that others MUST "know what they mean", even when their posts are so rambling and lacking in cohesion that they cannot be safely deciphered) Other people on here would disagree with every one of the above. Such is their right. I would - literally - HATE to see them banned for their divergence from my opinion. Which is why it makes my flesh creep to see so many people glorying in the banning of ClassAct, which I only learned about from seeing it mentioned on this thread a short while ago. Yes, it may be true that "she held views and was not prepared to alter them". I may just be guilty of that myself from time to time. And.... guess what.... so may some of her biggest critics. That she is banned is shameful. English "It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others" - Anon Edited 27 Jan 12, 4:08 AM by AnEnglishMaster | ||
| 27 Jan 12, 8:30 AM littlenic 5 yrs |
Yes, and on the BDSM boards there are plenty of people who will kick against the BDSM truisms, which is grand, and views do get changed over time, I think.
Yes, generally. But in this specific case, the BDSM boards are not the place for discussions of class or weight politics. Nor was ClassAct attempting to aid people's intellectual development. It was tedious trolling; what she said, and how she said it, were both incredibly predictable. I did dislike the vitriol aimed at her. But I also disliked the way that, once she posted her often barely relevant views on any given post, that post would rapidly lose its original purpose and end in a tedious and repetitive fight about weight or class or whatever. That to me killed more truth-sharing and "intellectual development" on IC than any banning of an individual member could.
| ||
| 27 Jan 12, 8:33 AM valleyrose17 UK(BS), 2 yrs |
Look, - it's as simple as this. SHE BROKE THE RULES. Many times! She was warned - and continued. She got chucked out. You break the rules - you get chucked out. Whats the point in rules otherwise? Simples. Time to move on "Fear is that little darkroom where negatives are developed" Michael Pritchard | ||
| 27 Jan 12, 8:47 AM calmhands UK, 2 yrs |
^^^^^ This. Like terriers with a wanked out tennis ball... ch x
| ||
| 27 Jan 12, 8:53 AM AshUK UK(EN), 7 yrs £ |
I completely disagree . Not being prepared to alter your views is a sign of a closed mind . And a closed mind is a weakness . CA was banned not because of her views, but the way she aired them . She annoyed and insulted a lot of people on here . But one of the things that infuriated me most about her was her refusal to change her views even slightly in the face of overwhelming evidence . I think you and her are very similar . Perhaps that's why you feel such empathy for her . As for me ? I have some very deeply held views, some deep seated convictions . But I think I'm open to challenge and debate on every single one . You know I'm a militant atheist for example . But if god appeared to me and said ' hey, ash - how you doing ? ' then I would change my mind and believe . Because I'm open minded . I somehow suspect there is nothing at all that would make you doubt your faith . Which is a failing, in my eyes . I wouldn't say I'm arrogant, but Superman has pictures of me on his pyjamas. | ||
| 27 Jan 12, 8:53 AM Ms_Valentine UK, 9 yrs |
Yes, I hold views which I am not prepared to alter. I suppose that is why we call them our views. I thought her banning was, when considered broadly, a bad thing. I did not agree with CA2005's views on many topics. I also did agree with her on a couple. Lately she had been a bit foolish as she seemed to lose the ability to know when to stop. Occasional barbed, unkind or tactless posts will just go through largely unnoticed but it had got to a point where her views became the subject for discussion in themselves and more and more frequently. It became a little tedious. CA2005 was one of the most un-PC people ever. The libertarian right wing might in some ways have appreciated her no nonsense stance. However, she did somehow manage to make us a bit uncomfortable, partly as I think she ploughed the loneliest of furrows, often alienating everyone which is quite an impressive feat. Her views on the poor and class would upset a certain section of IC, then her views on smoking and tattoos would antagonise others, then her anti-fat comments would wind up more and so she rarely had any backers. I will admit her views on obesity have made me feel uncomfortable on many occasions as some of what she said was right. Not all, as she often gave out her opinion as fact which clouded the validity of the truth she spoke. She was also unable to censor herself as to when she brought out those views so in a thread hypothetically speaking, one can accept a strident opinion but to make unkind comments on a blog is tactless and lacking in empathy. She made me feel uncomfortable about myself. I speak a lot about personal responsibility. I am overweight. It is my responsibility to change that as I hate it and hate it more because it is my fault and I know it. I feel unhealthy, tired often and know my attitude is not a caring one for myself nor is it a responsible one in a wider sense. CA2005 stopped me from being complacent about my failings and for that small, personal reason alone, I am sorry she is no longer here. What she stood for was overall worth more than the often less than perfect way she expressed it. Dominant partner in an FLR with @paulss |
