should ilxors be tempbanned for taking their beefs to other social media? (twitter/fbook/myspace/etc)?

u need to put "" around the entire term obv xp

two weeks ago

lol this thread

surely number one is the incident w/ interpol

― Mordy, Wednesday, 3 June 2015 22:25 (one year ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the what now

― thoughts you made second posts about (darraghmac), Wednesday, 3 June 2015 22:26 (one year ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

fess up mordy!

Someone didn't like their latest album, resultant FB beef was pure carnage.

... go on.

https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder924/68926924.jpg

Did we ever get this sorted

Poll Results

Option Votes
no 45
yes 40

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HUNYX77qC_o/UtOb65jN00I/AAAAAAAAAlk/ilrd9bFUPS4/s1600/sad-kittens4115.jpg

kinda went like this

actually i don't know what i'm saying .. i just like that cat jpg

wait so it did go on Twitter? jfc

Did it? Someone post proof if it did.

Hang on, what?

I spent the evening livetweeting a really crappy thriller.

Why would someone be so intensely watching the Twitter of someone she has such a long-documented antipathy for? That sounds... I dunno, kinda creepy.

The concept of friends, as people who have one’s back and not punching bags is quite foreign, I see.

The very funny thing about this above is that you can look at timestamps and see that this excuse got trotted out after the tweets had been discussed on here. What’s plausible deniability? I don’t know, I’m just a happy-go-lucky pixie of some sort.

What film’s this, coward?
[MODERATOR EDIT - PICTURE REDACTED]

A note on current proceedings: Branwell is now on a 7-day ban for 20 FPs in a month so currently cannot respond.

^ sleeve’s admin log has meant I’m not getting a reply to this and in the interests of fairness - i object to people calling me things on twitter that would get them fped on here, say it to me directly - would a friendly mod templock this thread?

sorry abt that

I'll hold off on locking for the moment but will do so if there's a bunch of commentary abt the poster that they can't respond to.

(maybe delete the screenshot in gyac's post? as satisfying in a popcorn.gif sense as it may be to see receipts, the point has been made now and it's probably a good precedent not to link posters' elsewhere-IDs if they don't do so themselves)

Agreed.

Yeah do what you need to.

i only brought up twitter on the other thread because I had misunderstood Christine's use of the term "subtweet" -- gyac later let me know about the tweets in question.

Do other posters ever tweet about ilx stuff? I save my beefs for the board, and also my pseudonymous podcast with thousands of subscribers.

I don't even have a Twitter account.

My position on this hasnt changed, if you have a public social media account ilx stuff shouldnt make it on there in any shape or form that would raise an issue were it known about by anyone involved in that ilx stuff

I think that's the only fair approach tbh and cannot understand any other approach

People mentioned ILX quite a bit on Friendbook when Morbius passed, not sure how I felt about that, although I probably did it as well.

nb i have posted "jol out" to my fb so i stand before you a hypocrite and guilty as any

i think i have used the phrase "oh the laughters out loud" on fb and recycled some of my ilx content related to phrases that I sing to the tune of blah blah blah, but in general, in terms of ILX vs. IRL, I try to keep refrigerated,
...

I mean, keep em separated

People in my life sometimes ask me who “all these people are” who respond to my facebook posts. I sometimes respond “message board people” and they usually respond with “what?” before losing interest.

lol ... that reminds me of that classic post with GWB aboard the aircraft carrier ... like we are all treeshy's "colorful friends"

this picture is really cracking me up its like a dream bush is having abt when everything works out just how he planned and all his colorful friends are congratulating him

― ice cr?m, Monday, December 1, 2008 12:05 PM

My position on this hasnt changed, if you have a public social media account ilx stuff shouldnt make it on there in any shape or form that would raise an issue were it known about by anyone involved in that ilx stuff

I think that's the only fair approach tbh and cannot understand any other approach

― scampsite (darraghmac), Sunday, February 21, 2021 8:52 PM (thirty-one minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

I am not on twitter, but dmac otm. What happens on ilx stays on ilx.

So I should stop arguing with people on Facebook about Ralph being a sleep Viking, is what you're saying

Good points itt but arguably would it be fine if someone took their abusive shit offboard... and kept it there because we didn’t let them back? Maybe one for a different thread but this discussion just feels tangential to the main issue, can we boot this psycho for good or what

can we boot this psycho for good or what

not to diminish the real hurt people are feeling in re this poster's behavior (recent and past), and the things said/done that prompted this thread revive, which I am not going to board lawyer on behalf of the poster in question ... but can we PLEASE not use language like "psycho" here ... regardless of whether you want to talk about it in terms of mental health or not, this is a super loaded term when it comes to people with mental health problems and esp. women/non-men.

Fine, bully/abuser/narcissist work just as well since everyone here knows what I’m referring to and why it’s a bad idea to keep tolerating it

I am definitely not saying folx have no right to be angry or call the behavior toxic or abusive ... like on the thread where this all started, gyac pointed out that my behavior came across as enabling, and it was a dynamic that I hadn't noticed/acknowledged myself ... and that is not the intent of my post about your use of the term "psycho"

No I know, I take your point

Fine, bully/abuser/narcissist work just as well since everyone here knows what I’m referring to and why it’s a bad idea to keep tolerating it

― jammy mcnullity (wins), Sunday, February 21, 2021 10:56 PM (twenty-eight seconds ago)

thanks for respecting me here, I really do think you are an awesome person

🙂

i think it would be kind of cruel to ban this specific poster from ilx, given how invested they seem in the board and what a large role they've played in its history. not excusing the bullying, but i am not always sure they can help it. it seems sometimes like they really see the world as this zero-sum identity battle and can't really examine their behavior outside of this discursive framing. i don't know to what extent this is our problem but it just seems to be what is happening (blah blah blah, dr. treeship, blah blah).

i admire the posters who stood up this time though. that was the right thing to do and it wasn't easy.

one of the roles they've played is driving other posters off it for good

"given how invested they seem in the board "

Really? They're invested in only one or two threads, and only rarely show up anywhere else. They're not an active part of the community. Now, it's not that someone should, mind, but it also shouldn't be a question of if, and if so how much, someone is "invested". Let alone whatever role one has played in the past. No-one should get a pass for awful behaviour.

yeah fair enough. and i certainly try to stay out of their crosshairs so, you know, props once again to the posters who stood up to them. but they just seem very unhappy. the whole thing bums me out.

many people have over the years criticised sexism, ablism, racism and homophobia etc when they have appeared on ilx, and definitely there have been shifts in what is considered acceptable language and comportment over time. this has often involved conflict, fallings out, bad behaviour etc. This is all necessary to change. The alternative is assuming that people should have to put up with abusive behaviour from other posters or leave. And many have. So, as in all other areas of life, whatever positive changes have been made have not been (1) without some fallout, (2) driven by the frustration of some on the receiving end and (3) enabled by others willingness to learn (even if this was not always obvious immediately)

its true that it takes time and conflict to change habits of language and behaviour and that this is unfair and exhausting for those to whom it is left to initiate that conflict.

I think in this instance it is quite obvious that the poster in question has refused to learn anything from how their abusiveness is received by individuals and the board at large. In this most recent exchange they have once again dug their heels in and refused to see their role in any of this and have once again painted themselves of the victim. If this were a first instance i would be prepared to give them more time to reflect as its often hard to simply accept criticism in the heat of an argument, but this is part of a pattern that has gone on for years and has not to-date prompted any reflection or changed their behaviour in any meaningful way.

I agree that they seem very unhappy, but I don't think sacrificing more posters to be their punching bag next time is going to make them any happier.

I've said it before, I have a big killfile in my eyeballs and I can seemingly scroll past endless content that seems boring or nasty. However I recognise this is not the same for everyone, and in particular the way people have been targeted and bullied over the years has had a prolonged detrimental effect. banning them now is probably not going to bring back any posters they've driven away but it will stop them driving away any more.

They would find somewhere else to be like this. They don’t seem to get anything good out of it and other people shouldn’t have to take it

Going to say my piece on this once and then if we decide that it’s Chinatown and we aren’t ever going to be willing to do anything about it I guess I will go back to just pressing the button every few months, but if for no other reason I at least want to make it more difficult for them to conveniently paint all this as some personal campaign of gyac’s (more difficult in theory, I mean: in practice they didn’t even acknowledge the other people who spoke up in that thread because they do not give a shit about the feelings of other people)

I also stay out of their way and have never personally been a target, and I used to defend them as a difficult person who nevertheless had things to contribute. I thought the issue was just one of “shitting up threads” with their tantrums when in fact it was what everyone was saying: toxic, abusive, bullying. itt we have an example, trying to paint someone as delusional and then flagrantly lying about it in the face of evidence. I know the word gaslighting gets used carelessly but this is at least in the neighbourhood of the proper definition no?

And it’s not just this go-round, I have seen them behave appallingly to people who do not deserve it so many times - in one case among the cruellest shit I’ve ever seen on this board. And it’s probably not my place to say so but the list of non-male posters who I know for a fact feel unable to post in that “no boys” thread because of this one person is not a short one - isn’t this something we should be concerned about?

Sorry but this weekend really pissed me off. They don’t give a fuck who they hurt. Everyone who isn’t branwell goes under the bus. Enough is enough, don’t let them back in.

otm

xp, wins' post happened while I was typing, unrevised text follows:

I agree that they seem very unhappy

The poster in question often talks/types about how they are much happier irl these days, which is good to hear. They also often type about how actively refusing to consider, let alone modify, the ways that their words and behaviour cause in-the-moment distress or ongoing hurt to other people on ILX, helps them feel happy here.

They have, in previous decades, been an interesting and thoughtful poster engaging on a variety of topics, while also apparently being personally distressed and hurt by discussion here (when, to be sure, the level of discourse was about 900% cuntier in general). If they're happy elsewhere now, and only enjoy engaging with approx. two posters on one thread each here, maybe their net happiness would remain the same by not posting?


20 FPs in a day or two for saying - in the defensive heat of the moment or not - that they refuse to think about specific other posters as people, and gaslighting and projecting, seems a great indicator that the lowered threshold is working. A pre-emptive mod permaban in this instance might be both excessive and unnecessary, depending on whether the poster wanders off for one of their regular breaks and is happy elsewhere, and/or quadruples down next time they return.

But a permaban probably wouldn't surprise more than one remaining poster.