NOTE: I will be dealing with comments a bit differently here on WordPress; see the comments policy link at the top of the page.
Due in part to the recent massive derailing of, and general unpleasantness within, a certain discussion thread here, I will be enforcing my comments policy more stringently, especially when it comes to personal attacks, and off-topic posts that I find tiresome and/or disruptive.Also, I’m introducing short-term bans for people who are breaking the rules but don’t deserve forever bans. Blogger doesn’t let me literally ban people; I just delete their comments. If I’ve “banned” someone and they keep posting, just ignore them. I will delete their comments when I see them.
I’ve updated my comments policy page to reflect this. If you’re new here, read it.
>Hey David,One suggestion, dunno if this would be helpful at all. You might try closing threads that have gone too over the rails. Once the comments start heading towards 300, it might not be out of line to simply stop the discussion in favor of a new one. Might be better than handing out bans to people who continue to flame because they feel they need to get one last point in.Anyways, kudos for doing as well as you have been on such a hot discussion topic.
>Sucks that it ever even has to reach this point. Sorry to read this…but glad you're all over it. *nod*
>Nice. Maybe us not-so-crazy people can get a word or two in now.
>But watching the train go off the rails is half the fun!
>@SamYeah, I know, right? You just can't look away from the train wrecks. It's like "whee, I'm in Hollywood!"But then you see the corpses and/or heaps of spilled freight, and it ain't so funny no more.
>Indeed Sam.There's also something to be said for letting someone's foul words stand and be seen. Deleting just means that they still get to say what they wanted and plenty of people will see it, but they can't be easily held accountable for it after the fact.
>A certain thread? You mean there is one without a derail? 😉
>woah woah woah… Is this about ginmar?He/she one of the few people around here with guts and a fully functioning brain. I can't believe the shit some were dishing at him/her in that thread when so much violence and evilness gets ignored around here for the sake of comedy or page views or whatever.Long live ginmar!
>Why am I thinking about Scott Adams right now?It takes no "guts" to write things on the internet and from what I've seen most posters here have a fully functioning brain. For once and for all this is a comedy site that also does the service of showing how cracked mra's are: not a feminist safe space that need to be defended from the idiots that this site makes fun of by the feminist hammers of the internet.
>Agree to disagree, Kave.
>Oh, and I don't see anybody asking for a safe space. Just equal treatment when the hate that so many, many men deserve gets blown in that direction instead of the default direction.
>TFYFWYA, I'm a little confused as to what you think this blog is about. The whole point is to highlight ridiculous misogynist shit. When people say ridiculous misogynist shit in the comments, it's kind of icing on the ridiculous misogynist cake. I generally haven't been deleting stuff unless it's really abusive or disruptive. But I'm tired of it and will delete more often in the future. And this, as always, will be regardless of the person's ideology. Which means, yes, if ginmar keeps up with her nasty personal attacks on other commenters I will delete those comments and/or give her a temporary ban, as I did to one other commenter earlier today (for a now-deleted comment attacking ginmar, actually).
>No need to be confused. Having read since shortly after the site launched, I know exactly what the blog is about.
>Wot a gay bitch
>StepVheN said… Wot a gay bitchHmmm…looks like 4chan has come here.Seriously, is that the extent of your wisdom, or do you have anything more to add?
>No StepVheN, David is not a gay bitch. I'm a gay bitch. And I probably get more p*ssy than you do. Just sayin'
>"It takes no "guts" to write things on the internet"?It usually takes guts to write about marginalized experience, or really anything revealingly personal, whether directly or indirectly.There's no "guts" here? http://www.fugitivus.net/about-this-blog/ Or here? http://ballastexistenz.autistics.org/Or here? http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2008/10/07/fat-monologue/Being metaphorically naked in front of readers is always gutsy. The medium isn't the central point.I have always admired Ginmar's bravery.
>Consider moving the blog to the WordPress platform – it's much easier to scan the comments, and there are features for blocking and partly blocking offenders.
>Also on WordPress you, as an administrator, could correct commenst and add notes in the body of the comment, if needed.
>Denia, I have thought about moving over to wordpress, and have claimed the appropriate wordpress url. There are actually a bunch of things I actually LIKE about blogger, but wordpress clearly has much better options for dealing with comments.
>Well just for your delectation heres the actual criteria for PTSD – not the pretend ones commented on in the thread Ginmar went of in but the actual ones. You will notice that wifebeating is not a diagnostic criteria and anger and irritability come second to fear (as Ginmar correctly pointed out)Ginmar – I hear you. The major irony of that whole series of posts is the way the PTSD criteria for irritability and anger was so conveniently overlooked when ginmar who has admitted she is a diagnosed PTSD displayed symptoms of it but was brought out in defense of a wifebeater who was not diagnosed (and as a DV advocate I can assure that if he had had a psychotic break he would currently be 'awaiting pschiatric assessment' not in jail. Guess waht angry people can be not too much fun to deal with but bloody hell. Ginmar was cranky but she never threatened or actually beat the crap out of any of you (which the guy we were all talking about did. She just displayed some classic irritabilit symptoms and given what she was saying even if she didn't have PTSD I can still understand her anger. Seriously a pox on the lot of you. You DO give MRAs more leeway -its not like this was a regular feature of Ginmar's posts it was a one off passionate rant that made some people uncomfortable. Shame on you really.
>Post 2 – DSM Criteria for PTSD309.81 DSM-IV Criteria for Posttraumatic Stress DisorderA. The person has been exposed to a traumatic event in which both of the following have been present: (1) the person experienced, witnessed, or was confronted with an event or events that involved actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of self or others (2) the person's response involved intense fear, helplessness, or horror. Note: In children, this may be expressed instead by disorganized or agitated behavior.B. The traumatic event is persistently reexperienced in one (or more) of the following ways: (1) recurrent and intrusive distressing recollections of the event, including images, thoughts, or perceptions. Note: In young children, repetitive play may occur in which themes or aspects of the trauma are expressed.(2) recurrent distressing dreams of the event. Note: In children, there may be frightening dreams without recognizable content.(3) acting or feeling as if the traumatic event were recurring (includes a sense of reliving the experience, illusions, hallucinations, and dissociative flashback episodes, including those that occur upon awakening or when intoxicated). Note: In young children, trauma-specific reenactment may occur.(4) intense psychological distress at exposure to internal or external cues that symbolize or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event.(5) physiological reactivity on exposure to internal or external cues that symbolize or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event.C. Persistent avoidance of stimuli associated with the trauma and numbing of general responsiveness (not present before the trauma), as indicated by three (or more) of the following: (1) efforts to avoid thoughts, feelings, or conversations associated with the trauma (2) efforts to avoid activities, places, or people that arouse recollections of the trauma (3) inability to recall an important aspect of the trauma (4) markedly diminished interest or participation in significant activities (5) feeling of detachment or estrangement from others (6) restricted range of affect (e.g., unable to have loving feelings) (7) sense of a foreshortened future (e.g., does not expect to have a career, marriage, children, or a normal life span)D. Persistent symptoms of increased arousal (not present before the trauma), as indicated by two (or more) of the following: (1) difficulty falling or staying asleep (2) irritability or outbursts of anger (3) difficulty concentrating (4) hypervigilance (5) exaggerated startle responseE. Duration of the disturbance (symptoms in Criteria B, C, and D) is more than one month.F. The disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.Specify if: Acute: if duration of symptoms is less than 3 months Chronic: if duration of symptoms is 3 months or moreSpecify if: With Delayed Onset: if onset of symptoms is at least 6 months after the stressor
>Oh and one further thing. The person in the case originally the subject of disussion MOST likely to have PTSD was the woman beaten to a pulp in family court. She had a double whammy being both a marine AND an abused woman. You know the PTSD rate in domestic violence victims is as high or higher as in soldiers but that doesn't sell newspapers.Sorry for typos above but I am as cranky as Ginmar although attempting to be slightly more polite. How did it happen that all the comments about the male abuser marine maybe having PTSD and NOBODY thought that maybe the woman had it as well both as a marine and as a beaten wife. Nope it all around her character as to whether she was justified in leaving her husband and whether she was a good mother. It really does show how indoctrinated even people you would think are trying to assess the situation reasonably are – when the criteria the beaten woman was judged on was different from that of her abuser. WHEN WAS the last time you saw a headline 'Beaten abused woman with PTSD leaves husband thank goodness'. Sometimes I really despair
>And if you have talked to combat PTSD sufferers you would notice that they genuinely accept that they can be abusive and often hide themselves from the world to prevent others from suffering. Their entire problem is that lashing out is too easy. They don't accept PTSD as an excuse for violence. There is a difference, a PTSD sufferer with a flashback wants to hide. A combat related PTSD sufferer usually will try and fight back. There have been cases from WW2 of women being injured by husbands who were veterans from Okinawa and Iwo Jima because they woke them up. You can dance and say "well they are abusive" or you can accept that "Japanese men used to crawl into trenches and cut throats of sleeping americans so people developed that habit". One is a catchall term and dismissive and assumes that no matter what Men Will Be Abusive For Unknown Reasons (or indeed very complex ones related to "the patriarchy") or we can notice a trend in people suffering from abuse that has a real controllable cause. Untreated however… Combat PTSD usually initially manifests itself in violence and abuse. And Ginmar isn't the only person who had PTSD from combat reasons and indeed she actually dismissed other veterans suffering as "excusing abuse with PTSD" rather than "trying to curtail the excesses of PTSD". Yes… Very little has been done specifically to female combat PTSD sufferers but "you really have to show up to the VA or local equivalent for you to get help. Men are more likely to seek it and compliance is higher than women to therapy."
>"She just displayed some classic irritabilit symptoms"This. She's a feminist with a disability."its not like this was a regular feature of Ginmar's posts it was a one off passionate rant that made some people uncomfortable"People may have experiences with her doing/saying similar things in other spaces.–Ginmar:I know you've had problems with me. I don't want to presume by assuming you remember our argument on pandagon from a couple of years ago, but in case you do, I continue to apologize for writing something unclearly enough for you to take the meaning you did from it. It was sincerely not my intended meaning.I've read your comments for a few years now and I read your livejournal for a while (and I thought you had some intense and important things to say). I respect you, your blogging, and your commenting.I apologize if this is not the right question to ask, but from my limited perspective, it seems like the most important thing to know–how would you like other blog readers and commenters to respond to you when you get really angry?Sometimes you don't seem receptive when people try to disengage or to explain their positions. Sometimes people genuinely do seem to be trying to say one thing where you're responding very angrily to another. It does sometimes seem to get personal. It's hard for me, at least, to know how to respond to that. I'm not trying to discount your arguments; as I said, I think you have intense and important things to say, and I admire how fearlessly you continue to say them even when there's heat in response. Personally, I have a kind of cat-scratch-then-cower response to conflict (No! Get away from me! Now I will hide behind the couch which is clearly very productive! :-P), and I admire people who can take heat in stride.Just sometimes, when the anger seems to get high, I think there's a strangeness that happens in the communication.I have my own mental illness, and I know that it totally creates its own strangenesses in communication. I have really appreciated it when people take the time and effort to respect that while some of my emotional responses may differ from the template of what's considered normal, that doesn't mean there's no way to incorporate them into mutually respectful relationships. It can just take a bit of willingness to adapt strategies for dealing with anger or sadness or whatever.Ableism models only certain kinds of interactions, and encourages people to disregard anything that's outside the range deemed normal. And this sucks–primarily because of the stigma it attaches to people who aren't in the deemed-normal range. But secondarily because people genuinely don't have strategies for adapting to what's outside their range of experience–especially because not-deemed-normal people may try to hide the ways they differ from the default template so that most people never understand how common, e.g., depression reactions are, leaving everyone feeling isolated and wrong.From that perspective, I'm wondering what you would like people to do when this happens, so we can be supportive and productive? How would you like people to approach you when you're angry?