Disqus - Latest Comments for omphaloskeptic

Re: What The Hell?

omphaloskeptic — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:27:03 -0000

Sorry, I didn't realize you were addressing comments to me directly and publicly under the assumption or expectation that I would not respond to them. If you don't want these issues addressed here, then I recommend not addressing them here.

Re: What The Hell?

omphaloskeptic — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:02:17 -0000

Melissa, as I said, I'm happy to address this elsewhere. I would genuinely like to know what my agenda here is.

Frankly, I have not enjoyed your frustration with me seeping into your responses to me, but I appreciate your transparency about that.

I am sorry that the three or four comments I left today were exhausting. And I do apologize to readers for whom my comments were apparently disruptive or confusing.

[eta:] I also have no problem making my email communication with you public, which in fact I have, and can't imagine anything in them that would reveal an agenda or make me worthy of dismissal or having my concerns ignored.

Re: What The Hell?

omphaloskeptic — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:33:28 -0000

Okay, at this point I'm going to go ahead and flatly request that if you can't comment at this blog without engaging in the shit-stirring I'm told you've also been doing elsewhere re: Shakesville, then don't comment at all. These threads aren't for you to work out your personal grudges against me. Thanks.

Since you made this accusation toward me publicly, I'm going to address it publicly and then I will honor your request not to engage in further 'shit-stirring' in the comments here.

First, I don't have a personal grudge against you, though admittedly today's conversations have made me a little cranky. Second, anything I've said elsewhere was not simply for the sake of 'shit-stirring' but was to address a situation that was hurtful to me and several others. I tried to address that here but conversation was shut down. So I went elsewhere with the conversation looking for support.

I have also tried to address these issues with you via email with no response. And fair enough, I don't expect you to respond to any and every email you get, but characterizing me as someone who just goes around talking shit behind your or shakesville's backs for the sake of talking shit seems like a pretty gross mischaracterization of the situation.

Based on your own comment ("I'm told") I'm going to assume that you only have secondhand knowledge of whatever I wrote, and frankly based on the way your friends have responded to me here I'm not particularly surprised that my words were characterized that way. What I am surprised about is that you would dismiss any or all of the concerns I raised elsewhere out of hand based on a secondhand characterization of me as a shit-stirrer, which by the way I find ridiculously unfair.

It sounds a lot more like you have a personal problem with me than vice versa, and I'm happy to address it with you elsewhere, since as you point out this is obviously not the place. But I'm also perfectly fine with you just dismissing me at this point because really, I don't need to put that much effort into clearing the air with someone who has already made their own judgments about me based on word of mouth.

Re: What The Hell?

omphaloskeptic — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:56:47 -0000

"tit" is a postpubescent, vaguely (or directly) female sexual body reference

Hmm, interesting. Maybe this is the result of having a lot of gay male friends, but I've heard men casually refer to other men's "tits" regularly enough that it doesn't strike me as particularly female-specific.

I think the postpubescent thing is key--I've definitely heard it used to refer to men but not to children. YMMV.

Re: What The Hell?

omphaloskeptic — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:54:48 -0000

I think it's that, in my mind, "tit" is a postpubescent, vaguely (or directly) female sexual body reference. "Breast pocket" to me is a gender neutral contruct describing a shirt, not a woman's body.

RedSonja, I had a similar response but figured it wasn't worth mentioning as I figured I'd just be given unsolicited advice about how to interpret the words of people I don't know on the internet. So I'm glad to see that wasn't the response to those who were grossed out by it. (Which of course, just to clarify, does not at all mean that I think Deeky meant it in a gross way or that it has to be taken that way, or that the term should necessarily not be used.)

Which brings me back to my question: How would you have said the same thing, but in a non-squicky way?

chest? shirt? pocket?

Re: Michael Jackson Open Thread

omphaloskeptic — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:49:37 -0000

FWIW, I thought deeky's approach was reasonable and appropriate. He succinctly stated the facts that were causing uncertainty, discomfort, confusion, and sorrow among the commentariat, but left further thinking, conclusions, etc., up to the community. It seems to me like this has created a relatively safe space in which people can explore their conflicting (both within themselves and with each other) emotions and responses.

Cool, I'm glad it had this effect on you and others. (Sincerely.)

Re: Michael Jackson Open Thread

omphaloskeptic — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:07:27 -0000

Oh, I see. I didn't realize you were stating your opinion for public consumption without an expectation or desire that anyone would actually react to it.

Melissa, I would also encourage you not to mistake my flippancy toward your particular reaction as flippancy toward being responding to.

This is clearly derailing at this point, so I'll bow out now.

Re: Michael Jackson Open Thread

omphaloskeptic — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:46:40 -0000

I would encourage you not to mistake succinctness for flippancy. Sometimes there just isn't anything else to say.

I would encourage you not to read my reaction to how something comes off to me as commentary on its intent.

Re: Michael Jackson Open Thread

omphaloskeptic — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:21:47 -0000

I get that this was posted in haste to move the discussion from the previous thread, but the OP reads as pretty flip. I guess I'm just not used to seeing sentences like those thrown together so casually. But maybe it's just because I don't know you Deeky.

ETA: Given the way comments are often taken around here, I should add that I don't at all think you need to cater to my own aesthetic tastes, or that you've failed as a writer or human being.

Re: I Am Ms. Unremarkable Fatty

omphaloskeptic — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 09:43:31 -0000

not to mention that whole list was really tired and cliche. I wouldn't be at all surprised if she cribbed it from an 80s stand-up comedian or Dane Cook.

Re: The Trials and Travails of Transness: The Intersection Between Feminism and Transgender People

omphaloskeptic — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:45:52 -0000

thanks for this post.

Re: Note for Teacher

omphaloskeptic — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:15:32 -0000

I hope the school lets Kennedy keep the note! If they don't and I were her I would just take the unexcused absence.

Re: On Safe Spaces and High-Hoping Fools

omphaloskeptic — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:15:18 -0000

A flounce is when someone makes a huge scene then exits or says something extremely inflammatory on their way out. Very dramatic.

From what I can gather given the past week's events, the difference between flouncing and expressing a concern and then leaving is whether or not the concern you're expressing is considered legitimate by the larger group.

Re: On Safe Spaces and High-Hoping Fools

omphaloskeptic — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:53:23 -0000

Melissa, this is actually in reference to your previous post, but I wanted to thank you for your apology, and again best wishes.

Re: "All In" Means ALL of Us

omphaloskeptic — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:59:49 -0000

Those who emailed me got civil and informative responses.

But those who commented on the blog itself did not.

The reason for our choice is clearly outlined in the original post.

Well then, if you had reasons that were clear to yourself but no one else I suppose the consequences of your actions don't matter at all. Thanks for your concern!

It's clear from this thread that you all have been gifted with an enormous amount of power, and I hope you use it responsibly.

Re: "All In" Means ALL of Us

omphaloskeptic — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:29:44 -0000

I'm really disheartened by the us/them mentality of so many of the responses in this thread and by the way in which legitimate concerns are getting lost in the undertow or lumped in with inflammatory ones.

Several people have expressed that this situation was handled in a way that was hurtful or harmful to them . I don't see moderators or commenters responding to these folks with the level of respect being called for in the OP.

Silence triggers for me panic, OCD behaviors, and misplaced guilt, as this comment thread suggests it does for many others. I tried to express my hurt over how this situation was handled and—with the exception of a passive aggressive comment from PD that may or may not have been directed toward me, to which I yes, responded with snark—now I in turn have been ignored.

I’m not just trying to be an asshole, I think this situation was handled in a way that is hurtful, I’ve been hurt by it, and I’ve been hurt by the dismissiveness and lack of concern with which my attempts to communicate that have been met.

Re: "All In" Means ALL of Us

omphaloskeptic — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 03:41:18 -0000

ok fair enough, sorry for jumping up your ass, emotions are running thin all around I suppose.

Re: "All In" Means ALL of Us

omphaloskeptic — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 03:31:28 -0000

Well, maybe you can find a place you like better.

Ha. I'm thoroughly bemused by the fact that you edited your original comment

Anitanola wrote, in response to omphaloskeptic:

I'm really sorry you feel that way.

to that.

Re: "All In" Means ALL of Us

omphaloskeptic — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 03:25:56 -0000

So just to clarify, your response to two commenters' statements that silence is triggering is: Zuh?

Re: "All In" Means ALL of Us

omphaloskeptic — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 03:16:22 -0000

Sometimes though, readers, 'zuh' might be an indication that

It's often uncomfortable when something that has been going on a long time in a community gets challenged and discussed openly.
When this happens for me, in a community that I otherwise love and have incorporated into my life in a big way, I take a moment to reflect on exactly what the nature of my discomfort is. I've found that it is usually a discomfort in being awakened and brought to consciousness about something that's been there a long time -- it's disconcerting to have it placed squarely before me -- I feel a little scared, because I think: "How could I not have seen that?"

By the way, PD I find it interesting that none of the listed possible outcomes of your comment-sleuthing is that the commenter is genuine, understands the rules of the blog and is raising a legitimate concern.

Re: "All In" Means ALL of Us

omphaloskeptic — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 02:27:04 -0000

And yet, the proper response from the contributors/moderators to recent expressions of concern from readers was several days of silence? Without even a line stating that the blog was on hiatus? Even though this kind of silent treatment may itself be triggering for readers who have experienced emotional abuse? I'm confused.

This is important. I was also confused and concerned about this, but hesitated to bring it up, because I feel that when someone expresses that a community has become unsafe and damaging to them our priority needs to be to acknowledge that damage and respond accordingly.

But I've done that, and lots of others have as well. And this is gnawing at me, so, what about acknowledging the damage and harm done by the rest of the crew offering no explanation, then guilting people for asking what's going on, or ffs implying that readers are part of a dysfunctional cycle of abuse for "flooding" Melissa with emails (step 4)?

I am completely in support, respectful, and understanding of the need to take time for oneself, to not have to explain anything to anyone and to just heal, and so I can actually even completely get behind Melissa's not posting something on the main page about what was going on. But what I don't understand is why no one else could (out of courtesy that I think most members of this community have earned) let people know what was going on.

Maybe it's because, as the mods write:

We made a collective decision on Friday, June 5th (independently of Melissa) to stop posting the daily features and regular posts at Shakesville during Melissa's absence, because we agreed that continuing with "business as usual" sends the signal to the community at large that it is somehow acceptable to engage in actions which disrespect, offend, and distress our blog-mistress to the point where she must actually step away from her own blog, and then to continue along as if everything is just fine and dandy. We chose this because we do not want to participate in the pattern (unequal treatment/expectations followed up by lack of acknowledgment/action) which we have described above.

But ok, I don't see how letting a concerned community know what is going on is disrespectful to our "blogmistress" as much as not letting them know is disrespectful to people who are understandably genuinely concerned about what is going on and who have an emotional investment in this community and space. And no, having the time it takes to drop a comment or shoot an email of concern but not the time to scour comment threads to figure out what's going on does not mean that people just don't care enough.

Burying flippant responses to genuinely and understandably concerned readers in comment threads strikes me as disrespectful, and the silence of those in the know (who weren't recovering from being triggered and dehumanized) strikes me as manipulative and emotionally abusive at worst.

YMMV.

And btw the commentariat is not a monolith, so the posturing toward Commenters capital C lately is a little grating.

Re: "All In" Means ALL of Us

omphaloskeptic — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:54:59 -0000

(((Faith)))

Re: "All In" Means ALL of Us

omphaloskeptic — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 13:01:14 -0000

Melissa, I know you don't really know me but I read your words most every day. I read comments pretty haphazardly and so missed most of what led up to this break and this post, at least most recently.

But I clicked on every link as soon as I saw PaultheSpud's comment round-up yesterday and read every comment.

It's the responsibility of any community to ensure that it is safe for each and every one of its members and particularly for its most integral and cherished ones. And when someone communicates that the community has become unsafe and abusive, it's the responsibility of the community to respond swiftly and, well, responsively. This community failed you.

Though I know there are many of us who wish we had been in those comment threads, particularly in "I Get Fan Mail," I can see that it's sort of a moot point because there were doubtless many who were in that thread who did not respond or acknowledge your hurt and damage for whatever reason (none of which hold up against our knowledge that not being heard can be just as damaging and triggering as the original trauma itself).

The response here, though massive, is unfortunately tempered by the fact that it was delayed and required prompting. And, as the posters point out, this response and the problems precipitating it are not at all new.

But nonetheless, I wanted to let you know that I am a witness to the pattern of disrespect you have experienced here, the abusive and callous way in which this community has failed you, and the damaging impact of that failure--at least to the degree you have communicated, though I suspect that only scratches the surface.

I hope that my gratitude for your commitment to this community (which would not at all be diminished in my view by the decision to leave it), my regret that things have played out in this way once again, and my commitment to think before I type, to fuck up responsibly and to show you the same respect and thoughtfulness that you show all of us will not seem disingenuous for belonging to the inevitable chorus of promises that follow from the realization of the possibility of losing someone whom we esteem greatly.

Wishing you the best.

Re: Question of The Day

omphaloskeptic — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 10:54:54 -0000

I am watching Frasier again

ditto. two episodes come on right before bed, and lately I get really upset when they're not on. ha.

Re: Question of the Day

omphaloskeptic — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 09:27:10 -0000

we had spicy rice with shrimp and guacamole stacks (a la Rachael Ray, cheese quesadillas, homemade sangria, and mango sherbet with fruit salad. It was delicious!