At The Blend: Civility Day Still Set For July 10th

Good grief!

Yet another front page post about this nonsense?

Interent rumbles (or just plain ol' pi**ing contests) happen on every blog.  I've not posted on those multiple threads because I thought people would be grown up enough to let this die out on its own like every other flame war typically does.

But apparently not.

Quit promoting this pi**ing contest on the front page or it will indeed be time for me to leave PHB.  (Which shouldn't matter a whit to anyone except maybe the baristas -- even then, my opinions should barely matter to them).

If I didn't like the way PHB handled something, I'd take my traffic elsewhere.  If I think Aravosis has/has not done enough apologizing, then I can (not)visit his site on my own. If I want to find out more about Harry Benjamin Syndrome and how real it is or is not, even though you banned a poster on this site, I can do that...on my own.

I can do all these things because the interwebs are not the unique domain of PHB.

However, the front page of PHB is the unique domain of the baristas and front pagers.  I guess it's my turn to weigh in and say, "Stop!"

I really do like this place, and I'm willing to wait out a flame war, but yet another front page post is feeding it -- not ending it.

All good wishes for a quick flame out.

---

by: HunterC @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 08:14:37 AM CDT

curiousity may lead to education

I just want to encourage you, and other PHB members, to learn more about trans issues. I've always worked for and advocated equal rights for all, from equality in marriage to protections for all to work and live without fear. The fear of being 'out' and possible repercussions affects everyone-lesbians, gays, bisexual and trans. "Will I lose my job? Will I be targeted for harrassment?" These are real concerns for everyone and I feel it is our common ground for discussion. But we all need to learn more about each other's concerns. We need to educate ourselves to understand the possible viewpoint from our neighbor. We need to work together.

I am legally married to a (now) same sex partner. I got mine. So should I care about my neighbor, should I put myself out there to stay in touch with my senators and representitives to advance marriage equality? Should I work in getting the current laws changed for something that really doesn't affect my life? DAMN RIGHT!! I will never sit still and let someone's happiness be trampled under by fear, religious doctrine or plain stubborness. Here in California, I do enjoy protection from losing my job, my home or even damage to my physical being by state law. These laws need to be forwarded to everyone in this country. Never rest. Not until there is equality for all.

---

by: chef kat @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 10:31:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Seconded.

The trans discussions that were hijacked by a small handful of damaged people who never post here under any other circumstances combined with this blog's reaction to it has made trans issues here synonymous with a lack of civility.  And you know what?  That's pretty damned sad!

I enjoyed (please note the past tense) PHB because the original formula of news, opinion and casual, non-insane feedback (interrupted every once in a while by perfectly normal misunderstandings, mood swings and bad days) worked -- up until the point you decided to stop enforcing it.  All, apparently, to protect the feelings of the people who came here purely to trash you and your regulars.

I would love to discuss trans issues here, but only with people, such as chef kat above, who are rational and civil.  Just like in the good old days.  Otherwise, what's the point?

---

by: diablorobotico @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 14:45:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

wow!

Thanks!

---

by: chef kat @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 15:40:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well stated

I'm nostalgic for the previous version of PHB, where I felt like everyone generally respected each other and got along most of the time.

Now I'm afraid to try to have a rational discussion or ask a question about certain topics - topics where I might benefit from further understanding - for fear of having my head ripped off.

Totally not cool.

---

by: ChlorineX @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 21:48:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Civility day the day Bruno is released?

Good luck with that one lol.

---

by: JBravoEcho09 @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 10:41:23 AM CDT

Regulating for the sake of regulating?

Why is Autumn so giddy over the end of the "free speech" period? What, exactly, has been so offensive during this period that makes her want a return to censorship? Is it just the personal satisfaction of exercising power over other people?

---

by: uh_huhh @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 10:44:15 AM CDT

You're reading way too much into the announcement.

It is a Pam's House Blend informational notice.  Autumn happened to be the one to post it, and so her name is on it.  

What censorship?  When you created a user at PHB, you agreed to abide by the TOS.  TOS are rules to facilitate decency, not censorship.  Pam suspended some of the TOS this week as an experiment, but she made clear at the outset that this experiment was of limited duration and that the TOS would be reinstated after July 9th.  I you are so quick to cry "censorship", especially since you had a diary promoted to the front page yesterday!

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 10:58:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ok, but not "crying" anything

Forgive me if I'm reading too much into the post. I read it as a celebration of the end of the free speech policy.

On the other hand, I wasn't "crying" censorship. I was using the word "censorship" as an apt description. See Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (defining "censor" as "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable").

The fact that a censor announces in advance the rules for deleting material, puts the rules in a take-it-or-leave-it TOS statement, and cites decency as the justification doesn't take it outside of the definition of censorship or eliminate any free speech concerns.

And, really, I don't think your last sentence was very civil, but part of the problem is that "civility" is in the eye of the beholder (or the censor).

---

by: uh_huhh @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 11:50:32 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Agree here.

It's the Hammer of JUSTICE,
It's the Bell of FREEDOM,
It's the Song about LOVE between,
my Brothers and my Sisters
...All over this Land.

---

by: Orion45 @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 20:49:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hear Hear!

Short of childish, churlish nonsensical posts - or outright spam advertising, direct physical threats, or profanity for profanity's sake, (*%$#^%&$# see, there are other ways to type that stuff - just read "Beetle Baily" for guidance) --- let the posts stand.

Civility does not mean a right to never be offended by the opinions of others.

Civility does not grant a right to insist that everyone learn a set of unique code words or phrases in order to be heard.

Civility is not defined by an absolute adherance to any one set of beliefs.

Civility is not furthered by a linguistic or ideological "Sword of Damocles" held by a slim thread of perceived slight.

Civility is entirely voluntary.  Just as it is impossible to legislate morality, so too is it impossible to impose civility.

The best way to impose a collective will, is to collectively refuse to reply to, acknowledge, or feed any posts which offend.  

There was a wonderful phrase in old time banking.  When someone was deemed untrustworthy, the accepted form of censure was to simply say, "We do not know that person."

Volumes in one phrase.

Question:  What does an atheist do when they fall to the floor and start "speaking in tongues"?

Answer: Get a CAT scan.

---

by: Snooky Ookums @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 11:03:31 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

nothing giddy about it

Honestly, it would be easier for all of us to just leave it as is, with the two provisions/exceptions we stated for banning and letting the free speech experiment continue. It's not as if moderating is fun and games.

The announcement is just fair warning for those who have been cutting loose in the threads because there wasn't any moderation.

The larger issue, as we think about a new TOS, is whether it is possible for the Blend to be a safe space unmoderated. The answer so far has been interesting -- it depends on the thread's topic. Most of the comments have been civil and on topic in the posts that don't touch upon trans issues. On ones with the latter as a focus, the comment count is high, and the rancor/"unsafe" factor skyrockets. How this is handled in the future TOS is definitely something to ponder, along with where the responsibilities should shake out re: commenter self-policing vs. light/moderate/heavy admin moderation.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 10:58:31 AM CDT

the trans issues and posts

I've noticed that too, Pam, and it is disturbing. The hostility from both sides of the issues has been disconcerting. It may be an isolated few with personal agendas. I don't know, I haven't followed it closely enough. I will be happy to see the name calling and hate spewing come to an end but the anger will still be out there. I wish we could just talk about it calmly and maybe learn from each other.

---

by: chef kat @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 11:11:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Can we have ratings back?

Not the way they were, with the 1-4, but more of a thumbs up or down, or a "like" option like in Facebook?  I don't know if Soapblox has the software to manage something like this:
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
where lower rated comments can be hidden but would still exist in case people want to read them.  That way most of us can ignore some of what just looks like trolling rants and others can take part in them if they wish.  That could (but probably won't!) keep the censorship whining to a minimum.  Oh, would it also be possible to put IP numbers in the "by" line?  With all the sock puppetry (which looks like it may be happening again in this thread) happening, it could be very useful.

My America includes LGBT families.

---

by: Mena @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 15:34:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

so many elements to weigh when considering a TOS

My question is how do we reconcile this sentiment by diablorobotico:

I enjoyed (please note the past tense) PHB because the original formula of news, opinion and casual, non-insane feedback (interrupted every once in a while by perfectly normal misunderstandings, mood swings and bad days) worked -- up until the point you decided to stop enforcing it.  All, apparently, to protect the feelings of the people who came here purely to trash you and your regulars.

who wants moderation at some unspecified level (after all it's all subjective)...

With this, from uh_huhh:

What, exactly, has been so offensive during this period that makes her want a return to censorship? Is it just the personal satisfaction of exercising power over other people?

voting for a free speech zone?

There's no way to satisfy the ends of the spectrum on this one -- completely free speech, unmoderated will result in a blog that cannot be billed as a "safe zone" on certain topics for certain populations, in this case trans folk, since it's clear from the evidence so far that people cannot control themselves on either side of the argument in those threads.

However, if you have a moderate to heavy moderation, it's almost impossible to enforce unless you enumerate specific offensive terms and phrases in order to be crystal clear about what is off limits, otherwise it's completely subjective according to who is moderating. It will, of course, impinge on free speech.

Mind you now, no blog is obligated to be a free speech zone without any rules. It's my space, I'm paying for it, so any TOS terms aren't "fair", because they don't have to be. But the bottom line is what is the space billing itself as, and how meaningful is it to have a site that has 10x the registered users since it began to be moderated in exactly the same manner or level? Any decision or desire has to factor in the time that any admin is able to devote to it, and how much effort readers are willing to do to police the space they are in. They can't be separate issues, unfortunately.

Deciding people like heavy moderation to make it a safe space may be impossible, given the human resources required. On the other hand, no moderation, which frees the admins of any burden, may drive certain readers away because the atmosphere is too caustic. Is that the better price to pay? What is a sane middle ground? I don't have the answers, but the solution will have to consider all those factors.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 16:25:27 PM CDT

Call me naive or "privileged" but...

...it hasn't seemed to me that transfolk have been shrinking violets in discussions about trans issues and, to go a perilous step further, some of the incivility has been instigated by transfolk.

Not every question is an attack on transgender people, and not every disagreement is borne of ignorance or prejudice. When becca posts a comment innocently asking what "cisgender" means and gets an extremely snide and uncivil retort, which itself then gets its own knee-jerk defense from an apologist, I have to say the case for needing a "safe space" doesn't seem very compelling. Safe from slurs and bigotry is one thing; safe to attack with impunity and excuse the incivility as "opposing privilege" is something else entirely. One source of the degeneration of civility is frankly the attitude among a few that, if one decides that one is challenging privilege, one is free to be as nasty, personal, sanctimonious, and caustic as one pleases.

In theory, I absolutely agree with the idea of a safe space for a discussion of trans issues. But safe space does not mean allowing a cis-bashing free-for-all, while treating every question or criticism as anti-trans prejudice. The idea of a safe space needs to focus on the most demeaning and bigoted of attacks on trans people. But it should not mean suppressing disagreement or coming down on commenters who push back against personal invective from particular transfolk who don't feel any obligation toward civility themselves. The rules should not institutionalize the attitude "I'm the victim, so I get to bash people."

---

by: uh_huhh @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 17:04:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

As a trans person...

I agree 100% with uh_huhh.

I love the Blend and I am glad that trans issues are brought up here frequently, but I am reluctant venture into the discussions because I often find it to be a very hostile and unsafe space. Not because the occasional (supposed) GWM makes an ignorant or disdainful comment about transpeople, but because of the handful of trans people themselves who start in with the acrimonious attacks. This happens much to often for my liking.

If these people are driving me, a fellow trans person away, I can only imagine how they are perceived by our allies or potential allies. They are really doing a disservice to the cause.

---
As a side note, can people please stop with the churlish attacks on Autumn?

(Not just directed at you uh_huhh, it has also been happening in threads of other stories Autumn has posted.)

---

by: Stephanie @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 18:25:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I second (and third and fourth if necessary) this:

As a side note, can people please stop with the churlish attacks on Autumn?

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 10:18:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

How would you feel

If every time you were discussing a topic about anti-gay bias someone asked "what's homophobia?" sometimes repeatedly during the discussion after it had been answered, or a handy link provided in the body of the article?

Then the discussion turned into if "homophobia" was even a valid word? With the actual discussion of the actual anti-gay bias getting shelved (again) while people asked the same questions topic after topic after topic - what would you do, how would you react, would you expect everyone to react the same way?

---

by: rioTgirl @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 20:15:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No justification

Just because lashing out feels good doesn't make it productive, right, or civil.

And becca, my example, didn't ask what "transphobia" was, or express disregard for trans issues. She asked what "cisgender" means. It's in-group jargon, and unless you forbid new participants from joining the site, you can't expect everyone to know the in-group code words or read every previous diary.

When lots of people need educating about an issue, one can either try to educate them, however tedious that is, or lash out at them for even asking. Snapping that they have a duty to learn about their own privilege will, in most cases, do nothing but cause them to stop engaging entirely. The feel-good snarkiness usually is counterproductive.

---

by: uh_huhh @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 21:31:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Please note who *did* answer her, lol

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 21:56:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

OK then

Substitute "gay" or "Hetero" ... seriously what do you honestly think would happen?

Lashing out doesn't feel good (at least for me). Being constantly expected to stop having a discussion about a topic because someone can't click a link isn't very productive now is it?

---

by: rioTgirl @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 22:40:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Post a link without snide commentary then

---

by: uh_huhh @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 03:22:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

alright

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/...

Since you were referencing this this topic earlier I didn't think I'd have to remind you. But there you go. Autumn as a link at the end, a discussion was going about what happened, "what's cis", derail.

Now, you going to answer any one of the mental exercises I've given you?

---

by: rioTgirl @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 06:23:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You missed my point

My point was that when someone new asks what "cisgender" means, you can simply post a link without attacking the questioner. Or if you find it so tedious to educate people, you can ignore it.

---

by: uh_huhh @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 11:50:58 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why?

Why post a link when the author already did? Why give a link when the term had already been explained and heavily debated (as in other topics)? There comes a point where multiple "education opportunities" distracts from the actual.. you know.. issue being discussed.

---

by: rioTgirl @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 12:46:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Let's face it, if you have to ask, "why"

to uh_huhh's suggested remedy:

....when someone new asks what "cisgender" means, you can simply post a link without attacking the questioner. Or if you find it so tedious to educate people, you can ignore it.

then you'll always feel miserable posting here. You're bright enough to have figured that out by now, I'm positive. My suggestion: go back to a blog where you have a dozen like-minded regular posters who validate and re-validate your ideas. It's a lot safer and less stressful that way.

Really, I've always believed that separation (self-segregation) has its merits. But it can make dealing with the wider world all the more difficult when you do venture out. And, of course, it gets soooo incestuous when each person has either slept with or had a major argument with every other person in that restricted group, not to mention you know what they're going to say before they say it.

Oh well, come the end of "Anything Goes" Week at the Blend, the only thing I'm sure of is that we'll be short about a dozen self-righteous pot stirrers who have returned to their very own amen corners in the online world.

---

by: Pollyanna @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 14:22:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Amen

Amen, Pollyanna

---

by: Stephanie @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 16:14:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Gracias, amiga.

---

by: Pollyanna @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 16:33:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So

I doubt I'll be miserable posting here - been in worse places. Thanks for the dismissive "run along now" though.

Paragraph #2.. I have no idea where you are going with "And, of course, it gets soooo incestuous when each person has either slept with or had a major argument with every other person in that restricted group..." Perhaps that's how some folks roll online.

I'm sure people will stop posting in a few days.

None of that addresses my question though. Not that I particularly expect anyone to answer anything... only SOME types of posters have that expectation.

---

by: rioTgirl @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 23:23:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

In answer to your question

Personally, I would simply keep referring the questioner back to the previous link or piece of information.  People don't always read things all the way through - or indeed all the threads of any given post - and sometimes comprehension comes through multiple iterations.  

If they continue to show a certain failure to grasp or belligerence (or laziness)after that, I can simply walk away from the conversation with that person.

But that's my personal style.  I might hope that others would react the same, but age and experience would prevent me from making that bet.

As to the second part of your question - unfortunately, it's not an apples to apples comparison to what has happened here.  Although I do understand the comparison you were trying to make.

As written above, the term under discussion - homophobia - has not been applied to any of the participants in the conversation.  No one is being labeled.  So, the individual attachments to the word are not as personal or as potentially fraught.  

But again, if education is impossible and/or the discussion becomes tedious, belligerent or fruitless, one can always walk away.

---

by: ChlorineX @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 07:40:53 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

democracy is over rated, give me a benevolent queen....LOL

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 21:06:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Unbelievable.

As if the social dynamics here that make it unsafe weren't obvious enough.

Are you talking about what it is you know, or just repeating what it was you heard?

Grace Slick

www.anonymous-t-girl.blogspot.com

---

by: Anonymous T-Girl @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 23:25:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I haven't "heard" anything ,I haven't had internet since Thursday

btw...since you felt SPECIAL cuz I told you "F*CK YOU very very much"....you obviously don't know me, if you think you are in the top 300,000 folks I've said that to. and as unbelievable as this might seem, 99% of them were cis folks.

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 23:37:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Swing and a miss.

You're so tragically limited in your view of your own role in all this, it's almost embarassing. Particularly when paired with your complete lack of self-awareness.

You're nothing more than a swooning sycophant for Sandeen's desires. When not waxing simple-minded platitudes, you're gorilla-walking around the boards bullying people. Can you roll over and play dead, too? Or is your chain not long enough?

i fear that if you use the phrase 'you obviously don't know me' one more time, the ring is going to snap off that string sticking out of your back.

But please, Porn Pig. Keep rapid posting, occasionally throwing around meaningless threats of violence and ALL CAPPING your way through every thread. It's bound to be a legitimate replacement for reasoned rebuttal some day, right?

Just resort to your ol' 'fuck yourself' ace in the hole! Nothing withstands that rock, right tough stuff? i'm sure rock was your guaranteed win against paper and sissors in school, too.

For bonus victory points, brag about the number of times you've 'won' using it! 300,000? Wow. You sure showed them. Guess i better clutch my skirt in fear and flee at once.

Her protection of you is the only thing keeping someone from turning you into an intellectual work-out bag. So i guess your 'devotion' makes some sort of sense.

Screw this dog-and-pony show.

Are you talking about what it is you know, or just repeating what it was you heard?

Grace Slick

www.anonymous-t-girl.blogspot.com

---

by: Anonymous T-Girl @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 00:54:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

take your sorry ass immitation of roid rage, and tell it to someone who gives a sh*t

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 01:07:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

and another thing sweetie

you ain't the sharpest stilletto heel, so trot your 3 pairs of support hose off my corner...babycakes.

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 01:10:36 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

"Screw this dog-and-pony show."

...but enough about your Tijuana stage act

Bring it to the chatroom....A_N_Y_T_I_M_E
and we'll see who's fun bags end up the workout bag...in REAL TIME.

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 01:46:06 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

babycakes?

a bit patronizing and sexist one would think.

Dena

Cisgender. Because "Genetic" is so 2006.

---

by: Denabeth @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 03:07:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

hardly sexist, it's a Maupin title of a Tales of the City book, Michael's nickname

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 09:59:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

To this woman it is

Dena

Cisgender. Because "Genetic" is so 2006.

---

by: Denabeth @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 16:40:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Michael...and decidedly male and unabashedly queer

   http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/cul...

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 18:37:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So I'm so easy on the knuckles...huh?

Chatroom is open.
Rocky 2 is one of this brainiac's favorite movies.
My what an awesome intellect, color me terrified, and she plays role playing games as a lesbian, cuz men are such pussies.

got a little man hater strain, huh darlin'?

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 11:00:55 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You do a low moderation with limited recourse

And outline what the rules are.

I know that's not fun. And there's no way you can make everyone happy.

So don't try, Pam.

Just look to what you genuinely believe is right, and then act on that.

The rest is just fluff.

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 21:58:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Is there functionality available for ignore-listing?

That might help some people to deal with contentious subjects.

# Duty, duty -- honor is, is --
Honor, Creideiki -- alertly
# Shared, is -- Honor #

---

by: MileHighDawg @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 17:37:38 PM CDT

Great idea

---

by: ChlorineX @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 21:30:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Four Stars.

i would have rated your comment, but that seems to have gone away.

Are you talking about what it is you know, or just repeating what it was you heard?

Grace Slick

www.anonymous-t-girl.blogspot.com

---

by: Anonymous T-Girl @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 23:27:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So are we saying.... that anyone previously kicked off the site can come back..

as long as they follow the post 7/13 rules?  

PS. There really are good Christians gays too, but you all surely scared them all away from this site! 

It's the Hammer of JUSTICE,
It's the Bell of FREEDOM,
It's the Song about LOVE between,
my Brothers and my Sisters
...All over this Land.

---

by: Orion45 @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 20:28:50 PM CDT

Not all of us Orion45, and if that is vain of me to assume I am a

good one, I don't mean it that way.  But I like to think that perhaps the ones who follow the Way as it was meant to be, should not be offended over much, on occasion yes, because we, like everyone else are simply human with very human feelings. And very human foibles too. Just like everyone else.

"They say that time changes things, but you actually have to change them yourself." - Andy Warhol



"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

---

by: TruthandLove @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 03:22:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, ya prolly new it was coming, so...

Since I've been accused of hijacking every other possible thread, I figure what the hell, might as well dive in and get this one as well.

I had intended on writing a basic post when it was put up, but I'm a reactive, poster, and therefore I needed something to react to.

My diary on Civility has already been written and placed up.  Its still available herein, and I expect that like another diary, parts of it will be used as well in the future.

I am going to make this a long post.  Really long.  And in it I'm going to address a lot of the things already mentioned herein.  I'm not going to name anyone, as no one is expressing thoughts unique to themselves. I am directing my commentary to the ideas, the thoughts -- to use a woefully and horrifically inadequate term, the "meme's" -- within here, and yes, indeed, I am going to link them to the issues which remain unresolved and, at this point, will remain so, regardless of actions taken.

So, yes, another front page article on it.  Needed because the issues that exist are not being resolved. Nor will it be the last such time this subject is brought up -- no matter what punishments or scorning is applied.

Because it is not a "little" matter. It is not unimportant, it is not merely a pissing contest.

Here, where, of late, the majority is complaining about how the current Administration is ignoring us, we have also had a whole bunch of people suddenly sit up and say very clearly, very directly, that they are not happy with the way their fierce allies are ignoring them.

That, I will note, is hypocrisy.

There is no question that there have been aspects of a flame war going on -- some posters have taken the chance to do exactly that.  I have been accused of doing exactly that (oddly enough without ever asking me if I am or not, so its an assumption on the part of those who are doing so that is in error, and, point blank, I'd rather you at least ask me about something before you lie about me regarding it).

For clarity about why transfolk are angry, here's the situation, and I won't spin it to lighten the load:

Autumn Sandeen made a mistake that was insulting. Deeply insulting.  Then she compounded that mistake by making additional ones instead of apologizing.  Then she did it yet again -- and still hasn't apologized.

And make no bones: had she apologized, she could have indeed made it all go away in one immediate and amazing swoop.   Everyone commenting on this thread has seen how fast we forgive our own when an apology happens.

Now, she's admitted to those mistakes already. Several times.  She knows they were made.  Most, if not all, of the commenters know they were admitted to.

The hurt that she caused, however, was compounded -- as Pam notes, on both sides.  I think i can safely say that on "my" side of things, some posters when significantly too far. I happen to think that they owe an apology for having gone too far.

As for the tone of the posts, no -- there's no need to apologize -- on either side.  There is, however, a need for everyone to acknowledge that they own their own emotions.

No one makes you angry.  You allow yourself to become angry.  And the responsibility for dealing with that anger is yours, and news flash: sometimes that anger is justified.

Anyone who would like to disagree with that might consider that the reason we can even have a place like PHB is because of anger.

So, since we are all responsible for our own anger, and we all own it, when people say things like "well, your tone was just really pissy" in an argument about privilege, well...

You are blaming the victim of oppression for speaking out against it.

And when straight people tell you non straight people to shut up and stop having your parades and stop making a scene, you are experiencing what transfolk in the cisGLB community experience every single day.

For over 18 months -- more than 12 of them as an active poster who's substantial contributions are focused on empowerment and on unity from a perspective that is very rare and usually ignored -- I have watched the predominantly white commenters avoid racial issues here at the blend like the plague, yet talk about how we need to have that conversation.

This is the same thing.

I once talked about what it means to live with blackface in a thread on it. And was handed a tone argument, despite my tone having been one of rather reasonable statements.

That was one of my earliest experiences here.

Now, does that mean that I'm somehow condemning all of you for racism?  No.  But if you are uncomfortable with my saying it, then I do strongly suggest you take the time to look at your emotions to the same extent I've looked at mine when things and aspects of my person and history that I hold dear are attacked every single day here on the blend (and that's not even getting into the trans stuff -- totally unrelated).

I was heterosexual before I transitioned, and I'm heterosexual after I transitioned.  That gives me privilege, and I am willing to learn from you what it means when I've said or done something that sorta infringes on your space -- perhaps you could consider doing the same when my trans brothers and sisters try to speak to you about your doing it to them.

It happens.  

But enough on privilege and the lack of civility that surrounds it any time it is brought up (that is to say, these sorts of fights always happen around privilege).

I don't think all the banned folks should come back, myself.  I don't expect that once this period is over, despite the statement to the contrary, that I will be allowed because its very clear that I am never going to let it go until AS apologizes.

Ever.

Because, just like I'm not letting it go about DADT arguments utterly ignoring transfolk, and just like I don't let it go about Marriage equality being important but not really as critical as EDNA and social services legislation, this is about something that is right.

That will annoy the crap out of a lot of you.  And you are most welcome to use shunning techniques (hey, they were used against us for centuries, so why shouldn't we use them ourselves, right?).  Its ok.  It won't stop me, however, and so, in the end, Pam and her close group of Baristas will feel a need to do so.

I know that.

As noted elsewhere, I think an ignore function would be an awesome tool for PHB (then again, I highly recommend it for any site that has traffic where applicable) -- I've moderated a board far more potentially caustic than this one in the past with a much wider participant pool of far greater variation in terms of background.

And ignore is wonderful.  Especially when you do not have paid moderators.

However, when ignore is not present, remember the real ignore function is in your head, and that the little button is really just a way for you to avoid being responsible for your own emotions.

Nor is calling out the incivility of transfolk perilous -- just do it without making a tone argument.. Or, better yet, read what they are saying and if its got nothing contextually valid, then use your internal ignore button.

But if it has something of value, do not assume that just because the tone is bad that they do not have a valid argument.

Nor does it need to focus on what people who are outside the trans community think of as the most demeaning and bigoted attacks because we know what they are better than non trans people.  And this is one of them.  

Yeah, its that bad.

And no -- it should not mean suppressing arguments that run counter to the "main voice" of the site. Yet that's the perception, strongly held, among the community.  The recent events only served to reinforce it.

And now it makes it appear willy nilly, no less.

Not that that is the case, but that is the perception, and like it or not, Pam is subject to the perceptions of others. So is Autumn.  We've seen them on TV, we've heard them on the radio -- they are public figures, and therefore fair game under the old TOS.

I do agree -- simply because one is a member of an oppressed class does not give one the right to bash others who are not members of such.  I'm a member of several different oppressed classes and one oppressing them -- and I get crap from all sides.

Probably why I remember that when I get struck with colorism by a black trans woman, I am the one responsible for dealing with my emotion, not her.

Transfolk are incredibly diverse -- we are the most diverse of the four letters. As a result, we are not fairly monolithic.

As for my actions, as noted earlier, what I do is neither churlish nor going to stop, until she does the right thing.

Here's the situation once again: transfolk are enraged.  It has not died down, it has not gone away, it is not under control.  Its been that way since 2007.  They do not trust non-transfolk,  and so when things like this happen, its a bit more than likely that its going to get out of hand.

IT will be that way until we get treated as equals instead of second thoughts.  Because when one uses the letters LGBT and there's no trans experience listed in the same thing, it counts against you.

In return, don't let them do it to you, either.

I told someone to fuck off for the first time here on PHB not too long ago.  For saying something that has been hashed to death to a dgree far worse than this one.

When I did so, it wasn't in anger.  I wasn't mad at them, I wasn't even offended -- It was just one of those moments when I knew that the only way to reach them was to create an emotional response, and they let me do it.

I don't think AS is giddy over anything.  I strongly suspect, and have some reason to do so, that shes finding herself struggling with depression and a need for resolution of any sort that doesn't require her to apologize.  I'm also certain that despite calls from friends and people she now considers enemies to apologize, that she has, in the past, simply refused to do so outright.

Civility is based on good manners, a massive complex of social cues and behaviors that involves politeness, courtesy, and withholding of one's self in the interest of others.

Tolerance, one could say, is a hallmark of civility -- including tolerance of that jackass over there who just called your mother a horse's wee wee.

Calls of censorship that deal with someone other than the government in the US are, to be frank, sorta silly.  Private property owners have the right to do what they want.

Pam has the right to delete this right after I post it. She can delegate that right to others.

And I have the right to post it elsewhere.
So long as I have that right, I will defend someone's decision to do that, unless its the government.

Then I will be a bitch.

As for education, I have mentioned more than a few times that I am always willing to do so.  It is, after all, what I do when I'm not drafting legislation or preparing the next flamewar, and I am far more than civil -- I'm open to being asked any question in damn near any tone.

Just don't tell me what it is I am feeling or thinking without asking me or establishing it through what I've written, cause I will most likely get on your case about it to the same extent I get on transfolks cases for doing the same thing.

And perhaps, in the process, you can educate me.

In the interim, have at me all ya will.

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 21:51:08 PM CDT

No tone objection

I have no objection to the tone of this lengthy and informative comment.

But I do not agree that objecting to abusive or caustic retorts is blaming the victim for challenging oppression. While an overwrought or pretextual "tone argument" is marginalizing, truly abusive or caustic retorts are not an essential part of discussing oppression or privilege.

(P.S. Since no one has claimed that PHB would violate the First Amendment by censoring comments, the public-private point is a straw man. The question is how robust or controlled the dialogue should be here, and it is a question that the private operator of the site has posed to participants. It's a policy question, not a constitutional question. How much "free speech" and how much "censoring" would we like, as a matter of site policy?)

---

by: uh_huhh @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 04:08:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

true enough

On the censorship aspect, but its something to keep in mind that the extent of that oppenness is entirely within the purview of the site owner.

As for the comments on tone, as I sad above, its still ok to speak to the tone, just do it without making a tone argument.

Tone arguments are dependent on using the tone as excuse to ignore the message.  So in discussing the tone, acknowledge the message by speaking to it, and include discussion of the tone itself.

And example is Pete's recent concerns regarding my motivations for making this post (such as suggesting that I am running elsewhere, etc).  I was aware from the outset that some people would think that, and so rather than mount a large defense I simply state it is untrue.

I could take his commentary as a tone argument -- he's essentially saying I'm being whiny and snotty, after all -- but rather than doing so, I am dealing with the message conveyed.

(poor example, but eh.)

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 12:48:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A few points

Autumn has apologized, in a front page post. You have decided it wasn't a "real" apology, and decided not to accept it. That's your right. But to say she hasn't is wrong.

And this reads as all enlightened and shit, and you definitely call out other people for how they can be influenced by their own emotions as well as the emotions of others, but you're leaving yourself out of that.

It's been said that man is the animal that laughs. True, but man is also the animal that rationalizes. You seem to be of above average intelligence, and that's great, but that intelligence doesn't keep you from being wrong, it just lets you build better and more elaborate justifications to deny being wrong. Being of above average intelligence also doesn't stop you from being influenced by your own emotions.

You also seem to have the impression that communication is entirely in the speaker's (or writer's) head. Their intentions control what communication is "really" about. That's not the case. Communication is a two-way street, and the listener's perception counts as much as the speaker's intention. If you find your message isn't getting across, the onus is on you, as the speaker, to change how you're sending the message. Otherwise you're better off to sit alone in a dark room and talk to the walls.

I'm fairly confident you won't listen to any of this, and you'll continue doing exactly what you've been doing, somehow expecting different results, but you can have the satisfaction of knowing that, like Frank, you did it your way, and you were completely right. And being right is really what's most important, isn't it?

Cause any fool knows, a dog needs a home; a shelter from pigs on the wing

---

by: QueerInSoCal @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 08:01:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, she admtted mistakes.

At least as of the time I wrote that, she had not apologized -- she had simply stated she had made mistakes.

Furthermore, on the issues that were of concern to the community offended, she did not apologize for what counted, but rather for something essentially irrelevant.

Its not that I didn't think it was an apology, it was that it wasn't one.

I'm not particularly enlightened -- but thanks for the compliment.

I'm well aware that intelligence -- to any degree -- doesn't stop me from being affected by my emotions. And I'm quite aware that I can be wrong -- and willing to admit it and apologize for it when its established that I am.

You make an excellent point regarding communication -- the only caveat is that I'm speaking to specific situations contextually that surround the ideas of privilege, and, in that case, the notes you make apply to a lesser extent.

Simply put, the burden is on me as a het person to listen to you as a gay person when we speak to the privilege that I have. Because otherwise I would be using my privilege to reinforce the status quo -- which is not something of value to me, personally, since I'm very much in favor of changing it to something more equitable.

The same is true when it comes to the subjects at hand here (and in pointed restatement, those things were cisprivilege and racial privilege).

I don't like my privs pointed out to me anymore than the next person, but if I'm going to grow and create a more equal situation and speak to the truths blah blah blah, then yeah, I need to be more willing to listen to those who are my allies when I have priv over them.

As for being right, no -- it is not the most important thing.

Doing the right thing is.

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 12:59:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yeah

I said:

You have decided it wasn't a "real" apology

You responded:

she had not apologized -- she had simply stated she had made mistakes

Once again, you are irrefutably right, because we all know an apology must take the form you decide is appropriate, or it isn't an apology. Kudos to you for being right, once again.

you'll continue doing exactly what you've been doing, somehow expecting different results, but you can have the satisfaction of knowing that, like Frank, you did it your way, and you were completely right.

Heavy is the head that wears the crown, huh?

Cause any fool knows, a dog needs a home; a shelter from pigs on the wing

---

by: QueerInSoCal @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 13:07:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fascinating effort

You make a couple assumptions in your repeating something, neither of which is acnowledging of what I was saying.

AN Apology generally contains the words "I'm sorry for x" or "I apologize for x", and in a site where there is a lot of talk about "non-apologies", I'm rahter keen to that point.

So when she makes that apology, I'll see it, and so will the rest of those of us who are bothered by her in this point.

Nor am I alone in this viewpoint -- I'm merely the only one left who is going to push the issue, and most of us know that come the 10th, I won't be able to do so.

As for crown, well, I'm not a performer, QISC, so I don't have any crowns.

Now, if there was actually some evidence that I was wrong, perhaps you'd like to present to me that evidence, instead of simply asserting such without proof.

Then again, that would require some effort on your part to have to see things from my perspective in order to convince me that I am wrong.

So perhaps it is not I that that am wearing that metaphorical crown you speak of.

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 14:10:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Generally

but not always. Apologies are difficult, especially when you're at the bottom of a pile-on. While I'm busy trying on your pumps, can you slip into Autmn's for a second, and recognize that coming to the realization there were other - perhaps better - ways the situation could have been handled might not have been the easiest thing for her to do? Can you give her credit for that, or are you only going to be satisfied when she apologizes to you, in the form you dictate, using the words you decide must be a part of it?

And while you're stewing on that, can you acknowledge there's a whole world of difference between "I made a mistake", and "I'm sorry if anyone was offended by what I did"? The latter is typically what we call out as a non-apology.

If, after having given it some thought, you decide that Autumn's apology to you and some other, unspecified people must contain words X, Y, and Z, or you'll continue to say she hasn't apologized at all (never mind to your satisfaction), then all I can offer is a polishing cloth. Crowns do collect dust, with all that filigree.

Cause any fool knows, a dog needs a home; a shelter from pigs on the wing

---

by: QueerInSoCal @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 15:12:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, I can -- and have

Stepped into Autumn's place.

Indeed, I've been in Autumn's place before (the exception being it wasn't the trans community, and it ha a direct bearing on my ability to make a living).

Had I not apologized -- in what isn't a "special" or unique way of apologizing, not "my" way, not something I created, but a general form that's pretty well known but avoided in order to save face, or shame, when, in truth, there is NO shame in being wrong or doing something wrong -- I would have been put out of business.

My nature is not entirely disagreeable -- just so to a great deal :D

But, more directly, in fairness:

Yes, I do understand why she hasn't thus far. I can understand fully how hard it is. And not only will I give her credit for that, I have given her credit -- in places where it counts.  I've even come to her defense here, during this, and that stung a tiny bit, I'll admit, but was the right thing to do.

She isn't getting involved in the discussion -- that's a good thing, but it means she gets a lot more crap than she really deserves, and so people like yourself coming to her defense is a good thing.

I'm not taking that away from her, or you.  Wouldn't want to, anyway. But it doesn't change what the right thing to do is.

And absolutely I can recognize there's a difference between I made a mistake and "I'm sorry if I offended someone by what I said". Can you recognize the different between "I made a mistake, but here's my excuses for doing so." and "I am sorry I made a mistake, and here is the mistake I made."?

Your focus on "the words to be used in such a format" is not my focus, and does my position an injustice.

As for the polishing cloth, see my previous response.  There are, still, no crowns here.  Nor are there any on Autumn, for whom you are arguing that her feelings should be subordinated to the people whom she insulted.

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 15:26:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Something occurred to me

that you may not realize.

This is not a personal issue for me.  This is not about Autumn apologizing to me, personally. If it were, I would be asking for something other than an apology.

This is about her.  She's worked very very hard, and sacrificed things to a degree that far too many of her and my peer's will not do.  She has put herself out there, which dramatically increases the risk to her person from people outside our community (that being the collective LGBT one), and has provided a lot of good work.

What you may not realize is just how much of all of that has been totally wiped out by the events recently. You may not realize that while she will still be popular here at the Blend, she has lost the trust of other transfolk to a degree that's pretty great and fairly damaging.

The reason that apologizing is the right thing is that it will allow her to regain that trust.  Which I happen to want her to have, despite whatever else others my decide to infer or presume without, as I noted, asking me.

Something you've done.

That lack of trust will interfere with her ability to do the thing that's its fairly obvious to me, at least, she loves doing, and that she has a substantial part of her personal sense of self invested in.

And to be blunt, she doesn't deserve it.  But until she does apologize, it will be there, and she will end up like other people in the community in the past, who are no longer heard from, despite having had a good voice.

So all of this occurred to me when I stepped outside to smoke a cigarette, wondering why it was that people weren't getting the point to my posting.

SO maybe this will help.

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 16:31:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Forgive and forget and move on

One mistake does not negate all the work she has done in the past and will in the future.

If the trans community is going to throw their best public advocates on the trash heap if they ever make a mistake, then we are screwed and we will never get anywhere.

---

by: Stephanie @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 17:10:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I know.

But to forgive, that apology is needed.

Because historically, that's exactly what we've done.

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 17:12:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Apology to whom?

on the issues that were of concern to the community offended, she did not apologize

Dyssonance, are you asking for Autumn to apologize for attempting to stop people from using the "cis" words, or are you wanting a personal apology for banning you from the Blend when she shouldn't have?

If it is the former, please do not claim to speak for the "community". You certainly don't speak for me. She made a mistake and admitted it and the rest of the community has moved on to more important things.

I'm merely the only one left who is going to push the issue

There is a reason for that. Like I said, the rest of the community has moved on.

If you are looking for a personal apology for being banned, well you were very shortly unbanned so the damage was undone. Is this such an important thing to you that you have spent so much time and energy demanding a public apology?

If you don't get what you want, a month from now is this still going to be sticking in your craw and you will still be publicly demanding an apology?

You have been going on about this for over a week now. There comes a time when you just have to let it go. To continue to harangue Autumn past this point is ridiculous and petty.

With all the injustice perpetrated against us in this world, what Autumn said or did is the very least of our worries.

---

by: Stephanie @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 16:46:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The apologies

Should before the way her actions rendered transfolk's voice of less importance, and of less value.

As I'm sure she knows, my being banned wasn't all that big a deal, and she does not have to apologize to me, personally, and decidedly not for that. Her and I resolved that already separately and off board.

And no, Stephanie, the rest hasn't.  They've simply decided to take everything elsewhere. Where it is being built up into something far worse and more sinister.

If you'd like me not to speak on your behalf, fine, I don't speak on your behalf.  Its really that easy.  But I do speak on behalf of a very large contingent, many of whom are simply not willing to engage in the debate with anyone other than Autumn, whom they want to apologize.

(This is akin to the same point I use when certain members of our community speak to issues of crossdressers and other non transsexuals as being "bad for" the transsexuals.)

And thank you, truly, for asking me instead of leaping to conclusions about my motivations -- I wish I'd seen this before my cigarette! lol  I've had people ascribe all manner of various possible motivations to me, and until you did it, not one ever asked.

Which is part of what started the whole damn mess.

And when it comes to doing the right thing, there is never a time to let it go. Ever.  All that can be said then is to choose a different time.

And no -- what she did is continuing the underlying concepts and systems that enable the injustice perpetrated against us in this world. Something that needs to stop. That's not the least of our worries.

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 17:23:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

@dyssonance

I feel I tried to be welcoming to you, and reasonable towards you. What I see, is you meticuously using a cold and calculated "debate", not because you are angry or hurt, just to be annoying as you can be. When others react to your annoying behavior, THEN you take it back to the trans community and try to use every emotional plea to make it sound like this site disrespected and slurred transgender people. Stay or leave, but I wish you'd own what you're doing here. I doubt I'll read what you post...again.

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 22:18:03 PM CDT

You were

quite welcoming.

And while you can certainly take it that way, that's not the case.

This isn't about me, you see.


http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 00:07:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

reminds me of a Rocky Horror line

"a mental mind f*ck can be nice"

It seems like it is about you, and wanting any kind of attention, if you can't get attention for being good, you'll take the attention for being bad.

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 00:32:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Again, no.

Your perceptions are wrong.

Sorry.

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 02:42:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Frankly...

One important consideration regarding a TOS here that has not been discussed is that the "banned words" and "enforced definitions" are NOT part of the TOS but put up as a standard entry that may or may not be read.

Back just before I was banned apparently Autumn posted her own "new rules" which was long off the front page before I heard about them.  And, again, frankly, I referred to the actual TOS which mentioned none of it.  I simply don't read some peoples diaries, comments or entries most the time and Autumn is/was one of them along with the aptly nicked "Batty" person.

If you are to have lauguage policing here, fairness would dictate that the actual TOS be changed each time someone blows a gasket and a word of phrase gets banned and a front page, unmoving box announces changes in the TOS to be reviewed before writing.......

Anything less just looks like moderation by whim, which frankly is exactly how it has appeared to me.  The people doing the moderation should be clearly identified and when they put on the moderation hat, that needs to be clear as well if they are also doing commentary.  When we are held to some new, arbitrary standard....that also needs to be written in a findable locale on the front page, not just some random entry.  Unless, of course, entrapment is part of the desire here.

---

by: CathrynP @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 10:11:46 AM CDT