Pittsburgh G20 Summit

[compared2what?]

Hmm... I don't see any evidence of racism from those links. I see someone acting like an arse; the whole MSM had a racist thing going on with Katrina refugees.

When the post that now reads "My apology" was still:



Except larger, the racist statement was somewhat louder and plainer.

Personally, marmot, I thought you kinda crossed a line there. A clear apology and moving on was needed.
c2w, I find that sometimes the clarity of a message is inversely proportional to it's length. My reaction to reading those links you provided was often confusion about whether you were being straight, sarcastic, intensely offended, crude, ironic or post-ironic.

Honestly, my very own Searcher08, until the "flyswatter" post on page 6, I was sincerely trying (a) to understand what exactly marmot thought was good about an armed robbery that resulted in two deaths; (b) to explain to him that in political and legal terms, you are opening the door to hell by offering up that particular incident as an exemplary model of citizens exercising their rights; and (c) first asking him to think about the law, and then explaining it to him. I myself am not crazy about every single ruling and precedent on the books. But they are what they are, and you can't really be for or against them if you don't understand them.

None of that was hostile on my part. I didn't understand what argument he was making. After the flyswatter remark, which was hostile, I asked what I'd done that he'd understood as hostile. Which led to the "blam, blam, god-given right" post. Which to me read as if written truly from the heart, which I found shocking. In itself.

And also in that it revealed that marmot had just written five pages worth of justification on 2nd amendment grounds, hedged with saccharine and sanctimonious avowals of the reverence he felt for the preciousness of human life because he had to do that in order to avoid revealing that he was, in fact, just really pumped, psyched and elated about how awesome it was that a reputable citizen had taught two black men in their early twenties a really good lesson about staying on the straight and narrow by shooting them dead.

Nothing in that story as reported suggests that it was truly self-defense in a quid-pro-quo sense. The four perps were not attempting murder, and obviously not planning on it. There were four of them, they had one handgun, it was the middle of the day in a non-deserted neighborhood, et cetera, et cetera. Gunshots would have meant prison for them. And presumably did to the two who were just wounded, assuming they survived. So I'd call that overkill. I'd also call marmot a hypocrite, racist, and liar for statements made on that thread alone. But also on others, as it happens. So I do call him that. It's what he is.

Further, he himself clearly knew he was in no position to deny it. As evidenced by his choosing to go on offense (as I'll outline in the next post) when I responded to the "blam" post by writing:

Thank you for your candor. That's not hard to understand and I do understand it.

I guess it was your false expression of sadness at the loss of two lives, as well as your random, incoherent and apparently also insincere attempt to justify the right as constitutionally protected rather than god-given that were hanging me up. My bad. I'll try to remember not to take you at your word next time.

You missed me, btw. Time for target-practice!

Also:

who's being aggressive here, cowgirl?

You are. Why do you ask?

PS -- Sorry, JackRrr, for breaking my vow to you.

[Searcher08]

c2w, Thank you very much for your reply.

I found those pictures quite disturbing. I am not sure of their physical context? Are they post Katrina pictures?

My reading of the exchange was that marmot was expressing satisfaction that someone had 'fought back when outnumbered'.

I didnt deconstruct what he said as racist. TBH I dont think he was really paying much attention at all to what you are saying (his description of you as a fly buzzing indicates your words have become noise to him), so whatever responses came after would have been made with very little thought.

My own point of view:
I think it was a tragic loss of life. I also think that saying there was only one handgun misses the point that there was no way of knowing how many more handguns (than one) there may have been. I believe that relatives of the deceased also described them as being in a reasonable job and not needing the money and to me that indicated the potential for a 'kill for a thrill' scenario.

You appear angry and hurt by what was said.
It seems like there is a great deal of this happening between quite well established members here and I sincerely wish it would stop.

Sometimes at present, it feels like RI has a bit of a memetic infection of suspicion, anger, oversensitivity, arrogance, insensitivity and bullying against each other. It looks like 8bit, lbo, AD, c2w, pw, marmot, have all experienced this.

Perhaps I am being naive in hoping to spread more peace, but I just wanted to say I like both you and marmot and think you are both good people and appreciate you both very much.

[compared2what?]

Yeah, okay. Summing up. His first reply:

Wasn't aiming for you sweetheart. However, you seem a little uptight - something a good swat on the butt and a sincere kiss on the lips might take care of. Forgive me for being a cowboy - but you just let me know if you need a little loving!

That's a totally out-of-the-blue switch to addressing me in explicit male-to-female sexually objectified language that defines him as a lovably macho cowboy who's showing his appreciation of my intellect by reminding me that there's nothing wrong with me he couldn't "take care of" by spanking me, kissing me and giving me the sexual intercourse he implicitly is indicating he believes I don't get enough of when he uses the word "uptight."

Saying that a woman who's causing you problems is uptight in a context that includes explicit references to sex isn't just virtually synonymous with saying that her problem is that she needs to get laid. It's flat-out synonymous with saying that her problem is that she needs to get laid. Any woman who's ever been in a competitive work environment has probably heard it at least once.

And it's (a) sexist; and (b) whether by coincidence or design, a not very skillful deployment of two of the most basic mindfuck tactics commonly used by "the seduction community" to manipulate women and bend them to the seducer's will -- "Negging" (giving female object a self-esteem-lowering insult wrapped in a thin tissue of back-handed compliment); and "Cocky & Funny" (disguising your actual arrogant disregard for female object's feelings and wishes by using a humorous, mock-arrogant approach).

I don't know how common that shit is in non-urban settings. Based on it being not at all unusual for guys to walk up to me and start saying stuff that would make no sense at all unless they were practicing (or maybe actually attempting, how could I know?) the "cold-approach" part of their "game" when I'm just standing in a store aisle looking at drill bits or whatever, I'd say it's pretty common around here. Anyway. It's sick shit. Think "Seduce and Destroy."

But with or without that aspect, it was fucking sexist, it was off-topic, and it was an attempt to get the upper hand in a fair debate he'd lost by disarming me on gender-based grounds. My very crudely worded reply was basically a restatement of what he'd just said to me, except in undisguised terms, obviously not seriously expressive of sexual interest on my part given the bolding below...

Uptight, huh?[....]I would never have seen the signs of it myself. And you being such a straight shooter and all, I'm sure you wouldn't just pull it out of your 100 percent straight and manly ass to suggest that you could easily put me in my place just by condescending to give me the good hard fuck I need to get to justify my existence. While yours, of course, is already justified by god.

...the sign-off addressing him as "girlfriend," telling him I'm just kidding and telling him not to be a drag, and for good measure, a picture of a gay cartoon character dressed as a cowboy.

Another seduction-community (and general coercive-persuasion) principle is escalation -- ie, if the tactic you just tried didn't work, try it again on an exponentially larger scale. Like, say, going from the social-banter format of...

Forgive me for being a cowboy - but you just let me know if you need a little loving!

...which is a comparatively indirect, non-invasive reminder to me that I'm a sexual object, to...

Alright. The part above the image gave me a hard on; the part below it kind-of scared me. Nevertheless, I've PMed you with my email so we can exchange pics. Ok?

...which is at least sexual harassment, by any standard. It's also arguably more like the emotional equivalent of sexual assault and sexual violation. Which is, as it happens, how I experienced it. It was 100 percent uninvited. And unwelcome. We've never gotten along, and he'd insulted and put me down in the past on a number of occasions. Including telling me that I was functionally so useless as a poster that he wasn't going to bother reading what I wrote.

In seduction-community terms, in the event that he was playing by those rules -- which I don't know that he was -- it would also just be a way of marmot telling me directly that I'm functionally useless except insofar as I might be able to give him a hard-on and the material for a masturbation fantasy to go along with it. The principles being negging + escalation = insecure target with lowered sense of self-worth who will start doing whatever she has to do to win your praise and approval. That would be in real life. I think it's self-evident that nobody who really wanted to have a little online sex would step to it on a public thread. Of all places. It's a straight-to-PM kind of enterprise.

Whatever the case, it was partly effective in the short-term, because despite my knowing perfectly well what was going on, I'd feel both very guilty and very unsafe if I tried to override my visceral and instinctual response to being made aware that I'm the object of someone's unwelcome physicalized desire. Or, more plainly stated:

When there's a guy with a hard-on who's telling me that it's my responsibility that he does, I'm enough a part of my culture to agree with him on some non-voluntary and reflexive level. Which is so profoundly and thoroughly the operant level that I'll operate in compliance with it even when I don't actually believe he even has an erection. Which translates to: I feel that when I'm not willing to honor my responsibility for having given a guy a hard-on the traditional way, I'm compelled to subordinate myself to him by declining the offer as graciously and with as much flattery and soothing propitiation as I honestly can. I could and can override that instinct if I really, really had to. But it would take a major effort for me not to follow it. So I'd have have a major reason for making that effort.

In one form or another out of a field of perhaps three or four basic possibilities, I'd say that 99 percent of all women who grew up in the same cultural environment as I did feel a very strong, instinctual response in equivalent circumstances, which they're very likely to act in accordance with. Speaking only for myself, I do it equally out of (a) my fear that if I don't, the guy will make me responsible for his hard-on whether I'm willing to be or not; and (b) my sincere wish to act with care and consideration toward another human being, to whom unfeeling or cold rejection on such a sensitive point would almost certainly be a painful experience.

But whatever. It was an effect tactic insofar as it caused me to back down immediately, leaving marmot in clear possession of the field and absolutely free of any obligation to explain his dishonesty, hypocrisy, or racism.

I'm very angry about that. I believe I am owed an apology. And I also believe that marmot owes the board an explanation of what appears to be his dishonesty, hypocrisy, and racsim.

I hope this clarifies any confusion about whether I was being straight, sarcastic, intensely offended, crude, ironic or post-ironic. I'm pretty sure that it will. But please let me know if it doesn't.

Thanks, my friend, for your patience and interest,

c2w

[compared2what?]

I found those pictures quite disturbing. I am not sure of their physical context? Are they post Katrina pictures?

Yes. Immediate aftermath.

[compared2what?]

Hello? Anybody out there?

Was that a clear explanation? Let me break it down:

(1) Marmot spent six pages shifting the goalposts in response to questions about how he felt this shooting was justified under the law, and how he felt celebrating the violent deaths of two young men who had not yet committed any violent act commensurate with that punishment no matter what the little scenarios that play out in your minds or in my mind are. Those are fantasies. Their deaths were real. And irreversible..

(2) He then impulsively revealed that contra what he'd been saying for six pages, he (a) doesn't give a fuck about the law; (b) doesn't consider the lost lives of people who die getting shot (blam! blam! blam!) for reasons ranging from attempted armed robbery to carelessly setting foot on a righteous man's property when it's not welcome there to be their loss or anybody's loss, but rather his gain ("SO GOOD RIDDANCE"); and (c) he regards his right to shoot and kill people whom he judges as deserving to be shot and killed as "God-given."

(3) When I called him on it, he didn't even pretend he had a legitimate defense. And he's never, as far as I'm aware, admitted that he was at fault in any way for anything. So instead, he punished me for having the nerve to observe that he was at fault by systematically insulting, humiliating and bullying me sexually until I said "Uncle."

Does no one here have a problem with that? If you look at this very fucking thread, you can see that he was still subtly but consistently using gender-stereotyped words that implicitly belittle and condescend to me:

There you are, dear!

Don't worry you can have your forum back marmot-free after this thread is exhausted.

That's not the kind of tone you use when someone serious has seriously reminded you that she has serious issues with your truthfulness and racial views. Which is what I had done. It's more like the kind of tone and language you use when speaking to your dotty old spinster great-auntie when she's getting fussy and hysterical because you took her urine-soaked crocheted bankie away to wash it.

You really are insane woman!

And I believe my record shows that I'm not a racist. In fact, my best friend of ten years is an African American... But I don't have to defend my honor on account of your accusations. My life demonstrates my character. And just because you don't understand the complexities of my worldview - and maybe by your readings my words seem to contradict - but this doesn't make me a liar - just because you don't understand or just because you call me one.

I think others on here have a good reading of who I am and who you are. Now leave me alone. I'll be gone soon enough. In fact, with someone like you on this forum I'm not at all anxious to stay around.

Actually, for the health of this board it seems someone like you should be given a time-out. Yuk! Stay away from me now. Please?

Again. Anything wrong with "You really are insane!"?

This entire post is designed to suggest that I'm a hysterical, clammy nuisance, who's neurotically persecuting him out of some kind of deranged personal obsession. In sharp contrast to Mr. BLAM-BLAM-BLAM-GOOD RIDDANCE himself. He, of course, is a calm, reasonable and well-spoken man of excellent character, who's quite rightly regarded as a stand-up guy and model citizen by every decent, straight and clean-minded American in the community.

And he gets away with it, because those stereotypes are very compelling, I guess.

Nevertheless. I am not a lunatic. I'm a serious-minded person with a serious objection to racism and hypocrisy.

I'm also angry. But who wouldn't be? And in any event, that's utterly beside the point. Because I'm also right. As marmot knows. If he didn't, it wouldn't be necessary for him to treat me as if I were unhinged in order to avoid engaging me on the issues.

Thanks in advance for your consideration.

c2w

[sergeant stiletto]

Dammit!

I guess this thread is not about the G20 or the police state we live in.

[OP ED]

Hello? Anybody out there?

hi.

i'm always out here. just this is a marmot thread and i have a history with him myself, so i knew what would happen if i engaged him here. but i've been following this thread since about five minutes after he started it.

And he gets away with it, because those stereotypes are very compelling, I guess.

perhaps so. i know it suprised me. i was certain he'd be banned for it as soon as it happened.

very strange. consdering, you know, that in many places what he did was, you know, like, an actual crime and stuff. that is, not a virtual crime.

[even on the internet]

i was personally shocked by the utter straightforward banality of it, and frankly i didn't think highly of him before so it shocked me that it shocked me, you know?

from what i could tell from my private and public communications with others here, this was a well developed notion among a significant portion of the community.

i guess i don't always understand the rules here...

i mean, rusty whatsisname is gone because of what, again?

[compared2what?]

Dammit!

I guess this thread is not about the G20 or the police state we live in.

Feel free to pitch in with whatever you have on the subject. Personally, I don't have enough to initiate a dscussion. But I'd love to follow along. As, I'm sure, would all the other posters presently not having anything to say on the topic.

[IanEye]

Hello? Anybody out there?

hi.

i'm always out here. just this is a marmot thread and i have a history with him myself, so i knew what would happen if i engaged him here. but i've been following this thread since about five minutes after he started it.

I tend to approach a thread in a variety of ways, depending on who posted the OP.
Also, whether or not the poster simply cut and pasted an article they didn't write, versus taking the time and care to actually start a post based on their own thoughts on an issue.
Sometimes I just avoid threads altogether.

[Penguin]

Hello? Anybody out there?

Was that a clear explanation?

Thanks in advance for your consideration.

c2w

Yup, I stopped reading that thread pretty soon, so I missed all that - or maybe I just wanted to forget. 'twas clear enough.

[American Dream]

I had an article about the Pittsburgh G20 that I wanted to post. However, since the discussion here seems to be veering into a more personal direction, I decided to post it here instead.


A.D.

[Searcher08]

I felt very uncomfortable reading what you wrote c2w, when I read it I felt there was a retrospective and very intense self-escalation of what happened - from some disagreeable remarks (a la having your shoes barfed on by someone who was drunk in a bar) into something assigning much more pre-meditation and evil.

You are intensely scrutinising everything that he said to back up your perception of his 'intent'.

He could do the same for pages back at you.

I'm not clear what you would like to happen. Everyone here acts like a wanker from time to time. I most certainly have, marmot has, Jeff has, Hugh has, you have.

If Jeff banned us for being assholes, the board would have no-one left.

Remember the loss of all the rich non-verbal informational cues? I posted a link to Sibel Edmonds on a social networking site. Only one friend responded. He said

"You have too much time on your frikkin hands.
Why do you care? You need to drink more"

I laughed it off. Later, I received a public apology for how it could have been read in a really offensive way when it wasn't intended.


Personally, I found there is a *really* useful presupposition from NLP which is "The meaning of your communication is the response you get , regardless of your intention"

The meaning of marmots communication with you was to create offence and anger.
However that was definitely not his intention.

The meaning of you communication with marmot was to annoy and talk shite, However that was definitely NOT your intention!


How surprising would it be if peace unexpectedly happened, now?

[IanEye]

[url=http://www.bagnewsnotes.com/2009/09/our-man-at-the-g20-1-behind-the-protest.html]

Over the coming week, BAGnewsNotes will be looking at last week's G20 protests in a way, we believe, that defies conventional thinking.

Looking through the lens of photographer Jason Andrew, who was on the ground for us, we hope to raise some provocative issues about the perception and relevance of street demonstrations in 2009 America; the nature of the police/security response; and the value of the documentation by the media.

To begin our inquiry, we offer four girls on a roof doing a little drinking while hanging out on Friday night. In the foreground, we see shadows representing a bevy of photographers taking their picture. ...So what made these girls an attraction to the photographers? And more specifically, what is it about the girls as subject matter to the other photographers that caught Jason's attention?

In their nonchalance (which is strangely paired with the curious orientation of the photographers), the girls are watching demonstrators clashing with riot police and getting pepper sprayed.[/url]

http://www.bagnewsnotes.com/2009/09/our-man-at-the-g20-1-behind-the-protest.html

[Perelandra]

I'm not clear what you would like to happen. Everyone here acts like a wanker from time to time.

You're right, but that was some truly messed up and sexist wankery inserted into a serious discussion. It was uncalled for and unrepentant total disrespect, in my opinion. I noticed but try not to get into others' disputes.

I believe c2w, backed by Jeff, requires a formal apology, which has yet to be provided.

[compared2what?]

I felt very uncomfortable reading what you wrote c2w, when I read it I felt there was a retrospective and very intense self-escalation of what happened - from some disagreeable remarks (a la having your shoes barfed on by someone who was drunk in a bar) into something assigning much more pre-meditation and evil.

You are intensely scrutinising everything that he said to back up your perception of his 'intent'.

He could do the same for pages back at you.

I'm not clear what you would like to happen. Everyone here acts like a wanker from time to time. I most certainly have, marmot has, Jeff has, Hugh has, you have.

If Jeff banned us for being assholes, the board would have no-one left.

Remember the loss of all the rich non-verbal informational cues? I posted a link to Sibel Edmonds on a social networking site. Only one friend responded. He said

"You have too much time on your frikkin hands.
Why do you care? You need to drink more"

I laughed it off. Later, I received a public apology for how it could have been read in a really offensive way when it wasn't intended.


Personally, I found there is a *really* useful presupposition from NLP which is "The meaning of your communication is the response you get , regardless of your intention"

The meaning of marmots communication with you was to create offence and anger.
However that was definitely not his intention.

The meaning of you communication with marmot was to annoy and talk shite, However that was definitely NOT your intention!


How surprising would it be if peace unexpectedly happened, now?

Searcher08, nothing but love. However, I really don't know how to address those comments other than to tell you that you're wrong.

Please believe me when I tell you that there is a great, big wide world of men out there who don't actually need to take seminars in order to learn how to look boyishly innocent while using sexual objectification, aggression and scorn in order to insult, intimidate and silence women whom they can't deal with as equals. For whatever reason. It's a very common practice. And it represents a very common attitude. So common, in fact, that to most of the world it usually just looks like business as usual and not any big deal. As it does to you, Searcher08, a person of exceptional good will and intelligence. That's not your fault, and I don't blame you for it. I blame the culture for conditioning both men and women to accept it as normal. To be honest, the main reason I even brought the seduction-community NLP stuff up was that it provided me with a convenient set of clearly defined terms at which I could point while trying to explain that I was not talking about a personal grievance, but rather strongly protesting having been subjected to identity-based abuse and discrimination on this board.

Please also believe me when I tell you that could not be any more certain than I am that I am not intensely scrutinizing everything and imbuing it with meaning retroactively. And that you could not be any more mistaken in thinking that I am. On the contrary, I knew I was being sexually insulted and bullied at the time. By someone who not only wanted to hurt and offend me, but who also wanted me to know that's what he was doing. Because he wanted me to know that he really does regard me with contempt and hostility as -- to his way of thinking -- an annoying, bossy bitch and a stupid uppity cunt who talks too much and has way too many opinions. As I said, that's a very common attitude. So it wasn't the first time I've encountered it. And not just as the object of it, either. I can't tell you how many business meetings I've sat through listening to my mostly male colleagues happily chattering about women as hot babes, or neurotic bitches, or angry and probably lesbian ball-busters, or whatever-the-fuck. To a certain extent, although not a very great one, that's sometimes how I talk and think about women, too. Because in some sense, it really isn't a very big deal to do that. It's the utterly unexceptional and perfectly ordinary way of the world. And just how things are.

Or don't believe me, if you don't want to. I'll still love you, and I absolutely promise not to hold it against you. I just really, really don't want to keep practically doing PowerPoint presentations in an attempt to make an everyday ugly act of emotional violence by a sexist bully (that happened to be directed at me and also happened to be painful to me) perceptible to a truly caring person who doesn't see it, and is therefore distressed by what looks to him like unnecessary strife.

Especially when his real and commendable concern for me and for the community quite naturally takes the form of trying, in turn, to show me how we'd all be much better off if I just let go of all the trouble I'm causing for myself and others, due to my stubborn insistence on blowing some minor little episode during which my personhood was negated and my sexual boundaries were crudely and angrily violated with hostile intent if not flat-out hatred way, way out of proportion. I'm sure you can understand that, honey, can't you? I mean, it's a shame that we don't see eye to eye, obviously. But I can live with it comfortably, if that's just the way it is. And I very much hope that you can too.

There's only one other thing I can think of to try. WRT this:

He could do the same for pages back at you.

He really couldn't actually. I spent pages addressing his argument on its own terms and making the best case that I could for mine. In part, by addressing relevant contextual concerns that he was overlooking and by suggesting that there were some pretty major factors that he wasn't taking into account, to be sure. Which isn't very flattering, obviously. But neither is it personally antagonistic. If I'd spent pages doing that and then, after I found myself on the ropes, abruptly started to make superficially jocular remarks about what an incredibly annoying imposition on other people having to deal with his failure to keep his unseemly and irrational belief that Jesus Christ is his Lord and Savior to himself (like, you know any normal, non-freak-of-nature, respectable Christians that you could bring home to meet your mom would have the decency to do), then he could do it back at me for pages. But I didn't. Because I wouldn't do anything that vile.

If you want to see the previous threads on which marmot and I had strongly conflicting viewpoints during the lead-up to this one, you can judge for yourself whether it's really true that we were both playing by the same rules by the time we got there. Because I'd say the one immediately prior to it, on which he first instructs me to feel shame for my impertinence, and then -- when in one of those strokes of good luck that sadistic bullies can usually only dream of, I naively admit to feeling deep, deep painful shame about something -- has himself a high old time working the knife around in that wound.

Although in that instance, I should emphasize, it's exactly the no-big-deal that the sexual shaming wasn't. I am at fault for responding as much as he is for provoking. And it wouldn't be at all inaccurate to say we could both call each other names about it if we were two-year-olds or we could try to make peace and move on. Which as I recall, one of us did. In any event. My point is that you'd be right to tell me to get over myself if I were calling the rough-and-tumble on that thread anything other than rough-and-tumble. I call it to your attention in hopes that the comparison will bring the bad act that I'm calling a bad act on the sex-n-guns thread into focus for you. So here are some links. Read them if you want to, or ignore them if you want to. Please, please also feel free to continue to think that I'm wrong to maintain that a bad act was committed if you don't think it was. I make my stand on principle. And that's not going to change. But I totally respect your right to do the same. So if we differ, let's differ peacably and amiably on this one, and move on to something else. Okay? I've spent a lot of time on this because it's an important issue to me. However, I'm not enjoying it at all. And even I realize that my natural mode of expression doesn't exactly compensate for the game already being rigged to make me look crazier and crazier the more I try to get people to see the serious issue that's really there, but which I'm obviously not going to be able to point to with cool, clinical detachment. First of all, because, you know: Not really a personal strength, ever. But it's even less of one when I'm personally involved. So...This is the best I can do by way of reply. I'm very sorry to have been a party to your feelings of discomfort. And I'm now going to just hit "Submit" and get it over with.


yours with bestest,

c2w

Link one.

Link two.

Link three.