Member Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation Thread

[Eshnar]

Re:

Oh and the only reason I signed back up was in the hope I might be able to complain to Susan or Daniel about his behaviour, but I can't PM

What if I told you Dan has a public email address?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

Oh and the only reason I signed back up was in the hope I might be able to complain to Susan or Daniel about his behaviour, but I can't PM

What if I told you Dan has a public email address?

Yes he does. But I would doubt he will reply for a simple forum issue. I think Susan is the best for this as she is usually very up to date with respect to the forums.

I know someone way back in 2013 who tried to communicate with Dan B about the forum and being banned. He never received a reply back. I refused to contact Dan on his behalf because I felt like it was up to the member to communicate on their own. I even said they should email Susan. Not sure if they did. By the way this person was within the circle of LA so maybe they decided it was best to stay away.

Anywho your advice was correct but I think Susan is a better place to take the complaint or discussion. I believe her email is listed somewhere within the Cycling news site.

 

[thehog]

kwikki is banned for one month for trolling, insinuating that another member is a 'rapist'

Doesn't surprise me. Kwikki was trying his best to get banned. Plenty of good dicussion going on, didn't need to sink to this debase level.

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

I don’t scroll this thread very often, and realize I’m replying to a post that is a month old, but that makes it worse. I’m frankly astonished that in all that time no one else has reacted to it. I sure as he!! will.

Yeah, I saw that exchange. And for as long as this remains here, let me just say you are way off base. The poster in that exchange said Sharapova should be punished by having to spend fifteen minutes in his bedroom. YOU were the one who brought rape into it. Not him, not someone else, but you. YOU inferred the suggestion of rape. Just because that's where your head evidently is doesn't mean everyone else thinks that way. So if you're banned because of all this, it's on you and no one else.

I’ve had a lot of respect for your posts, Max, but I think you’re the one who is way off base here. If she was forced to go to the poster’s bedroom, how would it not be rape? Are you thinking the poster just wanted to talk with her for a few minutes? Then why not suggest a coffee shop? Or that Sharapova would freely consent to sex? Then it wouldn’t be punishment, would it? Since you claim not everyone inferred rape, what was the image that this post brought to your mind? Do you seriously believe anyone would read the bedroom post and not think of forced sex?

I think if you reflect on this honestly, you will be forced to admit that of course the bedroom poster was talking about rape. The reason you, Irondan and apparently many other posters in this forum didn't object is not because that's not where your head is; it's because you didn't take him seriously. IOW, it's OK to joke about rape if you don't really mean it. Just as it's all right to joke about wanting to kill someone, as long as everyone understands you don't really mean it.

The problem is that rape and murder are different in a key way. Murder is relatively rare. When people we consider fairly normal and sane say, I could kill that guy, we recognize it as almost certainly a harmless exaggeration. We don't think by saying this they are in any way condoning or encouraging the act of murder. Rape is not that rare. As it's currently defined, it's quite common. So when someone says or implies, expressing sexual attraction for someone, I wish I could rape her, it's not as obviously a harmless exaggeration. Even if it was meant that way, in many people's minds it cuts too close to the truth to be taken so lightly.

So while I'm not saying the bedroom poster should have been banned, I do understand the objections that some might have to that post. By cavalierly dismissing those objections, as you and Irondan seem to have done, you're showing insensitivity to the complexity of the subject. You could have stood firm on not banning the bedroom poster while still acknowledging that many people might find that post offensive.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Chapeau to Merckx Index for calling a spade a spade. It is interesting that Maxilton can see a conspiracy against Russia with the Sharapova ban, but not the implied misogyny in the raunchy joke above. Honestly, I don't see how there is any other possible interpretation for the bedroom suggestion besides what Merckx Index has so succinctly written.

Don't even get me started about the banning of red_flanders for 6 weeks. That is a joke IMO.

 

[blutto]

Re:

Chapeau to Merckx Index for calling a spade a spade. It is interesting that Maxilton can see a conspiracy against Russia with the Sharapova ban, but not the implied misogyny in the raunchy joke above. Honestly, I don't see how there is any other possible interpretation for the bedroom suggestion besides what Merckx Index has so succinctly written.

Don't even get me started about the banning of red_flanders for 6 weeks. That is a joke IMO.

....if it had clearly been a spade you may have a point but the situation as MI pointed out is complex and any outcome would be a damned if you do damned if you don't scenario ( and this applies only in this rather guy centric forum or situations like it ).... Iron Dan and Max made a call that aired on safety ...it was a tough call but the right one...that is why those guys get paid the big bucks...

Cheers

...edit....something just occurred to me and I ran it by my wife....her suggestion, would urge each and every one of you to run this situation by your wife/girlfriend and take the position the quoted post took....would be very interested to see how many of you would be spending the night on a park bench...read, there are no jokes about rape as far as the vast majority of women are concerned, full stop!...just sayin eh...

 

[Irondan]

Re: Re:

I don’t scroll this thread very often, and realize I’m replying to a post that is a month old, but that makes it worse. I’m frankly astonished that in all that time no one else has reacted to it. I sure as he!! will.

Yeah, I saw that exchange. And for as long as this remains here, let me just say you are way off base. The poster in that exchange said Sharapova should be punished by having to spend fifteen minutes in his bedroom. YOU were the one who brought rape into it. Not him, not someone else, but you. YOU inferred the suggestion of rape. Just because that's where your head evidently is doesn't mean everyone else thinks that way. So if you're banned because of all this, it's on you and no one else.

I’ve had a lot of respect for your posts, Max, but I think you’re the one who is way off base here. If she was forced to go to the poster’s bedroom, how would it not be rape? Are you thinking the poster just wanted to talk with her for a few minutes? Then why not suggest a coffee shop? Or that Sharapova would freely consent to sex? Then it wouldn’t be punishment, would it? Since you claim not everyone inferred rape, what was the image that this post brought to your mind? Do you seriously believe anyone would read the bedroom post and not think of forced sex?

I think if you reflect on this honestly, you will be forced to admit that of course the bedroom poster was talking about rape. The reason you, Irondan and apparently many other posters in this forum didn't object is not because that's not where your head is; it's because you didn't take him seriously. IOW, it's OK to joke about rape if you don't really mean it. Just as it's all right to joke about wanting to kill someone, as long as everyone understands you don't really mean it.

The problem is that rape and murder are different in a key way. Murder is relatively rare. When people we consider fairly normal and sane say, I could kill that guy, we recognize it as almost certainly a harmless exaggeration. We don't think by saying this they are in any way condoning or encouraging the act of murder. Rape is not that rare. As it's currently defined, it's quite common. So when someone says or implies, expressing sexual attraction for someone, I wish I could rape her, it's not as obviously a harmless exaggeration. Even if it was meant that way, in many people's minds it cuts too close to the truth to be taken so lightly.

So while I'm not saying the bedroom poster should have been banned, I do understand the objections that some might have to that post. By cavalierly dismissing those objections, as you and Irondan seem to have done, you're showing insensitivity to the complexity of the subject. You could have stood firm on not banning the bedroom poster while still acknowledging that many people might find that post offensive.

I didn't dismiss anything. Although a ban wasn't issued IIRC, the offending comment and all the quoted comments were removed from the board. If I missed one in a quote it wasn't on purpose, that's for sure.

Please don't accuse me of "cavalierly dismissing" talk about rape when you don't have all the information. You couldn't possibly know all that goes on behind the scenes unless you're a mod or admin.

I take rape and insinuation of rape very seriously and I've never laughed it off. If you have a post or any evidence to the contrary I urge you to share it, but please don't lump me into a group that appears insensitive to a subject that I'm very cognitive of. My ex-wife of 17 years was raped by a monstor before we were married, I got to live with the damage that was done to her for all those years.

Now that you actually have some facts, keep my name out of your mouth the next time you try to paint an ugly picture of someone.

 

[aphronesis]

I'm still lost on the false analogy that it's ok to say one would kill someone, but the infantile lack of pull and allusion to sexual coercion is off bounds. Because dead is dead and sexual politics are still on the move? People's moral lamp posts permit certain aggressive outbursts and not others?

 

[thehog]

Re:

I'm still lost on the false analogy that it's ok to say one would kill someone, but the infantile lack of pull and allusion to sexual coercion is off bounds. Because dead is dead and sexual politics are still on the move? People's moral lamp posts permit certain aggressive outbursts and not others?

I would move on. It doesn't cut it, there's no need to use the word in any context on a cycling forum. Period.

 

[aphronesis]

I'm light like air baby. It did seem live in the Sagan thread, no?

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

....if it had clearly been a spade you may have a point but the situation as MI pointed out is complex and any outcome would be a damned if you do damned if you don't scenario ( even in this rather guy centric forum).... Iron Dan and Max made a call that aired on safety ...it was a tough call but the right one...that is why those guys get paid the big bucks...

Cheers

...edit....something just occurred to me and I ran it by my wife....her suggestion, would urge each and every one of you to run this situation by your wife/girlfriend and take the position the quoted post took....would be very interested to see how many of you would be spending the night on a park bench...read, there are no jokes about rape as far as the vast majority of women are concerned, full stop!...just sayin eh...

In general, I agree about the complex nature of the issue. I just didn't see any of that complexity, balance, or nuance in what Maxilton had posted. It reeked of blaming the offended party for being offended.

As for the bolded, I had a similar thought. Would a person make this kind of comment in the presence of their teenage daughter. Or if they didn't have the cloak of anonymity. Personally, I always post things that I would put my name and reputation behind if required to do so. I operate the same way when using twitter.

 

[Maxiton]

Yeah, sorry, I still don't see that "having to spend fifteen minutes in my bedroom" necessarily implies rape. It could just as easily mean having to spend fifteen minutes in there while he tries to seduce her. That's what it would mean if I said it.

"Going to the toilet" is a euphemism for . . . going to the toilet. "In my bedroom" is not a euphemism for rape.

 

[aphronesis]

It's unfortunate that expressions of "desire" become so instrumentalized and impoverished.

 

[dusty red roads]

I'm a woman, I don't post much and didn't see the original post, but happened to see this from the above discussion. I have to say when I saw the 'punishment in the bedroom' bit above my own take was - yup, totally sexist, deserved to be pulled up, but my first thought wasn't about implied rape, I assumed it was the poster's (non-rape) stupid kinky S&M fantasy. Sexist, dumb, misogynistic, but rape wouldn't have entered my mind without reading other people's thoughts. Maybe Maxiton saw it the way I saw it. I don't know. But I don't think it should be automatically assumed that he should have automatically seen it that way.
Maybe it depends on where you're from, or even what generation you're from. We're from all over the globe here and are all ages, so don't always see things the same. The poster may well have implied rape but personally it wouldn't have occurred to me without seeing the comments about it that followed. It's certainly a hair trigger word (for me too!!!!!)

But then again I've never watched modern porn, which, it seems, is much more 'rape culture' than when I was young and checking it all out, so maybe I'm out of the loop. But point is, I don't think you should automatically assume everyone "should realize" that "rape" was implied.

 

[Maxiton]

Re:

It's unfortunate that expressions of "desire" become so instrumentalized and impoverished.

Indeed it is. We should not hasten the process.

 

[Maxiton]

Re:

I'm a woman, I don't post much and didn't see the original post, but happened to see this from the above discussion. I have to say when I saw the 'punishment in the bedroom' bit above my own take was - yup, totally sexist, deserved to be pulled up, but my first thought wasn't about implied rape, I assumed it was the poster's (non-rape) stupid kinky S&M fantasy. Sexist, dumb, misogynistic, but rape wouldn't have entered my mind without reading other people's thoughts. Maybe Maxiton saw it the way I saw it. I don't know. But I don't think it should be automatically assumed that he should have automatically seen it that way.
Maybe it depends on where you're from, or even what generation you're from. We're from all over the globe here and are all ages, so don't always see things the same. The poster may well have implied rape but personally it wouldn't have occurred to me without seeing the comments about it that followed. It's certainly a hair trigger word (for me too!!!!!)

But then again I've never watched modern porn, which, it seems, is much more 'rape culture' than when I was young and checking it all out, so maybe I'm out of the loop. But point is, I don't think you should automatically assume everyone "should realize" that "rape" was implied.

Thank you for that.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re:

Yeah, sorry, I still don't see that "having to spend fifteen minutes in my bedroom" necessarily implies rape. It could just as easily mean having to spend fifteen minutes in there while he tries to seduce her. That's what it would mean if I said it.

"Going to the toilet" is a euphemism for . . . going to the toilet. "In my bedroom" is not a euphemism for rape.

C'mon, euphemism is very different from innuendo. Innuendo is meant to sound superficially innocent with deeper implicit meaning. But, the larger point is whether you still think it is (in your own bolded words) "way off base" to think that something more is implied. Everybody can and will read between the lines in that situation differently. The fact that you completely minimize the complexity of the argument is my main issue. Inability to see more than one side of an argument makes it difficult to establish neutrality. IMO, admitting that you are wrong sometimes is not a bad thing.

 

[aphronesis]

Part of seeing the complexity of a situation is rejecting ideologically produced snap reflexes for what they are.

 

[Maxiton]

Re:

Part of seeing the complexity of a situation is rejecting ideologically produced snap reflexes for what they are.

Exactamundo. And no matter your age or your locale, your sex, gender orientation, or how much porn you've seen, "in my bedroom" is not a euphemism for rape. It doesn't imply rape, or even suggest rape. End of.

 

[roundabout]

Re: Re:

Part of seeing the complexity of a situation is rejecting ideologically produced snap reflexes for what they are.

Exactamundo. And no matter your age or your locale, your sex, gender orientation, or how much porn you've seen, "in my bedroom" is not a euphemism for rape. It doesn't imply rape, or even suggest rape. End of.

Yes, maybe that's where the stamp collection is located, or maybe he needed advice on new wallpaper.

And I do believe that a better reflection of the argument would be amending the quote to "punished by having to spend 15 minutes in my bedroom".

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

Part of seeing the complexity of a situation is rejecting ideologically produced snap reflexes for what they are.

Exactamundo. And no matter your age or your locale, your sex, gender orientation, or how much porn you've seen, "in my bedroom" is not a euphemism for rape. It doesn't imply rape, or even suggest rape. End of.

Yes, maybe that's where the stamp collection is located, or maybe he needed advice on new wallpaper.

And I do believe that a better reflection of the argument would be amending the quote to "punished by having to spend 15 minutes in my bedroom".

Weak sauce, roundabout. Next . . . .

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

Part of seeing the complexity of a situation is rejecting ideologically produced snap reflexes for what they are.

Exactamundo. And no matter your age or your locale, your sex, gender orientation, or how much porn you've seen, "in my bedroom" is not a euphemism for rape. It doesn't imply rape, or even suggest rape. End of.

I saw the post and I never read it as rape. For me it was along the lines of "she is hot, I would like to spend 15 minutes in my bed(room)(having sex) with her".

Bad taste - yep probably. Insinuating rape - nope.

 

[python]

not very surprising that an old sexual joke/innuendo caused more commentary than the rest of the board TODAY.

before i say more, in contradiction to a moderating practice, it is important to realize WHO was the 'messenger' before judging his message.

it was pretty much revealed that apparently with a mod approval the spawn of e is chris e.. i say this not to question the mods, but to draw the attention to a sharp-tongued poster known, among other things, for his occasionally clearly sexist remarks for which he suffered numerous consequences. any old timer, including susan-the-moderator will not let me go wrong here. btw, it is also a fact i hardly EVER agreed with the guy including this tasteless joke...

all that said, i have to agree with max, dusty red roads and others who distinguish the sexist nuance from a non present implication of rape. there was none.

 

[Merckx index]

I’m a lot older than most of you, but I seem to be more aware of recent changes in American society. Rape is defined, at least on college campuses, much more liberally than it used to be. It isn’t just some guy overpowering a woman against her screams for help. It’s basically any incident of sex in which the woman doesn’t clearly voice her assent at every step along the way.

I’m not saying I’m entirely in agreement with this view. I’m just saying this is a fact of contemporary American life. So when a guy says he thinks a woman should be punished by spending fifteen minutes with him in his bedroom, I don’t see how the implication of rape can possibly be avoided. Sure, he could just try to seduce her, but if she says no, and he honors her wishes, it really isn’t much of a punishment, is it? Same if all he does is fantasize, without touching her. The joke doesn’t work unless there is actual sex that the woman doesn’t want. The word "punishment" guarantees that. You simply can't punish someone without doing something to that person that he or she doesn't want.

I think everyone here who has expressed disagreement with me (except Irondan, see below) has done so on the grounds that he or she doesn’t view rape as liberally as what I have just described. I get that; that’s your right. But while you have a right to your opinion, it doesn’t change the fact that that is the way it is increasingly defined, and since it is defined in that way, of course some people are going to see the post in question as clearly implying rape.

Irondan, I probably overstepped in lumping you with Maxiton, since I had the latter’s post to go by, but only what the original poster said about you. For that I apologize.

I'm still lost on the false analogy that it's ok to say one would kill someone, but the infantile lack of pull and allusion to sexual coercion is off bounds.

I already explained the difference. There is an irony here. The more horrible a crime is, the easier it is to joke about it in certain contexts, because its very horrific nature implies that it must be a joke, as no normal, sane person would commit such a crime. But rape, as now defined in many places, is not always as horrible as it used to be. It doesn’t necessarily involve any physical force or any physical trauma. It can be a far subtler event that would not have been considered rape not so long ago—indeed, which is still not considered rape by many, including by many woman.

 

[aphronesis]

Which I covered in the part of the post you didn't quote. And that wasn't the point. The distinction is at the level of language, not the crime referred to. As well as of fantasy.

On that score, having worked in academia in both Europe and the US at a range of institutions; I think I've got a reasonably calibrated awareness of the current discourse on "rape" and gender politics. It obtains everywhere from interacting with students to speaking with support staff.