Bad deletions June 14, 2015 2:06 PM Subscribe
I have seen at least three really great posts on the NAACP situation deleted in the past few days. I guess there's a new Metafilter policy on this, but can the mods explain their reasoning? It doesn't seem, to me, to be newsfilter or "weird lady" filter, since the deleted posts have very good context and interesting depth.
I suggest that topics reaching this status be noted somewhere, so people do not waste time pointlessly crafting doomed FPPs.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 2:15 PM on June 14, 2015 [27 favorites]
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 2:15 PM on June 14, 2015 [27 favorites]
I guess there's a new Metafilter policy on this, but can the mods explain their reasoning
What exactly makes you think there's a new policy? Since the dawn of time, just about the only hard and fast rule at MeFi is that there are no hard and fast rules; that we value the mods' ability to work within guidelines (not exhaustive rules lists) and to use their judgment in order to both facilitate discussions on a broad swath of topics, but also to step in when something is clearly going badly for the community.
If you're angry about a deletion, fine, ask about it -- but enough with the passive-aggressive "I guess someone changed the rules and nobody told me :( :( " posturing already.
posted by tocts at 2:20 PM on June 14, 2015 [14 favorites]
What exactly makes you think there's a new policy? Since the dawn of time, just about the only hard and fast rule at MeFi is that there are no hard and fast rules; that we value the mods' ability to work within guidelines (not exhaustive rules lists) and to use their judgment in order to both facilitate discussions on a broad swath of topics, but also to step in when something is clearly going badly for the community.
If you're angry about a deletion, fine, ask about it -- but enough with the passive-aggressive "I guess someone changed the rules and nobody told me :( :( " posturing already.
posted by tocts at 2:20 PM on June 14, 2015 [14 favorites]
I suggest that topics reaching this status be noted somewhere, so people do not waste time pointlessly crafting doomed FPPs.
posted by Sebmojo at 2:22 PM on June 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Sebmojo at 2:22 PM on June 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
This level of "really no way to make it work" comes up pretty rarely, I'd say. Basically people can use their common sense about what's likely to be a problem topic and drop us a line at the contact form if they're wondering.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 2:26 PM on June 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 2:26 PM on June 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
Well, I'd say this is "noting it somewhere", and only prospective FrontPagePosters who never check out MetaTalk will remain ignorant. And my attitude toward prospective FrontPagePosters who never check out MetaTalk is "GO TO REDDIT, ASSHATS"
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:28 PM on June 14, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:28 PM on June 14, 2015 [6 favorites]
As one of the deleted thread posters (I genuinely never saw the one posted by LM above, I checked the deleted thread blog and couldn't tell there was more than 1 old thread from Friday) I very much think that second contentious thread should have been left. People were arguing but it seemed like it was going somewhere. Sometimes important conversations (and great essays, like the one I posted from Racism Revue) are painful for all but we do learn something.
Not allowing any discussion of this entire situation seems overly cautious and conflict-avoidant to me. There were some dumb things said in that thread but not out of intent, and some truly excellent thoughts are needed about this situation, especially by people of color and trans people.
Aside from the thread itself, my strongest objection to the deletions is this: To disallow ANY posting of ANY threads about it is to ban the black and anti-racist voices speaking about this from around the web from appearing on our site, and I think that's a damn shame.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 2:30 PM on June 14, 2015 [45 favorites]
Not allowing any discussion of this entire situation seems overly cautious and conflict-avoidant to me. There were some dumb things said in that thread but not out of intent, and some truly excellent thoughts are needed about this situation, especially by people of color and trans people.
Aside from the thread itself, my strongest objection to the deletions is this: To disallow ANY posting of ANY threads about it is to ban the black and anti-racist voices speaking about this from around the web from appearing on our site, and I think that's a damn shame.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 2:30 PM on June 14, 2015 [45 favorites]
You've explained your reasoning. Why not close this now? The discussion isn't going to go well, save yourselves the grief.
posted by disclaimer at 2:30 PM on June 14, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by disclaimer at 2:30 PM on June 14, 2015 [8 favorites]
I was disappointed to see the lengthier (100+ comment) thread deleted.
I understand that threads about more contentious topics are more labor-intensive for the mods (i.e., so it's easy for me to say that pruning bad comments is preferred to just axing whole threads), but I'll admit it was a little bizarre to hit "refresh" and have the well-underway discussion just disappear(ed) from the site like that.
I'm also a little concerned (not, like, concern-troll level "concerned," mind) this means we'll see a more milquetoast site in the long run. There are threads whose topics I've (painfully and with much grar) learned to ignore/avoid because I know that they'll upset or infuriate me, and I've learned to be happy that others can carry on with their conversation without feeling obligated to weigh in on every thread -- or call for the axing of said threads.
(This is *not* to be confused with FReE SPEACH11!!! "concerns," thank you. Also, I'm just one person on a vast site. This is just my take on things. I could well be wrong/misguided, here. Sorry for any excess line-breaks, posting via a new device thing.)
posted by Xavier Xavier at 2:42 PM on June 14, 2015 [13 favorites]
I understand that threads about more contentious topics are more labor-intensive for the mods (i.e., so it's easy for me to say that pruning bad comments is preferred to just axing whole threads), but I'll admit it was a little bizarre to hit "refresh" and have the well-underway discussion just disappear(ed) from the site like that.
I'm also a little concerned (not, like, concern-troll level "concerned," mind) this means we'll see a more milquetoast site in the long run. There are threads whose topics I've (painfully and with much grar) learned to ignore/avoid because I know that they'll upset or infuriate me, and I've learned to be happy that others can carry on with their conversation without feeling obligated to weigh in on every thread -- or call for the axing of said threads.
(This is *not* to be confused with FReE SPEACH11!!! "concerns," thank you. Also, I'm just one person on a vast site. This is just my take on things. I could well be wrong/misguided, here. Sorry for any excess line-breaks, posting via a new device thing.)
posted by Xavier Xavier at 2:42 PM on June 14, 2015 [13 favorites]
You've explained your reasoning. Why not close this now? The discussion isn't going to go well, save yourselves the grief.
you can't discuss this here it's the discussion forum
posted by Sebmojo at 2:42 PM on June 14, 2015 [27 favorites]
you can't discuss this here it's the discussion forum
posted by Sebmojo at 2:42 PM on June 14, 2015 [27 favorites]
That first post got 106 comments in the hour and a half it stayed up -- more than one a minute -- and many of them were long, thoughtful, and very good; it was already one of the better threads MetaFilter has hosted this year by the time it went down.
Excessive post deletions along with relentless and really absurd comment deletions are making Metafilter a hollow shell of what it was.
Which is ideal for an echo chamber, I suppose, but not much else.
posted by jamjam at 2:42 PM on June 14, 2015 [73 favorites]
Excessive post deletions along with relentless and really absurd comment deletions are making Metafilter a hollow shell of what it was.
Which is ideal for an echo chamber, I suppose, but not much else.
posted by jamjam at 2:42 PM on June 14, 2015 [73 favorites]
I guess that I agree that the one thread that was open was pretty decent, and that more moderation of a contentions, fascinating topic is better than censuring the entire thing.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:45 PM on June 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:45 PM on June 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
People were arguing but it seemed like it was going somewhere. Sometimes important conversations (and great essays, like the one I posted from Racism Revue) are painful for all but we do learn something.
Yes, but those conversations mean people in a position to explain have to either a) educate, or b) not educate, and let MeFi become more of the thing that is so deeply uncomfortable to the people trying to educate everyone else as to why that is so.
There is a whole internet out there, and a whole media, and it is filled with people who have actually signed up to go on FOX and CNN to talk about this. It is not necessary that every conversation people wish to participate in take place here.
posted by DarlingBri at 2:48 PM on June 14, 2015 [19 favorites]
Yes, but those conversations mean people in a position to explain have to either a) educate, or b) not educate, and let MeFi become more of the thing that is so deeply uncomfortable to the people trying to educate everyone else as to why that is so.
There is a whole internet out there, and a whole media, and it is filled with people who have actually signed up to go on FOX and CNN to talk about this. It is not necessary that every conversation people wish to participate in take place here.
posted by DarlingBri at 2:48 PM on June 14, 2015 [19 favorites]
I have to agree with the moderators on this one. For those who care about progressive issues, the whole Rachel Dolezal snafu has been very little more than a huge distraction that does nothing but open up attack vectors for transphobes and anti-progressives. Any thread about it will just be a war against those forces. There are a few sort of interesting things to say about it, I guess, but it's not worth the massive waste of time and space that the necessarily tedious retreading of basic issues requires.
posted by koeselitz at 2:52 PM on June 14, 2015 [11 favorites]
posted by koeselitz at 2:52 PM on June 14, 2015 [11 favorites]
But it's also not necessary for people to click a thread that they don't think will be useful to them.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:53 PM on June 14, 2015 [12 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:53 PM on June 14, 2015 [12 favorites]
I have to agree with the moderators on this one. For those who care about progressive issues, the whole Rachel Dolezal snafu has been very little more than a huge distraction that does nothing but open up attack vectors for transphobes and anti-progressives. Any thread about it will just be a war against those forces. There are a few sort of interesting things to say about it, I guess, but it's not worth the massive waste of time and space that the necessarily tedious retreading of basic issues requires.
so the deletion and commitment to delete any subsequent threads is essentially a tactical decision?
posted by Sebmojo at 2:55 PM on June 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
so the deletion and commitment to delete any subsequent threads is essentially a tactical decision?
posted by Sebmojo at 2:55 PM on June 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
I saw a lot of excellent explanations in that thread freely given. I didn't see much that was hurtful, other than some innocent repetition of the Sealion talking points considering "transracialism" a real thing, a viewpoint only occasioned by this extreme but by no means uncommon example of white people appropriating black culture for their own benefit.
If I missed truly hateful statements in that thread I apologize. I just see exasperation (righteously) by folks having to encounter and destroy this uniquely silly argument around this story, but still doing a great job doing so.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 2:56 PM on June 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
If I missed truly hateful statements in that thread I apologize. I just see exasperation (righteously) by folks having to encounter and destroy this uniquely silly argument around this story, but still doing a great job doing so.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 2:56 PM on June 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
Koestlitz, have you read this essay? I don't think this is a distraction. I think the case of Rachel D is pretty central concern to a lot of people of color.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 3:00 PM on June 14, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 3:00 PM on June 14, 2015 [6 favorites]
In the current thread about the goings-on at Reddit, there's a lot of self-congratulation. I'm really disappointed in these deletions. It may be difficult to discuss, but we should be able to have discussion of things that really happen, that matter, that we obviously care about and are interested in. One of the things MeFi does really well is supply the links for supporting/ contradicting/ interesting/ thoughtful information. No post, none of that gets to happen.
posted by theora55 at 3:04 PM on June 14, 2015 [51 favorites]
posted by theora55 at 3:04 PM on June 14, 2015 [51 favorites]
it was a pretty good discussion of something that didn't fit neatly into people's views and made them uncomfortable
we certainly can't have that any more, can we?
posted by pyramid termite at 3:05 PM on June 14, 2015 [27 favorites]
we certainly can't have that any more, can we?
posted by pyramid termite at 3:05 PM on June 14, 2015 [27 favorites]
FWIW, closing this thread isn't on the horizon at all.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 3:09 PM on June 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 3:09 PM on June 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
Thanks for the response on this, mods. I saw two of the FPP's and I was wondering why they had disappeared.
posted by math at 3:10 PM on June 14, 2015
posted by math at 3:10 PM on June 14, 2015
> Sure, fights will happen, and we deal, and we allow tons of posts on plenty of fighty topics. But
> still, there are some rare cases that are over the “this is really just going to go badly no matter
> what” threshold, and this seems to be one of those.
Were there lots and lots of rancorous deleted comments in that thread you linked that we now can't see? Because there are those 100+ surviving comments that we can still see, and the thread had not at that point gone sour in the the standard way threads that are going sour usually do. Was it just a matter of flags and the contact form?
posted by jfuller at 3:17 PM on June 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
> still, there are some rare cases that are over the “this is really just going to go badly no matter
> what” threshold, and this seems to be one of those.
Were there lots and lots of rancorous deleted comments in that thread you linked that we now can't see? Because there are those 100+ surviving comments that we can still see, and the thread had not at that point gone sour in the the standard way threads that are going sour usually do. Was it just a matter of flags and the contact form?
posted by jfuller at 3:17 PM on June 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
If they're up for it (and I would fully sympathize with them if they aren't), I'd like to hear from the people who felt like it was painful to see and/or participate in the discussions. We've had a lot of really nasty transphobia in particular over the last couple years, both intentional and not, and the repeated discussion of how "transracial"--a term largely used by transphobic trolls--is just as valid as "transgender" was obviously derailing the conversation. Unless that's removed from the discussion in a thread, it will keep on getting brought up and no doubt further alienate people for whom that's not an abstract discussion.
posted by zombieflanders at 3:17 PM on June 14, 2015 [10 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 3:17 PM on June 14, 2015 [10 favorites]
The mod's reasoning here is really bizarre. They've had no problem telling people to knock this or that off in threads about trans stuff or feminist stuff. But now in this particular thread about race, that suddenly can't happen? Especially when the thread Lobstermiten linked to was doing fine, with only one or two possible asshats , yet that particular thread has to be deleted and the subject declared off limits. That reads as all sorts of fucked up, makes zero sense and really makes me angry that an issue about race can't be discussed here.
Obviously the mods are not racist and try to be as fair as possible in tough situations, but this reads as an extremely bad call that no discussion about this topic can take place at this time. If not now, then when? What criteria is being used to decide not now, but later? When will we know when later is?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:26 PM on June 14, 2015 [90 favorites]
Obviously the mods are not racist and try to be as fair as possible in tough situations, but this reads as an extremely bad call that no discussion about this topic can take place at this time. If not now, then when? What criteria is being used to decide not now, but later? When will we know when later is?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:26 PM on June 14, 2015 [90 favorites]
I was certainly surprised to see a thread *of that length* disappear suddenly, especially because (to me) it didn't seem to be heading south in a hurry or full of flames (I don't know what comments got deleted, but I also didn't see any [folks, please stop ....] interjections). It would be nice to think that a big fat trigger warning on the front page would be enough to let people know this might be a thread they don't want to look at, but obviously it's easy for *me* to think that and probably unfair.
I would, however, like it if threads could be deleted before so many people have already made good comments.
posted by uosuaq at 3:31 PM on June 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
I would, however, like it if threads could be deleted before so many people have already made good comments.
posted by uosuaq at 3:31 PM on June 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'm fine with this MeTa being left open, but I kinda don't understand the point. This was a "tyranny of the majority" kinda decision, right? The majority of MeFites (white and cis) were engaging in a discussion that was making a minority of MeFites (black and/or trans) feel really uncomfortable. So I don't really get the point of seeking the views of the greater MeFi community. The problem in the first place is the views of the greater MeFi community, right?
posted by Bugbread at 3:33 PM on June 14, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by Bugbread at 3:33 PM on June 14, 2015 [6 favorites]
Calling this "news of the weird" makes it seem like this is some isolated incident about some poor confused woman who should just be left alone. Maybe it is, though I don't agree. But to black people, from my reading, this is no more a wacky local story than one about a teenage boy being shot for carrying a water pistol.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 3:33 PM on June 14, 2015 [10 favorites]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 3:33 PM on June 14, 2015 [10 favorites]
Especially when the thread Lobstermiten linked to was doing fine
I think there's some pretty gross stuff there. Which I won't get into because this thread is not to be a rehashing of the topic, but to say it was "doing fine" is to imply a consensus exists where I'd say it does not.
posted by juv3nal at 3:41 PM on June 14, 2015 [13 favorites]
I think there's some pretty gross stuff there. Which I won't get into because this thread is not to be a rehashing of the topic, but to say it was "doing fine" is to imply a consensus exists where I'd say it does not.
posted by juv3nal at 3:41 PM on June 14, 2015 [13 favorites]
I only saw the 100+ comments thread, and it was basically a rapidly moving train wreck of the kinds of racist and transphobic talking points you see in, like, newspaper website comments and currently all over social media. Unfortunately, I think that's baggage that comes with the story itself; the framing of the post wasn't 100% perfect and preemptively defensive against that kind of stuff, but even if it had been, that kind of stuff would've erupted anyway. There are thoughtful responses to be had and all, but a thread that fast moving and willfully ignorant is just stressful for a lot of people affected by the topic.
posted by byanyothername at 3:46 PM on June 14, 2015 [26 favorites]
posted by byanyothername at 3:46 PM on June 14, 2015 [26 favorites]
it was degenerating into something that black and trans members were saying was angering/painful for them
This is the crux of the issue for me. Internet discourse will not be irreparably damaged if we pass on this opportunity for people with no personal experience with these issues to spout off their feelings on the subject.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 3:50 PM on June 14, 2015 [74 favorites]
This is the crux of the issue for me. Internet discourse will not be irreparably damaged if we pass on this opportunity for people with no personal experience with these issues to spout off their feelings on the subject.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 3:50 PM on June 14, 2015 [74 favorites]
A great test case for the "close to comments" option I've been asking for.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 3:51 PM on June 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by the man of twists and turns at 3:51 PM on June 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
There were some dumb things said in that thread but not out of intent, and some truly excellent thoughts are needed about this situation, especially by people of color and trans people.
That's kind of a burden to be putting on us. While I might well be inclined to do so generally, this kind of presumptuousness does tend to make me less likely to. And intent is still not magic.
If they're up for it (and I would fully sympathize with them if they aren't), I'd like to hear from the people who felt like it was painful to see and/or participate in the discussions. We've had a lot of really nasty transphobia in particular over the last couple years, both intentional and not, and the repeated discussion of how "transracial"--a term largely used by transphobic trolls--is just as valid as "transgender" was obviously derailing the conversation.
It was more than merely derailing the conversation. It was an example of rather nasty transphobia in itself, and not particularly inoffensive to people of colour. It's one of those rather impressive comparisons where you manage to insult both parties simultaneously.
posted by Dysk at 4:06 PM on June 14, 2015 [24 favorites]
That's kind of a burden to be putting on us. While I might well be inclined to do so generally, this kind of presumptuousness does tend to make me less likely to. And intent is still not magic.
If they're up for it (and I would fully sympathize with them if they aren't), I'd like to hear from the people who felt like it was painful to see and/or participate in the discussions. We've had a lot of really nasty transphobia in particular over the last couple years, both intentional and not, and the repeated discussion of how "transracial"--a term largely used by transphobic trolls--is just as valid as "transgender" was obviously derailing the conversation.
It was more than merely derailing the conversation. It was an example of rather nasty transphobia in itself, and not particularly inoffensive to people of colour. It's one of those rather impressive comparisons where you manage to insult both parties simultaneously.
posted by Dysk at 4:06 PM on June 14, 2015 [24 favorites]
Internet discourse will not be irreparably damaged if we pass on this opportunity for people with no personal experience with these issues to spout off their feelings on the subject.
On the other hand, if we pass on every such opportunity, there will be hardly any internet discourse at all. What remains will be glorious, but will no one think of the commenters?
posted by GenjiandProust at 4:07 PM on June 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
On the other hand, if we pass on every such opportunity, there will be hardly any internet discourse at all. What remains will be glorious, but will no one think of the commenters?
posted by GenjiandProust at 4:07 PM on June 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
I do find it kinda odd that there are so often complaints that everyone is tired of having to cover Sexism 101 or Racism 101 or Transphobia 101, but when a 201 course comes around it gets shut down for being too difficult.
posted by Bugbread at 4:13 PM on June 14, 2015 [76 favorites]
posted by Bugbread at 4:13 PM on June 14, 2015 [76 favorites]
Given that "it was degenerating into something that black and trans members were saying was angering/painful for them", I think the mod decision to can threads on this story is sound.
posted by crush-onastick at 4:19 PM on June 14, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by crush-onastick at 4:19 PM on June 14, 2015 [5 favorites]
Not all black members.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:20 PM on June 14, 2015 [31 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:20 PM on June 14, 2015 [31 favorites]
Having just got through reading the deleted thread, I am vastly perplexed that anyone thought that it was a helpful, constructive, or nuanced discussion of a complex issue. The fact that a few brave souls who were pushing back against a flood of racism and transphobia were being calm and polite about it does not mean that the thread was not a total mess. In my experience, productive FPPs do not have a lot of "OH HELL, NOPE! BYE" comments (unless the the threads are about spiders, giant worms, or things living on your face).
posted by GenjiandProust at 4:21 PM on June 14, 2015 [33 favorites]
posted by GenjiandProust at 4:21 PM on June 14, 2015 [33 favorites]
It should be noted this thread was garnering a comment a minute (and at least I was flagging Rangi's sealionining in the NAACP thread along with others' "what if" thought experiments) at the same time a problematic and requiring-mod-notes Reddit thread was unfolding. I don't know how their tools work, but as a user trying to keep up with two threads like that is difficult, let alone managing all of the flags and the rest of the stuff on the site that a single mod has to do.
Is sealioning another word for 'politely voicing thoughts I disagree with'? I thought that was called 'conversation'?
posted by Sebmojo at 4:27 PM on June 14, 2015 [7 favorites]
Is sealioning another word for 'politely voicing thoughts I disagree with'? I thought that was called 'conversation'?
posted by Sebmojo at 4:27 PM on June 14, 2015 [7 favorites]
Perhaps not, BB, but I strongly believe that Metafilter benefits from a diversity of members and their life experiences. For me, it's enough that when N non-white, non-USA. non-heterosexual, non-cis-gendered, non-tech-elite, non-men say "hey. this thread is punishing for us/hostile to us" to kill the thread and let us move on to something else.
It's nice when Metafilter becomes a place that suddenly challenges people's unexamined privileges or unquestioned biases or otherwise makes the fish notice the water is wet, but that's not its purpose and when there are not sufficient mod resource or sufficient non-dominant-culture voices to keep a thread from becoming hostile, we don't gain from having that conversation. We stand to lose.
posted by crush-onastick at 4:29 PM on June 14, 2015 [15 favorites]
It's nice when Metafilter becomes a place that suddenly challenges people's unexamined privileges or unquestioned biases or otherwise makes the fish notice the water is wet, but that's not its purpose and when there are not sufficient mod resource or sufficient non-dominant-culture voices to keep a thread from becoming hostile, we don't gain from having that conversation. We stand to lose.
posted by crush-onastick at 4:29 PM on June 14, 2015 [15 favorites]
Honestly, to me this is a great example of a story that will be a much better fit for Metafilter after it has been around for a while, more is known, and there has been time for thoughtful analyses and reporting. Breaking news FPPs rarely produce the best or most interesting discussions here, and even more so when the breaking news is mixed up with these kinds of hot button issues.
It will still be a fascinating and weird story in a few weeks or a months, and by then there will be a lot more that is understood and can be said other than the immediate responses.
posted by Dip Flash at 4:39 PM on June 14, 2015 [40 favorites]
It will still be a fascinating and weird story in a few weeks or a months, and by then there will be a lot more that is understood and can be said other than the immediate responses.
posted by Dip Flash at 4:39 PM on June 14, 2015 [40 favorites]
One comment deleted. We're not going to discuss "transracialism" here.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 4:41 PM on June 14, 2015 [26 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 4:41 PM on June 14, 2015 [26 favorites]
I think this is a very good deletion and I support the decision not to host this discussion.
posted by anotherpanacea at 4:41 PM on June 14, 2015 [12 favorites]
posted by anotherpanacea at 4:41 PM on June 14, 2015 [12 favorites]
I'm on the fence about the story itself, but my Unfriend finger is already sore from getting rid of people from FB/Twitter/etc. who are trying to turn this into a slam on Caitlyn Jenner.
So, good deletion, I guess.
posted by Etrigan at 4:44 PM on June 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
So, good deletion, I guess.
posted by Etrigan at 4:44 PM on June 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
I think this approach is a good idea.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 4:47 PM on June 14, 2015
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 4:47 PM on June 14, 2015
Given the mod choice to not delete the sealioning and ugliness about 'transracialism' (ugh), deleting the entire thread seems like the only choice they had.
I think the thread might have had a chance to go rather better with some aggressive pruning of comments.
Perhaps, as Dip Flash said, someone can repost this in a few months when discussion is likely to be more informed. Maybe that could come with a top-of-thread mod note saying "AHEM. THINGS THAT WILL BE DELETED ON SIGHT IN THIS THREAD INCLUDE:"
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:49 PM on June 14, 2015 [5 favorites]
I think the thread might have had a chance to go rather better with some aggressive pruning of comments.
Perhaps, as Dip Flash said, someone can repost this in a few months when discussion is likely to be more informed. Maybe that could come with a top-of-thread mod note saying "AHEM. THINGS THAT WILL BE DELETED ON SIGHT IN THIS THREAD INCLUDE:"
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:49 PM on June 14, 2015 [5 favorites]
Although I'm generally in favor all topics being fair game for discussion, I realize that mod time is limited and some topics require a lot more hand-holding to keep the thread from turning into a shitshow.
Thus, when something is both a) not a big deal in the grand scheme of things and b) likely to turn into a shitshow without (or even with) a mod covering the thread full-time, I think it's reasonable for the mods to do a cost/benefit analysis and decide it's not worth having here.
Most of the people I've seen making a big deal about this "news" story elsewhere on the internet are using it as a "gotcha!" against transgender people and/or the belief that race is a social construct. Their enthusiasm for the topic is driven by a desire to use this incident as a weapon, not by a desire to have nuanced discussion about identity. Meanwhile, the woman in question is most likely mentally ill and much of the coverage/discussion has a distasteful "let's point and laugh at the sick person" flavor to it.
I suppose it's theoretically possible to have a respectful, intelligent conversation about the issues involved but I've yet to see it happen. Given how poorly the conversations about this news story have gone on other sites, I understand why the mods don't want that can of worms opened up here (and dumped all over their weekend plans).
posted by Jacqueline at 4:53 PM on June 14, 2015 [20 favorites]
Thus, when something is both a) not a big deal in the grand scheme of things and b) likely to turn into a shitshow without (or even with) a mod covering the thread full-time, I think it's reasonable for the mods to do a cost/benefit analysis and decide it's not worth having here.
Most of the people I've seen making a big deal about this "news" story elsewhere on the internet are using it as a "gotcha!" against transgender people and/or the belief that race is a social construct. Their enthusiasm for the topic is driven by a desire to use this incident as a weapon, not by a desire to have nuanced discussion about identity. Meanwhile, the woman in question is most likely mentally ill and much of the coverage/discussion has a distasteful "let's point and laugh at the sick person" flavor to it.
I suppose it's theoretically possible to have a respectful, intelligent conversation about the issues involved but I've yet to see it happen. Given how poorly the conversations about this news story have gone on other sites, I understand why the mods don't want that can of worms opened up here (and dumped all over their weekend plans).
posted by Jacqueline at 4:53 PM on June 14, 2015 [20 favorites]
I don't know if this is a helpful data point, but my Facebook feed currently includes professional anthropologists having more or less the discussion LobsterMitten describes. They're being polite, and it's fine in that context. It's just surprising, because they're folks who're trained to prefer sticking to empirical details and promoting the informed opinions of relevant groups. I actually saw more of that happening in the MeFi thread than I'm seeing on Facebook, so that's pretty great. But, at the moment, it also seems like this topic is a bit of a lightning rod for off-the-cuff opinions/analogies, and I would have a lot of sympathy for folks who're not interested in entertaining that stuff at an unmanageable rate.
posted by Monsieur Caution at 4:58 PM on June 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Monsieur Caution at 4:58 PM on June 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
I was in the middle of writing a comment in the longest of these threads when I saw the deletion notice. "You know what? - That's probably for the best" I thought.
posted by atoxyl at 5:19 PM on June 14, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by atoxyl at 5:19 PM on June 14, 2015 [5 favorites]
I'm glad the longest post was deleted; I didn't realize there were 2 others. The comments were just going to get worse and worse and I thought to myself, "oh man, I totally get why people leave the site."
Even some well-meaning people that I've known for years just do.not.get. the harm they do when they compare this Dolezal woman's situation to that of trans folks. And trans folks should not have to repeatedly explain it. I mean, it's really not rocket science. Like LobsterMitten said, it is not an abstract discussion. It is hurtful to be put in the same category with an (evidently) compulsive liar.
posted by desjardins at 5:28 PM on June 14, 2015 [57 favorites]
Even some well-meaning people that I've known for years just do.not.get. the harm they do when they compare this Dolezal woman's situation to that of trans folks. And trans folks should not have to repeatedly explain it. I mean, it's really not rocket science. Like LobsterMitten said, it is not an abstract discussion. It is hurtful to be put in the same category with an (evidently) compulsive liar.
posted by desjardins at 5:28 PM on June 14, 2015 [57 favorites]
the harm they do when they compare this Dolezal woman's situation to that of trans folks. And trans folks should not have to repeatedly explain it.
I don't disagree with this. At all. But there was an entire segment on MSNBC today discussing this, with trans women who were making the comparison. So there is a variety of opinion here.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:33 PM on June 14, 2015 [8 favorites]
I don't disagree with this. At all. But there was an entire segment on MSNBC today discussing this, with trans women who were making the comparison. So there is a variety of opinion here.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:33 PM on June 14, 2015 [8 favorites]
And that's fine, but AFAIK the people who were comparing the two here are not trans, so they need to not make that analogy.
posted by desjardins at 5:39 PM on June 14, 2015 [16 favorites]
posted by desjardins at 5:39 PM on June 14, 2015 [16 favorites]
> If they're up for it (and I would fully sympathize with them if they aren't), I'd like to hear from the people who felt like it was painful to see and/or participate in the discussions.
Because some people are unable to participate in discussions like that without getting all bent out of shape when it gets pointed out to them that their "interesting discussion" or "thought experiment" gets gross fast when they conveniently forget that subjects of that discussion and experiment are right there in the room. Some people want to win the "argument" and if that means that they can cast my experience and description of my life as wrong then they are apparently happy to either point that out (a lot!) or pretend that I am not in any way related to the discussion. Or that I'm not really a person? I don't know - it gets hard to tell after a while.
I'm not an experiment or a logic problem. The echo chamber that likes to treat me that way is so. fucking. boring. (and enraging and hurtful and etc.) Not to mention the demands that because [this person of color] or [this trans* person] said a thing that they agree with that I *must* be wrong if I disagree, because hey, all people of color and transgender people think and act the same, right? Gah.
posted by rtha at 5:52 PM on June 14, 2015 [67 favorites]
Because some people are unable to participate in discussions like that without getting all bent out of shape when it gets pointed out to them that their "interesting discussion" or "thought experiment" gets gross fast when they conveniently forget that subjects of that discussion and experiment are right there in the room. Some people want to win the "argument" and if that means that they can cast my experience and description of my life as wrong then they are apparently happy to either point that out (a lot!) or pretend that I am not in any way related to the discussion. Or that I'm not really a person? I don't know - it gets hard to tell after a while.
I'm not an experiment or a logic problem. The echo chamber that likes to treat me that way is so. fucking. boring. (and enraging and hurtful and etc.) Not to mention the demands that because [this person of color] or [this trans* person] said a thing that they agree with that I *must* be wrong if I disagree, because hey, all people of color and transgender people think and act the same, right? Gah.
posted by rtha at 5:52 PM on June 14, 2015 [67 favorites]
I'm conflicted about this.
There was some horrible stuff in those threads, but it was also being refuted (albeit heatedly, because it was really infuriating). Nuking the thread means losing those refutations, and one of the things I like about MeFi is getting the informed opinions of people with relevant experience.
On the other hand, providing those opinions (in response to boneheadedness) was obviously painful for many people. My personal edification is not worth that. Basically what crushonastick said above.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 5:54 PM on June 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
There was some horrible stuff in those threads, but it was also being refuted (albeit heatedly, because it was really infuriating). Nuking the thread means losing those refutations, and one of the things I like about MeFi is getting the informed opinions of people with relevant experience.
On the other hand, providing those opinions (in response to boneheadedness) was obviously painful for many people. My personal edification is not worth that. Basically what crushonastick said above.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 5:54 PM on June 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
Even some well-meaning people that I've known for years just do.not.get. the harm they do when they compare this Dolezal woman's situation to that of trans folks. And trans folks should not have to repeatedly explain it. I mean, it's really not rocket science. Like LobsterMitten said, it is not an abstract discussion. It is hurtful to be put in the same category with an (evidently) compulsive liar.
It's comments like this (and some of the ones in the deleted thread) that make me wish we could have a healthy thread on the topic, because this story is making the whole world crazy and I need Metafilter's help to frame the whole thing in my mind.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 5:55 PM on June 14, 2015 [50 favorites]
It's comments like this (and some of the ones in the deleted thread) that make me wish we could have a healthy thread on the topic, because this story is making the whole world crazy and I need Metafilter's help to frame the whole thing in my mind.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 5:55 PM on June 14, 2015 [50 favorites]
I had thought the discussion was going fair-to-middling, and was disappointed when the 100+ comment post was deleted. I am cis and white. Learning that many of our trans members and members of color were very badly upset by the post and the ensuing discussion has definitely altered my feelings about the deletion, as has the rapidity with which I've gotten fed up with trying to have this discussion in a meaningful way elsewhere.
posted by KathrynT at 5:57 PM on June 14, 2015 [15 favorites]
posted by KathrynT at 5:57 PM on June 14, 2015 [15 favorites]
For the record, not to say anything about the deletion here, Twitter and Tumblr are not good places to go for any sort of discussion.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:13 PM on June 14, 2015 [18 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:13 PM on June 14, 2015 [18 favorites]
The problem in the first place is the views of the greater MeFi community, right?
If I'm reading this comment correctly, I agree.
I think if the mods' apparent assumption that most of the posters here are White is correct, then the deletion of the thread in question is an interesting (to me, anyway) application of White privilege.
Metafilter has in the past been able to have FPPs which dealt with cultural appropriation and racial passing so it seems to me there must be a way to frame this particular instance that doesn't lead to automatic deletion.
posted by fuse theorem at 6:15 PM on June 14, 2015 [7 favorites]
If I'm reading this comment correctly, I agree.
I think if the mods' apparent assumption that most of the posters here are White is correct, then the deletion of the thread in question is an interesting (to me, anyway) application of White privilege.
Metafilter has in the past been able to have FPPs which dealt with cultural appropriation and racial passing so it seems to me there must be a way to frame this particular instance that doesn't lead to automatic deletion.
posted by fuse theorem at 6:15 PM on June 14, 2015 [7 favorites]
Metafilter has in the past been able to have FPPs which dealt with cultural appropriation and racial passing so it seems to me there must be a way to frame this particular instance that doesn't lead to automatic deletion.
I think it would require nuking the rest of the media discussion of Dolezal from orbit and from each MeFite's memory.
posted by jaguar at 6:34 PM on June 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
I think it would require nuking the rest of the media discussion of Dolezal from orbit and from each MeFite's memory.
posted by jaguar at 6:34 PM on June 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
For those who care about progressive issues, the whole Rachel Dolezal snafu has been very little more than a huge distraction that does nothing but open up attack vectors for transphobes and anti-progressives. Any thread about it will just be a war against those forces.
This isn't meant as an attack, and I apologize for any presumption or misuse of jargon on my part, but that opinion - and others I've seen similar to it, hither and yon - seems to me like a very white-centric attitude coming from a position of privilege. I'm sure it's a lot more than a distraction to people of colour, and to dismiss it as such or discourage informed conversation because it's grist for some assholes with an agenda is not doing anyone any favours.
Tough call on this, sort of.
Leave a valid FPP up and hurt some MeFites because of stupidity in the comments.
Take a valid FPP down and hurt some MeFites (Hell, probably in some cases, the *same* MeFites) because a conversation reflecting their interests/concerns is 'just too difficult'.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 6:58 PM on June 14, 2015 [18 favorites]
This isn't meant as an attack, and I apologize for any presumption or misuse of jargon on my part, but that opinion - and others I've seen similar to it, hither and yon - seems to me like a very white-centric attitude coming from a position of privilege. I'm sure it's a lot more than a distraction to people of colour, and to dismiss it as such or discourage informed conversation because it's grist for some assholes with an agenda is not doing anyone any favours.
Tough call on this, sort of.
Leave a valid FPP up and hurt some MeFites because of stupidity in the comments.
Take a valid FPP down and hurt some MeFites (Hell, probably in some cases, the *same* MeFites) because a conversation reflecting their interests/concerns is 'just too difficult'.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 6:58 PM on June 14, 2015 [18 favorites]
This was a hard call by the mods, I think. Maybe when more has been written/is known about this (by writers of color, preferably) it could be a better thread, but there's 8 million great thread topics out there so if we don't get to this one story, I don't see it as a huge tragedy or a symptom of Metafilter becoming "a hollow shell" of itself. I liked/participated in the discussion too but was worried that so many trans posters noted they were peacing out of it, after reading the comments...I wanted to hear what they had to say, personally, but they don't owe me that.
posted by emjaybee at 7:00 PM on June 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by emjaybee at 7:00 PM on June 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
It will still be a fascinating and weird story in a few weeks or a months, and by then there will be a lot more that is understood and can be said other than the immediate responses.
I think this was a good deletion, but mostly on a cost/benefit level, and in the sense that it fits into the "MeFi is not for breaking news" ethos. I don't believe there should be a permanent veto on this issue (that would be awful) but equally I'd think that not nearly enough is known about her underlying motivations to have a non-grar discussion about it.
Premediated deception for job exploitation would be a very different discussion to childhood neurosis, which would be a different discussion again to mental illness, which would be a different discussion again to actual "transracialism" claims on her part.
I'm not unhappy to wait until we can actually talk about what the issue was, rather than correlate it with what we think it is.
posted by solarion at 7:06 PM on June 14, 2015 [8 favorites]
I think this was a good deletion, but mostly on a cost/benefit level, and in the sense that it fits into the "MeFi is not for breaking news" ethos. I don't believe there should be a permanent veto on this issue (that would be awful) but equally I'd think that not nearly enough is known about her underlying motivations to have a non-grar discussion about it.
Premediated deception for job exploitation would be a very different discussion to childhood neurosis, which would be a different discussion again to mental illness, which would be a different discussion again to actual "transracialism" claims on her part.
I'm not unhappy to wait until we can actually talk about what the issue was, rather than correlate it with what we think it is.
posted by solarion at 7:06 PM on June 14, 2015 [8 favorites]
One comment deleted. If you don't care that this bothers trans people, that is fine, but the mods do care so you can decide how you want to deal with that.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:13 PM on June 14, 2015 [58 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:13 PM on June 14, 2015 [58 favorites]
I do find it kinda odd that there are so often complaints that everyone is tired of having to cover Sexism 101 or Racism 101 or Transphobia 101, but when a 201 course comes around it gets shut down for being too difficult.
Your teachers don't want to see your faces in their advanced classes until you've mastered the introductory material, and if the reason you keep flunking 101 is that you resent being required to take it, they don't want to deal with your recalcitrant, indifferent ass at all. This is true whether it's English Compo, Math, or Sexism you're reluctantly taking.
posted by gingerest at 7:17 PM on June 14, 2015 [89 favorites]
Your teachers don't want to see your faces in their advanced classes until you've mastered the introductory material, and if the reason you keep flunking 101 is that you resent being required to take it, they don't want to deal with your recalcitrant, indifferent ass at all. This is true whether it's English Compo, Math, or Sexism you're reluctantly taking.
posted by gingerest at 7:17 PM on June 14, 2015 [89 favorites]
I just wanted to pipe back in, briefly, to thank the mods for leaving this meta open. Apropos of nothing, I also want to apologize for using "milquetoast" as an adjective, above, instead of as a noun as God and the OED intended.
posted by Xavier Xavier at 7:22 PM on June 14, 2015
posted by Xavier Xavier at 7:22 PM on June 14, 2015
This isn't really Gender 201 or Race 304. It's more like, "unknown person yelling real loud in the street." Nobody has lesson plans prepped for that. Six months from now we will know more facts, there will be more thoughtful essays to link to and discuss, and a do-over might or might not be worthwhile. As this is unfolding, there have been far too many people using it as an excuse to parade around fairly racist and transphobic ideas, whether they realize the implications or not. There are interesting conversations to have, and it'd be cool to have them, but they are going to require an above-average level of nuance and possibly some contexts that we just don't have right now.
As someone who tries to refute stuff I find objectionable, and who generally doesn't mind answering questions or engaging in 101, or 201, or whatever, discussions, who learns through discussion, I still honestly prefer a thread like this one just gets removed. Leaving it up puts a burden on folks to come in and correct the really questionable stuff, and sometimes that is too much to ask. The site already gets a little thick with comments treating minorities as Life-Changing Knowledge Dispensers sometimes. The question to ask is whether you can have a conversation about issues affecting a group without being so offensive that numerous people in that group feel obliged to come in and Do Education. The 100+ comment thread showed no indication of moving toward that point, and would likely have continued to be a majority of hurtful comments peppered with more thoughtful links and comments. Seeing it nixed was a relief for me. It lets me go back to reading and thinking about things at my own pace instead of writing flawed slapdash comments like this.
posted by byanyothername at 7:52 PM on June 14, 2015 [42 favorites]
As someone who tries to refute stuff I find objectionable, and who generally doesn't mind answering questions or engaging in 101, or 201, or whatever, discussions, who learns through discussion, I still honestly prefer a thread like this one just gets removed. Leaving it up puts a burden on folks to come in and correct the really questionable stuff, and sometimes that is too much to ask. The site already gets a little thick with comments treating minorities as Life-Changing Knowledge Dispensers sometimes. The question to ask is whether you can have a conversation about issues affecting a group without being so offensive that numerous people in that group feel obliged to come in and Do Education. The 100+ comment thread showed no indication of moving toward that point, and would likely have continued to be a majority of hurtful comments peppered with more thoughtful links and comments. Seeing it nixed was a relief for me. It lets me go back to reading and thinking about things at my own pace instead of writing flawed slapdash comments like this.
posted by byanyothername at 7:52 PM on June 14, 2015 [42 favorites]
FWIW, I suspect this case will sort out to being 101-level stuff. As examples, cultural appropriation is racism 101, and achieved ethnic/racial identities are anthropology 101 (if you use Schultz and Lavenda's textbook). Folks who're listening carefully probably have a guess about which basic topics are proving to be more applicable and in what ways, but for sure, there's a lot of noise right now as folks react to the extremity of the case. I'd expect a discussion to go better, though perhaps not well, once some time has passed.
posted by Monsieur Caution at 8:19 PM on June 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Monsieur Caution at 8:19 PM on June 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
haven't had time to read this whole thread yet. But I was a little shocked to see what felt to me like a functional (if challenging) FPP get deleted. I'm not clear which one it was as I was just picking through it when it turned into pumpkin.
Key point: I was learning stuff.
I will now read this thread and see what else I might learn.
posted by philip-random at 8:23 PM on June 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
Key point: I was learning stuff.
I will now read this thread and see what else I might learn.
posted by philip-random at 8:23 PM on June 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
roomthreeseventeen: For the record, not to say anything about the deletion here, Twitter and Tumblr are not good places to go for any sort of discussion.
stoneweaver: That they are not good for YOU to have conversations may be true. That there are not good conversations happening is false. There are a ton of thoughtful pieces about this situation. You don't have to have long painful discussions to understand many angles here. You can go seek out voices of people who are interested in taking about and educating people on it. Try scrolling through the hashtag and reading linked articles.
I'd like to second this. Some of the most thoughtful and edifying conversations I've had about trans issues have been on Twitter and Facebook. Just because you haven't had that experience, roomthreeseventeen, doesn't mean it's universal for everyone.
posted by zarq at 8:33 PM on June 14, 2015 [9 favorites]
stoneweaver: That they are not good for YOU to have conversations may be true. That there are not good conversations happening is false. There are a ton of thoughtful pieces about this situation. You don't have to have long painful discussions to understand many angles here. You can go seek out voices of people who are interested in taking about and educating people on it. Try scrolling through the hashtag and reading linked articles.
I'd like to second this. Some of the most thoughtful and edifying conversations I've had about trans issues have been on Twitter and Facebook. Just because you haven't had that experience, roomthreeseventeen, doesn't mean it's universal for everyone.
posted by zarq at 8:33 PM on June 14, 2015 [9 favorites]
zarq: I'd like to second this. Some of the most thoughtful and edifying conversations I've had about trans issues have been on Twitter and Facebook. Just because you haven't had that experience, roomthreeseventeen, doesn't mean it's universal for everyone.
Ditto Tumblr. (In fact, i'm getting very, very tired of the reflexive Tumblr-smearing that goes on here. Some of the best discussions i've had about sexism and feminism - things I have skin in, to use the parlance of this thread - have been on Tumblr.)
Can we stop confusing the medium with the message? Users here are telling you that intelligent discourse is being had in other places - instead of telling them 'EW REDDIT/TWITTER/TUMBLR/etc', let's just believe them and go find it.
posted by pseudonymph at 9:01 PM on June 14, 2015 [15 favorites]
Ditto Tumblr. (In fact, i'm getting very, very tired of the reflexive Tumblr-smearing that goes on here. Some of the best discussions i've had about sexism and feminism - things I have skin in, to use the parlance of this thread - have been on Tumblr.)
Can we stop confusing the medium with the message? Users here are telling you that intelligent discourse is being had in other places - instead of telling them 'EW REDDIT/TWITTER/TUMBLR/etc', let's just believe them and go find it.
posted by pseudonymph at 9:01 PM on June 14, 2015 [15 favorites]
just popping in to thank the mod team for the deletions. maybe one day a thread that is more interesting than hurtful will be able to made from this story, but that time is not now.
posted by nadawi at 9:07 PM on June 14, 2015 [10 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 9:07 PM on June 14, 2015 [10 favorites]
I very much appreciate the mods' call here. I should have sent them a note at the time, but I didn't. Thank you.
posted by Corinth at 9:07 PM on June 14, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by Corinth at 9:07 PM on June 14, 2015 [9 favorites]
I was initially conflicted, because I find discussions here to be immensely helpful in understanding what I do not know about difficult subjects. But I've felt convicted that I care more about people here who are potentially hurt by these conversations than I do about my right to learn about them. As such, I'm glad for the deletion. I would think this might be a good guiding principle for MetaFilter in general, even apart from the pragmatic, "we simply don't do this kind of thing well here"; namely, is this conversation potentially coming at the expense of people we care about here by framing it so abstractly that we depersonalize deeply internalized experiences? If the answer is yes, I think that value trumps the right to "learn" through abstract discussions, at least here, in this kind of forum where we know well the people with whom we risk abstracting and depersonalizing. These kinds of conversations need to happen somewhere, but I'd rather they not happen in this community with people we care about, and where (unfortunately) we sometimes have a tendency to forget with whom we share common space as we talk about these things.
posted by SpacemanStix at 9:08 PM on June 14, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by SpacemanStix at 9:08 PM on June 14, 2015 [6 favorites]
Couple comments deleted. If you want to make a point go ahead, but blanket insults are not helpful.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:16 PM on June 14, 2015
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:16 PM on June 14, 2015
I agree [with SpacemanStix] -- I wouldn't want a conversation about this topic to come at the expense of marginalized communities. That said, I do miss hearing what the smart and informed MeFites would say about this. I wish there were some kind of feasible approach to a progressive stack system, so that we could systemically "turn up the volume," or increase the quantity of comments that reflect deep knowledge and experience, and turn down the volume or quantity of comments that are relatively ignorant and potentially hurtful. Until then, yeah, twitter.
posted by salvia at 9:21 PM on June 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by salvia at 9:21 PM on June 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
> It was only a little while ago when modagement deleted posts about trayvon and then said posts about police don't do well here or some shit.
There have been three posts about police brutality in the last two weeks.
posted by rtha at 9:21 PM on June 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
There have been three posts about police brutality in the last two weeks.
posted by rtha at 9:21 PM on June 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
Good, but still doesn't change the fact that it was accepted policy a while back.
Do you have a citation or a link for this? Because I've lost count of the number of police brutality threads on the Blue. I wasn't aware that this was ever a policy.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 9:27 PM on June 14, 2015 [5 favorites]
Do you have a citation or a link for this? Because I've lost count of the number of police brutality threads on the Blue. I wasn't aware that this was ever a policy.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 9:27 PM on June 14, 2015 [5 favorites]
Good, but still doesn't change the fact that it was accepted policy a while back.
This is back to wanting hard and fast rules when the mods have said, over and over and over again, that that's not how things work. Maybe in the past it was "accepted policy". Then it changed. At some point in the future it might change again. People will deal (or not) when and if that happens.
posted by asterix at 9:36 PM on June 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
This is back to wanting hard and fast rules when the mods have said, over and over and over again, that that's not how things work. Maybe in the past it was "accepted policy". Then it changed. At some point in the future it might change again. People will deal (or not) when and if that happens.
posted by asterix at 9:36 PM on June 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
Users here are telling you that intelligent discourse is being had in other places - instead of telling them 'EW REDDIT/TWITTER/TUMBLR/etc', let's just believe them and go find it.
I wonder how many people "go find it" when told to, though. A few stock links to helpful, concise resources elsewhere, if kept by the mods (or whoever) and dropped into threads when it seems necessary, might be more effective. I'm sure this sounds like "placing the burden/onus" on people here, but I'm suggesting this as a way to maybe reduce the burden in the long run. For example, I for one don't have a tumblr account and I'm not going to get one just so I can try to figure out how the site works and then maybe find one of the edifying discussions instead of the bad ones...and so, being lazy, I remain uneducated.
I guess this amounts to a pony request saying it would be nice if (say) the mods could hit the F7 key to post "Folks, please read this page about 'transracialism' before going on, thanks." Yes, people *should* go find it themselves, but it doesn't hurt to make it easy for them.
[pseudonymph, I took your sentence way out of context to use as fodder for my comment; sorry about that]
posted by uosuaq at 9:36 PM on June 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
I wonder how many people "go find it" when told to, though. A few stock links to helpful, concise resources elsewhere, if kept by the mods (or whoever) and dropped into threads when it seems necessary, might be more effective. I'm sure this sounds like "placing the burden/onus" on people here, but I'm suggesting this as a way to maybe reduce the burden in the long run. For example, I for one don't have a tumblr account and I'm not going to get one just so I can try to figure out how the site works and then maybe find one of the edifying discussions instead of the bad ones...and so, being lazy, I remain uneducated.
I guess this amounts to a pony request saying it would be nice if (say) the mods could hit the F7 key to post "Folks, please read this page about 'transracialism' before going on, thanks." Yes, people *should* go find it themselves, but it doesn't hurt to make it easy for them.
[pseudonymph, I took your sentence way out of context to use as fodder for my comment; sorry about that]
posted by uosuaq at 9:36 PM on June 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
Police brutality threads have definitely been on the "must be more than outragefilter" list before. It's not precisely a rule of its own, it's just a category of outragefilter that comes up enough to call it out specifically.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 9:40 PM on June 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 9:40 PM on June 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
Police brutality threads have definitely been on the "must be more than outragefilter" list before. It's not precisely a rule of its own, it's just a category of outragefilter that comes up enough to call it out specifically.
Thanks for that, r_n.
hal_c_on, that is a far cry from a policy stating that posts about police 'don't do well here' or aren't allowed.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 9:44 PM on June 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
Thanks for that, r_n.
hal_c_on, that is a far cry from a policy stating that posts about police 'don't do well here' or aren't allowed.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 9:44 PM on June 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'm sure this sounds like "placing the burden/onus" on people here, but I'm suggesting this as a way to maybe reduce the burden in the long run. For example, I for one don't have a tumblr account and I'm not going to get one just so I can try to figure out how the site works and then maybe find one of the edifying discussions instead of the bad ones...and so, being lazy, I remain uneducated.
For me, I am often reluctant to post links to websites here because I don't want the owners overrun with "Just curious..." new-user comments. In the same way that it's not fair to expect MeFites to be unpaid educators, I never want to put other people from historically marginalized groups in that position, either.
posted by jaguar at 9:47 PM on June 14, 2015 [8 favorites]
For me, I am often reluctant to post links to websites here because I don't want the owners overrun with "Just curious..." new-user comments. In the same way that it's not fair to expect MeFites to be unpaid educators, I never want to put other people from historically marginalized groups in that position, either.
posted by jaguar at 9:47 PM on June 14, 2015 [8 favorites]
Also I don't have a tumblr account but I read a lot of tumblr blogs. It's not all that complicated.
posted by jaguar at 9:48 PM on June 14, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by jaguar at 9:48 PM on June 14, 2015 [5 favorites]
Which is to say, if you can't be bothered to do some Google searches and sift through the results enough to educate yourself before identifying sites that are worthwhile, I really don't want to send you into conversations on sites that I think are worthwhile. Creating some small barrier to entry is not necessarily a bad thing (which is usually the reason people cite the $5 entry fee here as being useful, too).
posted by jaguar at 9:51 PM on June 14, 2015 [15 favorites]
posted by jaguar at 9:51 PM on June 14, 2015 [15 favorites]
The good thing about Twitter and Tumblr is if (like me) you don't understand them well enough to find stuff on them, then even if someone sends you links to interesting content, you don't understand them well enough to make engage in stupid conversation. It's like the Read Only corner of the Internet.
posted by Bugbread at 9:54 PM on June 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Bugbread at 9:54 PM on June 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
I read a lot of tumblr blogs. It's not all that complicated.
|I do'
|nt k
|now
|I fi
|nd t
|hi s
|hard
|to r
|ead.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 9:55 PM on June 14, 2015 [25 favorites]
|I do'
|nt k
|now
|I fi
|nd t
|hi s
|hard
|to r
|ead.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 9:55 PM on June 14, 2015 [25 favorites]
See, we're back to making fun of Tumblr. Which is why many people may be reluctant to post links to Tumblr sites on this particular very public website.
posted by jaguar at 9:56 PM on June 14, 2015 [10 favorites]
posted by jaguar at 9:56 PM on June 14, 2015 [10 favorites]
...because if you linked a Tumblr site, we might go there and...not say anything?
posted by Bugbread at 9:59 PM on June 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Bugbread at 9:59 PM on June 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
I honestly don't have a super-strong opinion on these deletions other the opinion that more controversial threads have stayed up. But every thread is different I suppose.
You would recognize that vivisection values your education over the well-being of another human.
Having read one of the deleted threads I think comparing it to vivisection is overstating the situation.
posted by GuyZero at 10:02 PM on June 14, 2015 [5 favorites]
You would recognize that vivisection values your education over the well-being of another human.
Having read one of the deleted threads I think comparing it to vivisection is overstating the situation.
posted by GuyZero at 10:02 PM on June 14, 2015 [5 favorites]
Please feel no reluctance to post as many interesting Tumblr sites as you would like and I am sorry if I gave you some other impression.
I stand by my mockery of their poor layout for even moderately-nested replies, however, which does not reflect upon Tumblr's users.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 10:03 PM on June 14, 2015 [6 favorites]
I stand by my mockery of their poor layout for even moderately-nested replies, however, which does not reflect upon Tumblr's users.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 10:03 PM on June 14, 2015 [6 favorites]
As examples, cultural appropriation is racism 101, and achieved ethnic/racial identities are anthropology 101 (if you use Schultz and Lavenda's textbook).
I have a college degree and I don't know wtf this means. But I suppose around these parts it's for the super-educated people who are in the know to decide when and how cultural appropriation and racial passing can be discussed? Okay then.
posted by fuse theorem at 10:04 PM on June 14, 2015 [23 favorites]
I have a college degree and I don't know wtf this means. But I suppose around these parts it's for the super-educated people who are in the know to decide when and how cultural appropriation and racial passing can be discussed? Okay then.
posted by fuse theorem at 10:04 PM on June 14, 2015 [23 favorites]
Having read one of the deleted threads I think comparing it to vivisection is overstating the situation.
At some point, we should have a discussion about how we don't do analogies well here, either.
seriously, this has bugged me for awhile.
posted by SpacemanStix at 10:07 PM on June 14, 2015 [5 favorites]
At some point, we should have a discussion about how we don't do analogies well here, either.
seriously, this has bugged me for awhile.
posted by SpacemanStix at 10:07 PM on June 14, 2015 [5 favorites]
I have a college degree and I don't know wtf this means.
If that's a genuine question, I think there's something called MeMail. :)
posted by Monsieur Caution at 10:07 PM on June 14, 2015
If that's a genuine question, I think there's something called MeMail. :)
posted by Monsieur Caution at 10:07 PM on June 14, 2015
Key point: I was learning stuff.
Having just got through reading the deleted thread, I am vastly perplexed that anyone thought that it was a helpful, constructive, or nuanced discussion of a complex issue.
to be clear, what I learned from the deleted thread I was tracking (the long one) wasn't anything specific to racial perspectives so much as just how THICK some people are on certain sensitive issues, and (the important part) how best to respond such without just tearing their heads off. Some folks were doing a good, firm, instructive job of it.
So yeah, too bad it had to go.
And now I'm glad to see this Meta about it, because I do think this is a discussion this community needs to have. Not because I think it was necessarily WRONG to delete the FPP I was tracking. But I did question it, and it was bugging me, and clearly I'm not the only one, and now here we are dumping on Tumblr.
posted by philip-random at 10:09 PM on June 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
Having just got through reading the deleted thread, I am vastly perplexed that anyone thought that it was a helpful, constructive, or nuanced discussion of a complex issue.
to be clear, what I learned from the deleted thread I was tracking (the long one) wasn't anything specific to racial perspectives so much as just how THICK some people are on certain sensitive issues, and (the important part) how best to respond such without just tearing their heads off. Some folks were doing a good, firm, instructive job of it.
So yeah, too bad it had to go.
And now I'm glad to see this Meta about it, because I do think this is a discussion this community needs to have. Not because I think it was necessarily WRONG to delete the FPP I was tracking. But I did question it, and it was bugging me, and clearly I'm not the only one, and now here we are dumping on Tumblr.
posted by philip-random at 10:09 PM on June 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
Monsieur Caution, that was vraiment smug.
posted by Sebmojo at 10:10 PM on June 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Sebmojo at 10:10 PM on June 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
Monsieur Caution, that was vraiment smug.
I apologize to fuse theorem then. I did mean to imply, based on the antagonism of their comment, that I had doubts about whether they actually wanted to know "wtf" or just wanted to gripe about not having a forum, but I should have assumed the best at least for a while longer. I also have doubts about whether anyone would actually care to know what I think about either cultural appropriation or achieved (vs. ascribed) racial statuses, but it also seemed reasonable to point out there's a way to carry on that conversation, and I have no doubts at all about folks in this forum being willing to share when asked.
posted by Monsieur Caution at 10:24 PM on June 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
I apologize to fuse theorem then. I did mean to imply, based on the antagonism of their comment, that I had doubts about whether they actually wanted to know "wtf" or just wanted to gripe about not having a forum, but I should have assumed the best at least for a while longer. I also have doubts about whether anyone would actually care to know what I think about either cultural appropriation or achieved (vs. ascribed) racial statuses, but it also seemed reasonable to point out there's a way to carry on that conversation, and I have no doubts at all about folks in this forum being willing to share when asked.
posted by Monsieur Caution at 10:24 PM on June 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
Which is why many people may be reluctant to post links to Tumblr sites on this particular very public website.
I would definitely never want to post a link here to someone's tumblr because I don't want them overrun with a whole bunch of "but what if in this totally hypothetical situation it was OKAY to be *ist" questions. And obviously I would never ever want anyone to link my tumblr here because people here get really fucking creepy with me over there and I have no patience for that shit.
posted by poffin boffin at 10:49 PM on June 14, 2015 [18 favorites]
I would definitely never want to post a link here to someone's tumblr because I don't want them overrun with a whole bunch of "but what if in this totally hypothetical situation it was OKAY to be *ist" questions. And obviously I would never ever want anyone to link my tumblr here because people here get really fucking creepy with me over there and I have no patience for that shit.
posted by poffin boffin at 10:49 PM on June 14, 2015 [18 favorites]
I find myself really, really conflicted about this delete. On the one hand, I understand that this could be a hard conversation to have. But it seems like a large part of the reason that this is a hard conversation to have on Metafilter is because this is not really a settled question and it pushes on a lot of sore points in real life. It's generally acknowledged in most sociology courses that race is a social construction - in which case, the issue of who chooses to identify as which race is an enormously complicated issue already - particularly when you look at the historical basis of who chose and who was forced to identify in which way. So there are no good answers as to 'why this is fucking wrong as hell' that aren't going to step on toes. And this Dolezal thing was wrong as hell and a lot of POC are rightfully hopping fucking mad.
And it seems like we're not having the conversation here because mods don't want to allow a conversation that talks about the issue of 'transracial' (unless I'm missing a lot of deleted comments, that seems the only stuff in that thread some people are objecting to) - which is pretty impossible with this story, particularly because a large part of this story is how the black community, and Twitter, etc, are reacting, and a lot of that is under #transracial. Like, I understand not allowing those comparisons before when they were hypotheticals, but this is the world we're in now - where a woman is saying she feels like she's black and she's going to present herself as black and steal scholarships to Howard University under the pretense of being black.
So it kind of feels like Metafilter is putting its hands over its ears and saying 'la la la I can't heeeeear you' to the real world - like this isn't about newsfilter or not newsfilter, but that it's something that people wish would just go away, because the story is a perfect storm that's skewering all kinds of shit.
posted by corb at 10:55 PM on June 14, 2015 [50 favorites]
And it seems like we're not having the conversation here because mods don't want to allow a conversation that talks about the issue of 'transracial' (unless I'm missing a lot of deleted comments, that seems the only stuff in that thread some people are objecting to) - which is pretty impossible with this story, particularly because a large part of this story is how the black community, and Twitter, etc, are reacting, and a lot of that is under #transracial. Like, I understand not allowing those comparisons before when they were hypotheticals, but this is the world we're in now - where a woman is saying she feels like she's black and she's going to present herself as black and steal scholarships to Howard University under the pretense of being black.
So it kind of feels like Metafilter is putting its hands over its ears and saying 'la la la I can't heeeeear you' to the real world - like this isn't about newsfilter or not newsfilter, but that it's something that people wish would just go away, because the story is a perfect storm that's skewering all kinds of shit.
posted by corb at 10:55 PM on June 14, 2015 [50 favorites]
corb's post is a good example of why deleting the thread was the right call.
posted by Corinth at 10:59 PM on June 14, 2015 [41 favorites]
posted by Corinth at 10:59 PM on June 14, 2015 [41 favorites]
I'm sad to see this not get airtime here. I come here to decompress about this kind of stuff. For the sort f John Oliver esque snark and to see the serious debate.
I don't think this is so much a "people need to see this" as a significant like, almost balloon boy level internet event that's getting talked about everywhere.
Maybe just let people be asses and fight a little? I've seen some WONDERFUL snark and interesting educational stuff come out of this.
posted by emptythought at 11:01 PM on June 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
I don't think this is so much a "people need to see this" as a significant like, almost balloon boy level internet event that's getting talked about everywhere.
Maybe just let people be asses and fight a little? I've seen some WONDERFUL snark and interesting educational stuff come out of this.
posted by emptythought at 11:01 PM on June 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
METAFILTER: because this is not really a settled question and it pushes on a lot of sore points in real life.
posted by philip-random at 11:02 PM on June 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by philip-random at 11:02 PM on June 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
And see, I think corbs post about how the black community is reacting is exactly why this could be a great post. And I'm coming at this as someone who is native/first nation, and has seen this sort of thing go down before but with little to no attention.
posted by emptythought at 11:03 PM on June 14, 2015 [22 favorites]
posted by emptythought at 11:03 PM on June 14, 2015 [22 favorites]
corb's post is a good example of why deleting the thread was the right call.
It would be really helpful - to me at least - if you could use your words and not just dismiss people's viewpoints with what seems to be an appeal to orthodoxy.
posted by GuyZero at 11:05 PM on June 14, 2015 [71 favorites]
It would be really helpful - to me at least - if you could use your words and not just dismiss people's viewpoints with what seems to be an appeal to orthodoxy.
posted by GuyZero at 11:05 PM on June 14, 2015 [71 favorites]
According to my highly scientific study, there have been:
1941 FPPs linking to *.tumblr.com
2096 FPPs linking to *.wordpress.com
651 FPPs linking to *.livejournal.com
140 FPPs linking to *.blogger.com
That can't be right, maybe the URLs are structured funny? Whatever. Anyway, one of you nerds figure this out.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:06 PM on June 14, 2015
1941 FPPs linking to *.tumblr.com
2096 FPPs linking to *.wordpress.com
651 FPPs linking to *.livejournal.com
140 FPPs linking to *.blogger.com
That can't be right, maybe the URLs are structured funny? Whatever. Anyway, one of you nerds figure this out.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:06 PM on June 14, 2015
Honestly, I think anyone who is responding to this deletion with, "Well what's the harm in just talking about this?" should make sure they read (or re-read) the original JunebyLGBTQ post and it's follow up, as well as the Tramp Stamps and Boyzones MeTa that was posted in that same general time frame.
I understand the line of thinking behind "Why can't we just talk about X?" but it seems like the vast majority of the time, this is someone in a (usually relatively privileged) out-group wanting to talk about a (usually less privileged) in-group, and it's the in-group being discussed who are saying, "Please, let's not have this discussion, because we are tired of reading this shit everywhere." Sure, there may be a few in group people saying, by all means, let's have this discussion, but one person who is female or black or gay or trans doesn't automatically outweigh the twenty other people saying "Please god no not again."
One of the things that those three MeTas really highlighted for me is the fact that it's hard enough dealing with the boyzone crap, but at least women make up a good percentage of the Metafilter user base. When you start getting into LGBT issues, and ESPECIALLY with trans issues, then suddenly a much, much smaller sample of the userbase is feeling the burden. A lot of times in the contentious boyzone threads, every useful thing I would say has already been said far better by another user (either male or female), but it's harder to share that burden when we're talking about groups that make up a much smaller percentage of the base.
Look, which is worse? Having another crappy discussion that drives users away because metafilter feels like a hostile place to them? Or missing out on discussing this one particular news item? Yeah, I get that sometimes we'll discuss things that other people don't want to see discussed, and we're a community, and opinions diverge, but I think it's okay to draw particular lines when we're talking about broad demographics who already have to deal with a lot of shit in both their online and off line lives.
posted by litera scripta manet at 11:07 PM on June 14, 2015 [44 favorites]
I understand the line of thinking behind "Why can't we just talk about X?" but it seems like the vast majority of the time, this is someone in a (usually relatively privileged) out-group wanting to talk about a (usually less privileged) in-group, and it's the in-group being discussed who are saying, "Please, let's not have this discussion, because we are tired of reading this shit everywhere." Sure, there may be a few in group people saying, by all means, let's have this discussion, but one person who is female or black or gay or trans doesn't automatically outweigh the twenty other people saying "Please god no not again."
One of the things that those three MeTas really highlighted for me is the fact that it's hard enough dealing with the boyzone crap, but at least women make up a good percentage of the Metafilter user base. When you start getting into LGBT issues, and ESPECIALLY with trans issues, then suddenly a much, much smaller sample of the userbase is feeling the burden. A lot of times in the contentious boyzone threads, every useful thing I would say has already been said far better by another user (either male or female), but it's harder to share that burden when we're talking about groups that make up a much smaller percentage of the base.
Look, which is worse? Having another crappy discussion that drives users away because metafilter feels like a hostile place to them? Or missing out on discussing this one particular news item? Yeah, I get that sometimes we'll discuss things that other people don't want to see discussed, and we're a community, and opinions diverge, but I think it's okay to draw particular lines when we're talking about broad demographics who already have to deal with a lot of shit in both their online and off line lives.
posted by litera scripta manet at 11:07 PM on June 14, 2015 [44 favorites]
So it kind of feels like Metafilter is putting its hands over its ears and saying 'la la la I can't heeeeear you' to the real world - like this isn't about newsfilter or not newsfilter, but that it's something that people wish would just go away, because the story is a perfect storm that's skewering all kinds of shit.
I think what is (potentially) being said is that when we aren't just some anonymous message board on the internet, more care can be taken regarding what kinds of topics here are potentially hurtful to people we care about here. The idea that we need to work this out here reduces social interactions to figuring out truth propositions. Conversely, by saying this is the need of our community at this time -- that we not revel in it simply because it's out there as a possible topic of conversation -- we actually personalize our community in such a way that makes us more empathetic, and it makes me actually like metafilter a bit more. There are discussions within my own family that we approach carefully, because the topic causes pain for some people. If people involved insisted on only discussing those things in such a way that it forgets/neglects/depersonalizes personal and potentially hurtful background experiences, I'm certain we would make a choice to simply not have those discussions while people involved are incapable of getting their stuff together. Or, we would have a discussion in a different location.
posted by SpacemanStix at 11:08 PM on June 14, 2015 [6 favorites]
I think what is (potentially) being said is that when we aren't just some anonymous message board on the internet, more care can be taken regarding what kinds of topics here are potentially hurtful to people we care about here. The idea that we need to work this out here reduces social interactions to figuring out truth propositions. Conversely, by saying this is the need of our community at this time -- that we not revel in it simply because it's out there as a possible topic of conversation -- we actually personalize our community in such a way that makes us more empathetic, and it makes me actually like metafilter a bit more. There are discussions within my own family that we approach carefully, because the topic causes pain for some people. If people involved insisted on only discussing those things in such a way that it forgets/neglects/depersonalizes personal and potentially hurtful background experiences, I'm certain we would make a choice to simply not have those discussions while people involved are incapable of getting their stuff together. Or, we would have a discussion in a different location.
posted by SpacemanStix at 11:08 PM on June 14, 2015 [6 favorites]
Actually, in a rare move for me, after reading that second thread I hadn't previously seen... I think I'm going to use up my yearly DISREGARD THAT I DESIGN CITY BLOCKS(to use longform old memese)
That got pretty ugh pretty fast.
posted by emptythought at 11:08 PM on June 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
That got pretty ugh pretty fast.
posted by emptythought at 11:08 PM on June 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
Oh, also, another reason why I personally appreciate this deletion is because it feels like a sign that the mods have really heard the concerns laid out in the MeTas I linked above (among other discussions), and that they are trying to put those concerns into practice.
posted by litera scripta manet at 11:09 PM on June 14, 2015 [23 favorites]
posted by litera scripta manet at 11:09 PM on June 14, 2015 [23 favorites]
The story has gripped my mind since it came out, and I believe there's absolutely nothing race 101 about it. It's tricky because when you engage the conundrums in good faith, it potentially forces people to come to nuanced positions about things that aren't so clear. I believe anti-racist / anti-oppressive frameworks necessarily come to reductive views of racial dynamics, because this is the way we find framing racial issues in America to be most clarifying and impactful. I tend to be on-board with those views. However, there are ways in which racial identity is a slippery, messy, mindboggling concept, and thinking hard about that potentially means that the reductive frameworks we use start bending a little, or a lot. That's the "advanced course" stuff. And that means either 1) we start seeing things in more accurate nuanced ways that aren't as binary and reductive, BUT the reductive anti-racism talking points become much harder to hold with 100% clarity, or 2) we fight back hard against the discussion itself, because it threatens to compromise the air-tight defenses of those anti-racist initiatives.
That's a sort of metabattle from the race standpoint - if we consider ourselves part of the progressive effort, then do we allow for chinks in the armor to present themselves in frank, good-faith discussions, at the cost of our worldview becoming more opaque and uncertain?
If a thread were left open, I would say the best way to mitigate harm would be to just blanket say "you can't use the trans analogy in a comment. Period." Because 1) it's a flawed analogy from the start, since race, ethnicity, gender and sex cannot all be compared in 1:1 ways without a whole host of problems; and 2) no matter how good faith or innocent the analogy is, it's proven to be painful for non-cis people by the very nature of the situation for half a dozen reasons, and it's such a minefield to get into.
I've looked around for a good conversation about the subject (even reddit, lord help me) that explores the racial messiness without getting into the trans analogy, and unfortunately I haven't come across anything good. It just poisons the discussion wherever it appears. I believe the race and identity aspects are worth considering, though. We're all puzzling through them. Yesterday I was able to have lengthy conversations with two friends who talk often about race from a black perspective, and they're puzzling through it and are conflicted too. They mostly have questions, not answers, and any pat solutions seem to have holes in them. I think many of us are keen to have the discussion that could end up challenging our worldviews or framing this in the right way, but it may be impossible as long as "trans-" appears anywhere in it.
posted by naju at 11:10 PM on June 14, 2015 [52 favorites]
That's a sort of metabattle from the race standpoint - if we consider ourselves part of the progressive effort, then do we allow for chinks in the armor to present themselves in frank, good-faith discussions, at the cost of our worldview becoming more opaque and uncertain?
If a thread were left open, I would say the best way to mitigate harm would be to just blanket say "you can't use the trans analogy in a comment. Period." Because 1) it's a flawed analogy from the start, since race, ethnicity, gender and sex cannot all be compared in 1:1 ways without a whole host of problems; and 2) no matter how good faith or innocent the analogy is, it's proven to be painful for non-cis people by the very nature of the situation for half a dozen reasons, and it's such a minefield to get into.
I've looked around for a good conversation about the subject (even reddit, lord help me) that explores the racial messiness without getting into the trans analogy, and unfortunately I haven't come across anything good. It just poisons the discussion wherever it appears. I believe the race and identity aspects are worth considering, though. We're all puzzling through them. Yesterday I was able to have lengthy conversations with two friends who talk often about race from a black perspective, and they're puzzling through it and are conflicted too. They mostly have questions, not answers, and any pat solutions seem to have holes in them. I think many of us are keen to have the discussion that could end up challenging our worldviews or framing this in the right way, but it may be impossible as long as "trans-" appears anywhere in it.
posted by naju at 11:10 PM on June 14, 2015 [52 favorites]
Recently, Mefi hasn't had "discussions" on these kinds* of topics, it has had an exhausting stream of unyielding, uncharitable, incurious people projecting their personal issues onto others. I see no problem with this topic being deleted.
posted by smidgen at 11:16 PM on June 14, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by smidgen at 11:16 PM on June 14, 2015 [8 favorites]
I think there's some pretty gross stuff there. Which I won't get into because this thread is not to be a rehashing of the topic, but to say it was "doing fine" is to imply a consensus exists where I'd say it does not.
Which is sort of why this thread feels stupid to me. What's ok in here? People were being assholes, but we can't talk about why or how because that's rehashing it... So what's the point?
posted by emptythought at 11:16 PM on June 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
Which is sort of why this thread feels stupid to me. What's ok in here? People were being assholes, but we can't talk about why or how because that's rehashing it... So what's the point?
posted by emptythought at 11:16 PM on June 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
I've looked around for a good conversation about the subject (even reddit, lord help me) that explores the racial messiness without getting into the trans analogy, and unfortunately I haven't come across anything good.
yeah, I feel much the same. And thus my frustration with Metafilter seeming to be officially "not up to it". I'm not bitter, just disappointed.
For the record, the best response I've thus far heard to all of this comes from an older neighbour I don't really know that well. "She seems like a mostly good young person who got caught up in a lie, and now the whole world's tearing her apart for it. The punishment doesn't fit the crime."
posted by philip-random at 11:17 PM on June 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
yeah, I feel much the same. And thus my frustration with Metafilter seeming to be officially "not up to it". I'm not bitter, just disappointed.
For the record, the best response I've thus far heard to all of this comes from an older neighbour I don't really know that well. "She seems like a mostly good young person who got caught up in a lie, and now the whole world's tearing her apart for it. The punishment doesn't fit the crime."
posted by philip-random at 11:17 PM on June 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
Ugh, I think I came across as more strident and shout-y than I meant to in my first comment. I really try not to post in contentious threads when it's late and I'm tired and cranky because oh my god the pollen is driving my sinuses crazy. I'm going to step away from the internet, pop a benadryl, and go to sleep.
Seriously, this is the allergy season from hell. I know plants are important and all, but I kind of wish I could burn all greenery to the ground. Anything to make the pollen stop.
posted by litera scripta manet at 11:30 PM on June 14, 2015
Seriously, this is the allergy season from hell. I know plants are important and all, but I kind of wish I could burn all greenery to the ground. Anything to make the pollen stop.
posted by litera scripta manet at 11:30 PM on June 14, 2015
Wow, it's painful seeing the same bullshit that got those threads deleted being repeated right here.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:01 AM on June 15, 2015 [10 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:01 AM on June 15, 2015 [10 favorites]
Friendly reminder, let's not get into what we actually think about Dolezal here.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 12:04 AM on June 15, 2015
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 12:04 AM on June 15, 2015
fuck the pollen, litera scripta. if I could hermetically seal my apartment without losing oxygen...
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:08 AM on June 15, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:08 AM on June 15, 2015 [5 favorites]
The more I think about it, the more I feel like the actual deletion reason was more or less "it is with great sorrow that I must announce that the metafilter user base is not capable of having the kind of discussion we value here on metafilter about this topic."
To be clear, given that that's probably true, I think that's the right call.
posted by KathrynT at 12:08 AM on June 15, 2015 [9 favorites]
To be clear, given that that's probably true, I think that's the right call.
posted by KathrynT at 12:08 AM on June 15, 2015 [9 favorites]
I read through one of the deleted threads and I started out thinking that it was really interesting, but by the end I was wishing someone had killed it earlier.
This is classic newsfilter and it's basically a chance for people to express their opinions on race and (by analogy) gender. As usual, it turns out that lots of people have inchoate ideas about these subjects that they'd like to discuss in abstract terms. I mean, I do, and I'd like to discuss them, but I can see it's a bad idea. I think a good rule of thumb is that if you wouldn't bring up a subject to someone's face, you probably shouldn't bring it up in a MeFi discussion.
posted by Joe in Australia at 12:26 AM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
This is classic newsfilter and it's basically a chance for people to express their opinions on race and (by analogy) gender. As usual, it turns out that lots of people have inchoate ideas about these subjects that they'd like to discuss in abstract terms. I mean, I do, and I'd like to discuss them, but I can see it's a bad idea. I think a good rule of thumb is that if you wouldn't bring up a subject to someone's face, you probably shouldn't bring it up in a MeFi discussion.
posted by Joe in Australia at 12:26 AM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
it seems like the vast majority of the time, this is someone in a (usually relatively privileged) out-group wanting to talk about a (usually less privileged) in-group, and it's the in-group being discussed who are saying, "Please, let's not have this discussion, because we are tired of reading this shit everywhere."
Yeah, but in this case, I think the underprivileged in-group in question is the group that wants to be discussing it. There are a lot of implications for the black community and also other communities of color, particularly ones that suffer from erasure and a shortage of scholarships and leadership opportunities, or ones that suffer from disproportionate negative stereotyping and racism that are what those scholarships and leadership opportunties are made to make up for. And there's something problematic about assuming that people of color don't want to be in those discussions - looking at the one that managed to make it out of the gate, it seemed like there was some good representation.
I think the individual post that made it to discussion may have had some issues and didn't contain a lot of the really great reaction essays to this - but that's an argument for 'do this better', not 'don't do this at all'.
posted by corb at 12:36 AM on June 15, 2015 [10 favorites]
Yeah, but in this case, I think the underprivileged in-group in question is the group that wants to be discussing it. There are a lot of implications for the black community and also other communities of color, particularly ones that suffer from erasure and a shortage of scholarships and leadership opportunities, or ones that suffer from disproportionate negative stereotyping and racism that are what those scholarships and leadership opportunties are made to make up for. And there's something problematic about assuming that people of color don't want to be in those discussions - looking at the one that managed to make it out of the gate, it seemed like there was some good representation.
I think the individual post that made it to discussion may have had some issues and didn't contain a lot of the really great reaction essays to this - but that's an argument for 'do this better', not 'don't do this at all'.
posted by corb at 12:36 AM on June 15, 2015 [10 favorites]
So, yes: community-first; 101 is exhausting and hurtful. I get it, and I accept it as being part of this community. But increasingly I feel like I'm drifting away from the community. Yes, I know said this previously.
I watched for days for a thread on this to hit the Blue because I sincerely had no idea what was happening. The media here in Holland, although generally pretty good, had only the barest of bones description of events. Race being what it is everywhere and especially in the States, and my relatives back in the States being who they are, I was hoping to figure out A) what actually happened and B) what it means without C) wading through a ton of racist shit to do it.
But eventually I did wade into Reddit and tried to find some decent links to actual reporting there, but all I found were obviously editorialized cuts of video interviews and a lot of thinly and not-so-thinly veiled racism. I STILL don't know what the hell actually went on. I missed being able to go to the community I rely upon, although like I said, I understand why I can't rely on the community for everything.
At the risk of another poor analogy, I think what the above experience taught me is that the evolving ethos around here is "If you have to ask, you can't afford it."
posted by digitalprimate at 1:18 AM on June 15, 2015 [10 favorites]
I watched for days for a thread on this to hit the Blue because I sincerely had no idea what was happening. The media here in Holland, although generally pretty good, had only the barest of bones description of events. Race being what it is everywhere and especially in the States, and my relatives back in the States being who they are, I was hoping to figure out A) what actually happened and B) what it means without C) wading through a ton of racist shit to do it.
But eventually I did wade into Reddit and tried to find some decent links to actual reporting there, but all I found were obviously editorialized cuts of video interviews and a lot of thinly and not-so-thinly veiled racism. I STILL don't know what the hell actually went on. I missed being able to go to the community I rely upon, although like I said, I understand why I can't rely on the community for everything.
At the risk of another poor analogy, I think what the above experience taught me is that the evolving ethos around here is "If you have to ask, you can't afford it."
posted by digitalprimate at 1:18 AM on June 15, 2015 [10 favorites]
Having read all the relevant content here, now that i'm back on a real computer(with a keyboard, and a mouse, and everything!)
How this went down, and the fact that the whole transracial thing was given any airtime and not immediately struck down by the mods honestly makes me embarrassed about this site, and... disappointed. Seriously disappointed.
I mean, i've been disappointed before. But it was disappointed like, when you accidentally spill your entire just-cooked meal on the floor. It was transient.
Nah, this is disappointing like finding out one of your good friends got arrested for jacking off on a playground.
This is something that was invented by young kids on tumblr who didn't know any better or really comprehend entirely why and how what they were doing was so fucked up, had a relatively short shelf life of being more than a tiny thing, and that has since mostly been grandstanded by transphobic trolls on reddit... and giving it real airtime here.
It's the equivalent of a gamergate talking point, and language therein like "literally who" getting used here with a straight face and quite a few people just nodding and sipping their tea.
Independent of the people who were wincing or hurting from this discussion, that's just... depressing. I thought this place was better than that.
posted by emptythought at 1:25 AM on June 15, 2015 [12 favorites]
How this went down, and the fact that the whole transracial thing was given any airtime and not immediately struck down by the mods honestly makes me embarrassed about this site, and... disappointed. Seriously disappointed.
I mean, i've been disappointed before. But it was disappointed like, when you accidentally spill your entire just-cooked meal on the floor. It was transient.
Nah, this is disappointing like finding out one of your good friends got arrested for jacking off on a playground.
This is something that was invented by young kids on tumblr who didn't know any better or really comprehend entirely why and how what they were doing was so fucked up, had a relatively short shelf life of being more than a tiny thing, and that has since mostly been grandstanded by transphobic trolls on reddit... and giving it real airtime here.
It's the equivalent of a gamergate talking point, and language therein like "literally who" getting used here with a straight face and quite a few people just nodding and sipping their tea.
Independent of the people who were wincing or hurting from this discussion, that's just... depressing. I thought this place was better than that.
posted by emptythought at 1:25 AM on June 15, 2015 [12 favorites]
From my perspective, the decision was between nuking the thread, or a seriously meaningful proportion of hte comments in it. That thread was chock fucking full of awful shite. No doubt well-intended but clueless, but no less awful for it. I think that a prerequisite for a thread on the topic going well is a not having it filled with vapid transphobia from the get-go, and judging by the way the deleted one went, that would require a mod to sit on it full-time and delete something like one in three comments, at least at the moment.
I find myself really, really conflicted about this delete. On the one hand, I understand that this could be a hard conversation to have. But it seems like a large part of the reason that this is a hard conversation to have on Metafilter is because this is not really a settled question and it pushes on a lot of sore points in real life.
The transphobic shite, the 'this is just like Caitlyn Jenner' stuff? Settled question in real life. Just because a bunch of cis mefites who don't engage with trans issues on any level except to pontificate like this without looking on the internet or genuinely thinking things through think it's new or haven't settled it yet, doesn't mean it's unsettled.
If you're trans, this shit is not new. These arguments are not new. Transphobia is not novel. That so many people are spouting off this bullshit is the only thing that's different. This kind of prejudice does not and should not become more palatable or acceptable for becoming more widespread.
Yeah, but in this case, I think the underprivileged in-group in question is the group that wants to be discussing it. There are a lot of implications for the black community and also other communities of color, particularly ones that suffer from erasure and a shortage of scholarships and leadership opportunities, or ones that suffer from disproportionate negative stereotyping and racism that are what those scholarships and leadership opportunties are made to make up for. And there's something problematic about assuming that people of color don't want to be in those discussions - looking at the one that managed to make it out of the gate, it seemed like there was some good representation.
Maybe there's an interesting debate to be had about the nature of race here. Maybe there isn't. I don't know, but it sure didn't look like that was what was happening in the thread. There is definitely not an interesting debate to be had about this relates to trans identities (it fucking doesn't) and this tedious threadshit had completely devoured the thread.
posted by Dysk at 1:42 AM on June 15, 2015 [33 favorites]
I find myself really, really conflicted about this delete. On the one hand, I understand that this could be a hard conversation to have. But it seems like a large part of the reason that this is a hard conversation to have on Metafilter is because this is not really a settled question and it pushes on a lot of sore points in real life.
The transphobic shite, the 'this is just like Caitlyn Jenner' stuff? Settled question in real life. Just because a bunch of cis mefites who don't engage with trans issues on any level except to pontificate like this without looking on the internet or genuinely thinking things through think it's new or haven't settled it yet, doesn't mean it's unsettled.
If you're trans, this shit is not new. These arguments are not new. Transphobia is not novel. That so many people are spouting off this bullshit is the only thing that's different. This kind of prejudice does not and should not become more palatable or acceptable for becoming more widespread.
Yeah, but in this case, I think the underprivileged in-group in question is the group that wants to be discussing it. There are a lot of implications for the black community and also other communities of color, particularly ones that suffer from erasure and a shortage of scholarships and leadership opportunities, or ones that suffer from disproportionate negative stereotyping and racism that are what those scholarships and leadership opportunties are made to make up for. And there's something problematic about assuming that people of color don't want to be in those discussions - looking at the one that managed to make it out of the gate, it seemed like there was some good representation.
Maybe there's an interesting debate to be had about the nature of race here. Maybe there isn't. I don't know, but it sure didn't look like that was what was happening in the thread. There is definitely not an interesting debate to be had about this relates to trans identities (it fucking doesn't) and this tedious threadshit had completely devoured the thread.
posted by Dysk at 1:42 AM on June 15, 2015 [33 favorites]
Race being what it is everywhere and especially in the States, and my relatives back in the States being who they are, I was hoping to figure out A) what actually happened and B) what it means without C) wading through a ton of racist shit to do it.
Judging by the deleted thread, you wouldn't have had any better a time of achieving those goals here than on reddit.
posted by Dysk at 1:53 AM on June 15, 2015 [6 favorites]
Judging by the deleted thread, you wouldn't have had any better a time of achieving those goals here than on reddit.
posted by Dysk at 1:53 AM on June 15, 2015 [6 favorites]
Yeah the whole thing here is that "transracial" is nearly nonexistent as something that people actually identify with - certainly Rachel Dolezal never claimed it - so the idea that her story is a wedge between anti-racism and trans activism is totally artificial, a right-wing meme. Yet somehow that meme caught on.
posted by atoxyl at 2:06 AM on June 15, 2015 [21 favorites]
posted by atoxyl at 2:06 AM on June 15, 2015 [21 favorites]
There's probably a lot to be discussed about how this fits into the history of race, and a lot to figure out about what this woman was trying to do even. But there's no reason to take the bait and blunder into saying offensive things about both race and gender. The OP on the thread I saw for this actually mentioned Tootsie, which was a terrible idea.
posted by atoxyl at 2:10 AM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by atoxyl at 2:10 AM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
Corb: "But it seems like a large part of the reason that this is a hard conversation to have on Metafilter is because this is not really a settled question and it pushes on a lot of sore points in real life."
Dysk: "The transphobic shite, the 'this is just like Caitlyn Jenner' stuff? Settled question in real life. Just because a bunch of cis mefites who don't engage with trans issues on any level except to pontificate like this without looking on the internet or genuinely thinking things through think it's new or haven't settled it yet, doesn't mean it's unsettled."
I interpreted Corb's comment is talking about the race part, not the trans part.
posted by Bugbread at 2:22 AM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
Dysk: "The transphobic shite, the 'this is just like Caitlyn Jenner' stuff? Settled question in real life. Just because a bunch of cis mefites who don't engage with trans issues on any level except to pontificate like this without looking on the internet or genuinely thinking things through think it's new or haven't settled it yet, doesn't mean it's unsettled."
I interpreted Corb's comment is talking about the race part, not the trans part.
posted by Bugbread at 2:22 AM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
So did I - and I think that rather overlooks or sweeps under the carpet one of the major issues with the thread. Even if the thread handled race well - which I am not convinced was the case - that does not render the thread okay as long as the other problematic shite is still there.
posted by Dysk at 2:53 AM on June 15, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 2:53 AM on June 15, 2015 [6 favorites]
so the idea that her story is a wedge between anti-racism and trans activism is totally artificial, a right-wing meme. Yet somehow that meme caught on.
And i just don't understand how that's a talking point that has to come up anywhere this is going to be discussed.
Like, i think there probably could have been a decent thread if that was entirely banned as a topic. But it seems to be... the only topic? That and armchair betting/speculating on her mental status.
I don't know if it's that there isn't a ton of meat on the bone yet, but that was something pushed from vile people and places that somehow even Decent Reasonable People seem to have just accepted as something to go on about.
It's like, less of a thing than like teenagers thinking they have telekinesis, and somehow it got a ton of airtime. What? A bunch of people have been had.
posted by emptythought at 3:19 AM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
And i just don't understand how that's a talking point that has to come up anywhere this is going to be discussed.
Like, i think there probably could have been a decent thread if that was entirely banned as a topic. But it seems to be... the only topic? That and armchair betting/speculating on her mental status.
I don't know if it's that there isn't a ton of meat on the bone yet, but that was something pushed from vile people and places that somehow even Decent Reasonable People seem to have just accepted as something to go on about.
It's like, less of a thing than like teenagers thinking they have telekinesis, and somehow it got a ton of airtime. What? A bunch of people have been had.
posted by emptythought at 3:19 AM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
The first place I heard about it was the MeFi thread, but I seemed to have totally misinterpreted it. Like, perhaps because I read it on MeFi, and not Facebook or whatever, I took it to be a face value position that yeah, she's black. Not "If Caitlyn Jenner is a woman then Dolezol is black (haha Dolezol's totally not black, therefore Caitlyn Jenner is not a woman)" but "If Caitlyn Jenner is a woman then Dolezol is black (Caitlyn Jenner totally is a woman, so Dolezol is black)". Now I wonder how many of the comments in the thread which I read as pro-trans were actually anti-trans.
posted by Bugbread at 3:28 AM on June 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Bugbread at 3:28 AM on June 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
This is the thing, the comparison is problematic on the grounds of both race and gender. It doesn't matter if it's intended as pro-"transracialism" or anti-trans, it's the same sentiment. It's like if you tell someone the way they're acting means they're either an asshole or have autism - it's offensive to both parties - the person in question and people with autism - even if one of them is intended as exculpatory.
posted by Dysk at 3:36 AM on June 15, 2015 [23 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 3:36 AM on June 15, 2015 [23 favorites]
Man, if people are reading that linked thread and thinking "Gosh, this is fine, what intelligent and insightful comments all around" then a lot of people are walking around with HUGE blind spots about issues of race. That thread starts out cringe-y, then a few people attempt to educate, but more and more people just jump in to add to the cringe. I feel like leaving that thread up leaves trans people and POC with two choices:
1. Nope out, and try to ignore the spectacle of all the cis white people patting each other on the back as they bump into walls
2. Grit their teeth and play educator for hours as a bunch of bog-standard ignorance gets thrown their way.
I think a more productive conversation could be had if the post led with essays like this and this, where the ways in which this is fucked up are detailed by POC themselves. Then there is groundwork for the discussion beyond a bunch of attempts to analyze the situation via completely abstract thinking that in no way includes the real, lived experiences of the minority groups in question.
posted by Anonymous at 4:05 AM on June 15, 2015
1. Nope out, and try to ignore the spectacle of all the cis white people patting each other on the back as they bump into walls
2. Grit their teeth and play educator for hours as a bunch of bog-standard ignorance gets thrown their way.
I think a more productive conversation could be had if the post led with essays like this and this, where the ways in which this is fucked up are detailed by POC themselves. Then there is groundwork for the discussion beyond a bunch of attempts to analyze the situation via completely abstract thinking that in no way includes the real, lived experiences of the minority groups in question.
posted by Anonymous at 4:05 AM on June 15, 2015
But it seems like a large part of the reason that this is a hard conversation to have on Metafilter is because this is not really a settled question and it pushes on a lot of sore points in real life.
But it is a settled question. Maybe it is not a settled question if you live with your head in the ground and pretend "race is a social construct" means "race does not play a deep and unavoidable role in shaping our identity and how society treats us and the privileges afforded to us in life". But if you do not have that attitude then there aren't really any questions about the issue.
posted by Anonymous at 4:11 AM on June 15, 2015
But it is a settled question. Maybe it is not a settled question if you live with your head in the ground and pretend "race is a social construct" means "race does not play a deep and unavoidable role in shaping our identity and how society treats us and the privileges afforded to us in life". But if you do not have that attitude then there aren't really any questions about the issue.
posted by Anonymous at 4:11 AM on June 15, 2015
Yeah the whole thing here is that "transracial" is nearly nonexistent as something that people actually identify with - certainly Rachel Dolezal never claimed it -
Without wanting to give undue weight to a technicality, according to the Buzzfeed piece, it appears she did (in a 2009 press interview).
posted by progosk at 4:25 AM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
Without wanting to give undue weight to a technicality, according to the Buzzfeed piece, it appears she did (in a 2009 press interview).
posted by progosk at 4:25 AM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
schroedinger: "But if you do not have that attitude then there aren't really any questions about the issue."
I don't think that's the case, but this isn't really the thread to discuss specifics. Perhaps you meant that there shouldn't really be any questions about the issue?
posted by Bugbread at 4:32 AM on June 15, 2015
I don't think that's the case, but this isn't really the thread to discuss specifics. Perhaps you meant that there shouldn't really be any questions about the issue?
posted by Bugbread at 4:32 AM on June 15, 2015
Without wanting to give undue weight to a technicality, according to the Buzzfeed piece, it appears she did (in a 2009 press interview).
Yeah, but in context, her use of "trans-racial" there could well mean "biracial," not "assigned white at birth."
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 4:41 AM on June 15, 2015
Yeah, but in context, her use of "trans-racial" there could well mean "biracial," not "assigned white at birth."
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 4:41 AM on June 15, 2015
Quick Reminder again: this isn't the spot to have the discussion about Dolezale.
posted by taz (staff) at 4:52 AM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by taz (staff) at 4:52 AM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
Could a reposted thread (say, next week?) focusing only on the history and context of racial appropriation/impersonation and essays on that aspect of the story, with all references to "t_____l" excised by mods if necessary? I hope so.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 5:16 AM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 5:16 AM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
Well, this latest isn't really about Dolezal, but about the urge to express opinions about things. Which is relatively harmless if it's about classic Star Trek, but can be a little dicier when we're talking about race, gender, sexuality etc.
"Transracial", at least before Breitbart, Buzzfeed et alia managed to googlebollock it, has a very clearly defined meaning, specific to discussion of adoption. It's when adoption takes place across racial boundaries. What she is saying in 2009 is pretty clear if you know that: that she was adopted across racial lines, as was her "son" (who is as far as I can discern actually her significantly younger adoptive brother, an African-American adopted by white parents).
Regardless of the merits of this particular assertion, absent this information the above is a pretty textbook piece of confident but unqualified contribution, which just ends up adding static to the discussion.
I don't think there's actually a cure for that - you can't stop the 'splain from falling down, as Aaron Neville so heartbreakingly put it - but it might help to explain the dissonance between differing views of the various nuked threads.
posted by running order squabble fest at 5:24 AM on June 15, 2015 [16 favorites]
"Transracial", at least before Breitbart, Buzzfeed et alia managed to googlebollock it, has a very clearly defined meaning, specific to discussion of adoption. It's when adoption takes place across racial boundaries. What she is saying in 2009 is pretty clear if you know that: that she was adopted across racial lines, as was her "son" (who is as far as I can discern actually her significantly younger adoptive brother, an African-American adopted by white parents).
Regardless of the merits of this particular assertion, absent this information the above is a pretty textbook piece of confident but unqualified contribution, which just ends up adding static to the discussion.
I don't think there's actually a cure for that - you can't stop the 'splain from falling down, as Aaron Neville so heartbreakingly put it - but it might help to explain the dissonance between differing views of the various nuked threads.
posted by running order squabble fest at 5:24 AM on June 15, 2015 [16 favorites]
Potomac Avenue, I think we can have a post at some point, probably not next week, on the topic of racial appropriation, etc. I don't think we can have a post that requires 24/7 comment-by-comment constant moderator attention for a week to a month, and we aren't willing to have one that hurts and alienates our members as acceptable collateral damage for being able to discuss a weird in-the-moment wtf news story about this one person.
posted by taz (staff) at 5:32 AM on June 15, 2015 [20 favorites]
posted by taz (staff) at 5:32 AM on June 15, 2015 [20 favorites]
...that would require a mod to sit on it full-time and delete something like one in three comments, at least at the moment.
Fact check, please. Would that strategy have worked?
posted by Sir Rinse at 5:45 AM on June 15, 2015
Fact check, please. Would that strategy have worked?
posted by Sir Rinse at 5:45 AM on June 15, 2015
Why isn't there some automated moderation? Say if a poster has more than three comments with a total of 5 flags in a particular thread, there's a 90 minute hold/cool-down period on posting to that thread?
posted by sammyo at 5:49 AM on June 15, 2015
posted by sammyo at 5:49 AM on June 15, 2015
Metafilter has never, ever worked that way and the mods have shown little interest in automated moderation at all.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:55 AM on June 15, 2015 [11 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:55 AM on June 15, 2015 [11 favorites]
"Transracial", at least before Breitbart, Buzzfeed et alia managed to googlebollock it, has a very clearly defined meaning, specific to discussion of adoption. It's when adoption takes place across racial boundaries. What she is saying in 2009 is pretty clear if you know that: that she was adopted across racial lines, as was her "son" (who is as far as I can discern actually her significantly younger adoptive brother, an African-American adopted by white parents).
Regardless of the merits of this particular assertion, absent this information the above is a pretty textbook piece of confident but unqualified contribution, which just ends up adding static to the discussion.
Thanks for this, running order squabble fest, and sorry for my uninformed comment.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 6:07 AM on June 15, 2015
Regardless of the merits of this particular assertion, absent this information the above is a pretty textbook piece of confident but unqualified contribution, which just ends up adding static to the discussion.
Thanks for this, running order squabble fest, and sorry for my uninformed comment.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 6:07 AM on June 15, 2015
I have serious problems with a mindset that I've seen pretty much exclusively on this website, when people ask questions and the response is "is not my job to educate you" or, "that is level 100 stuff, Google it, go on Tumblr." It feels elitist to me.
And why do I always feel like such a victim on this site in some of these discussions? So many topics about race here are all about how it must be so shitty to be black, how hurtful it can be, and I don't think it fosters the diversity that we say we want.
posted by girlmightlive at 6:12 AM on June 15, 2015 [34 favorites]
And why do I always feel like such a victim on this site in some of these discussions? So many topics about race here are all about how it must be so shitty to be black, how hurtful it can be, and I don't think it fosters the diversity that we say we want.
posted by girlmightlive at 6:12 AM on June 15, 2015 [34 favorites]
I have serious problems with a mindset that I've seen pretty much exclusively on this website, when people ask questions and the response is "is not my job to educate you" or, "that is level 100 stuff, Google it, go on Tumblr." It feels elitist to me.
It's pretty reasonable to expect people to have a basic level of understanding about a subject before discussing it, no?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:14 AM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
It's pretty reasonable to expect people to have a basic level of understanding about a subject before discussing it, no?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:14 AM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
"Transracial", at least before Breitbart, Buzzfeed et alia managed to googlebollock it, has a very clearly defined meaning, specific to discussion of adoption. It's when adoption takes place across racial boundaries. What she is saying in 2009 is pretty clear if you know that: that she was adopted across racial lines, as was her "son" (who is as far as I can discern actually her significantly younger adoptive brother, an African-American adopted by white parents).
Yes. I first learned the term when researching adoption options, and initially figured the way it was being used here was a strange definition or connotation I just didn't know about.
posted by zarq at 6:16 AM on June 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
Yes. I first learned the term when researching adoption options, and initially figured the way it was being used here was a strange definition or connotation I just didn't know about.
posted by zarq at 6:16 AM on June 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
It's pretty reasonable to expect people to have a basic level of understanding about a subject before discussing it, no?
Might as well nuke 80% of MetaFilter, then.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:23 AM on June 15, 2015 [26 favorites]
Might as well nuke 80% of MetaFilter, then.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:23 AM on June 15, 2015 [26 favorites]
It's pretty reasonable to expect people to have a basic level of understanding about a subject before discussing it, no?
I don't get this. I don't agree with people who parade around pretending to be an expert, but if someone asks, "What does transracial mean in this context?" and related questions and how it all works together and the immediate response is, "it's not my job to educate you..." I don't like it, no, and I only see it here.
I am, for many of my friends, their only black friend. I have had countless discussions about race and white privilege and I enjoy it, because those are interesting discussions and it's about my real, actual life. I would never tell them it's not my job to educate them, because it's already SO HARD to be black, which, by the way, helps perpetuate permanent victimhood which doesn't do anyone any good.
posted by girlmightlive at 6:24 AM on June 15, 2015 [48 favorites]
I don't get this. I don't agree with people who parade around pretending to be an expert, but if someone asks, "What does transracial mean in this context?" and related questions and how it all works together and the immediate response is, "it's not my job to educate you..." I don't like it, no, and I only see it here.
I am, for many of my friends, their only black friend. I have had countless discussions about race and white privilege and I enjoy it, because those are interesting discussions and it's about my real, actual life. I would never tell them it's not my job to educate them, because it's already SO HARD to be black, which, by the way, helps perpetuate permanent victimhood which doesn't do anyone any good.
posted by girlmightlive at 6:24 AM on June 15, 2015 [48 favorites]
Metafilter used to try and avoid newsfilter. Give it a while and come back to this story, when we've all had a chance to process it and get our thoughts in order. What's so very wrong with that? Things don't become less important just because a week or two has passed. Haven't we all wished we hadn't said the first thing that crossed our minds in the heat of the moment? The mods are trying to do the site a favour, that's not a bad thing.
posted by h00py at 6:26 AM on June 15, 2015 [18 favorites]
posted by h00py at 6:26 AM on June 15, 2015 [18 favorites]
If that's a genuine question, I think there's something called MeMail. :)
Whoosh. That's the sound of the point going right over someone's head.
the antagonism of their comment
My comment?
that I had doubts about whether they actually wanted to know "wtf" or just wanted to gripe about not having a forum
The "wtf" was directed specifically at (what I read as) the suggestion that people's concerns and opinions about cultural appropriation and racial passing lack importance or don't deserve discussion because duh, we learned all that stuff in "racism 101" and "anthropology 101". And those of us who didn't should just go google Schultz and Lavenda's writings. Please.
I also have doubts about whether anyone would actually care to know what I think about either cultural appropriation or achieved (vs. ascribed) racial statuses, but it also seemed reasonable to point out there's a way to carry on that conversation, and I have no doubts at all about folks in this forum being willing to share when asked.
Okay, if you don't think anyone would be interested in your opinions on the matter, it would seem to me that the simple solution is not to offer them. I think it's possible to do that without denigrating other people's good faith efforts to offer theirs.
Not trying to (re-)fight this battle. I get it; for whatever reason this is a conversation that's not going to happen on Mefi, at least not at this time. However, I'm really fascinated by the condescending, "there, there now, we know what's best for you" attitudes which seem to be attached to some of the reasons why.
Might as well nuke 80% of MetaFilter, then.
Might as well nuke 80% of the internet.
posted by fuse theorem at 6:33 AM on June 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
Whoosh. That's the sound of the point going right over someone's head.
the antagonism of their comment
My comment?
that I had doubts about whether they actually wanted to know "wtf" or just wanted to gripe about not having a forum
The "wtf" was directed specifically at (what I read as) the suggestion that people's concerns and opinions about cultural appropriation and racial passing lack importance or don't deserve discussion because duh, we learned all that stuff in "racism 101" and "anthropology 101". And those of us who didn't should just go google Schultz and Lavenda's writings. Please.
I also have doubts about whether anyone would actually care to know what I think about either cultural appropriation or achieved (vs. ascribed) racial statuses, but it also seemed reasonable to point out there's a way to carry on that conversation, and I have no doubts at all about folks in this forum being willing to share when asked.
Okay, if you don't think anyone would be interested in your opinions on the matter, it would seem to me that the simple solution is not to offer them. I think it's possible to do that without denigrating other people's good faith efforts to offer theirs.
Not trying to (re-)fight this battle. I get it; for whatever reason this is a conversation that's not going to happen on Mefi, at least not at this time. However, I'm really fascinated by the condescending, "there, there now, we know what's best for you" attitudes which seem to be attached to some of the reasons why.
Might as well nuke 80% of MetaFilter, then.
Might as well nuke 80% of the internet.
posted by fuse theorem at 6:33 AM on June 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
I have had countless discussions about race and white privilege and I enjoy it, because those are interesting discussions and it's about my real, actual life.
I totally agree with you here, but it's important to recognize that other black people may not and that's their choice and right.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:34 AM on June 15, 2015 [6 favorites]
I totally agree with you here, but it's important to recognize that other black people may not and that's their choice and right.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:34 AM on June 15, 2015 [6 favorites]
> I don't like it, no, and I only see it here.
I've seen it in a lot of places over the years, both a bald "not my job" and more gently as "here are some links..."
We have a lot of threads here where some mefites want to discuss one aspect of an fpp, but another group wants them to first explain basic stuff about that aspect. Always working on the level of people who know the least about a subject is kind of....not that fun all the time. The internet is full of links. I think it's fine if someone is like "I am unfamiliar with this, halp" and when offered links to go read, they go read them rather than demanding an immediate explanation right there in the thread.
posted by rtha at 6:38 AM on June 15, 2015 [16 favorites]
I've seen it in a lot of places over the years, both a bald "not my job" and more gently as "here are some links..."
We have a lot of threads here where some mefites want to discuss one aspect of an fpp, but another group wants them to first explain basic stuff about that aspect. Always working on the level of people who know the least about a subject is kind of....not that fun all the time. The internet is full of links. I think it's fine if someone is like "I am unfamiliar with this, halp" and when offered links to go read, they go read them rather than demanding an immediate explanation right there in the thread.
posted by rtha at 6:38 AM on June 15, 2015 [16 favorites]
this is a story we're still smack dab in the middle of - the subject of the story has said all of 50 words about it, none of them illuminating. if the previous posts had been left we wouldn't have the discussion of her unilaterally canceling the monthly naacp meeting after seemingly banning some members from attending - we wouldn't have the links about her possible plagiarism. if a post were made right now it wouldn't include the statement she's supposedly making today or the reaction to it. what's going on right now is a whole lot of people pontificating (and falling into troll traps set by channers) about a subject where we've only seen a very small portion of what is left to learn.
so lets learn a little bit, sit back, let this story come out and breathe a little. if there are still interesting or important things to discuss once we see the whole picture, we'll do that then. to do it now would be a thread of hurtful guessing games which you can find anywhere else on the internet. let us this time keep the filter part of metafilter and just wait.
posted by nadawi at 6:45 AM on June 15, 2015 [36 favorites]
so lets learn a little bit, sit back, let this story come out and breathe a little. if there are still interesting or important things to discuss once we see the whole picture, we'll do that then. to do it now would be a thread of hurtful guessing games which you can find anywhere else on the internet. let us this time keep the filter part of metafilter and just wait.
posted by nadawi at 6:45 AM on June 15, 2015 [36 favorites]
girlmightlive, drawing on my own experience only and not speaking for others, for me the education stuff (personally in my case around mental illness issues and being gay/queer/whatever word I'm using these days) is about being forced into the role. Choosing to go "okay, this means that thing and the assumptions you're making about X are wrong because ABC" when I feel like it is one thing. Having to do it because someone is sealioning is exceedingly tiresome.
Like, if I feel like entering into a conversation about what it's like to have depression, fine--I'm making that choice. If some assbag is saying stuff like "well come on I've been sad before, you just need to cheer up" it's just, ugh, not this shit again. I think, and again I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, that's what it boils down to for the people who are just rolling their eyes and saying "this is seriously basic stuff, come back when you have a clue."
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:46 AM on June 15, 2015 [12 favorites]
Like, if I feel like entering into a conversation about what it's like to have depression, fine--I'm making that choice. If some assbag is saying stuff like "well come on I've been sad before, you just need to cheer up" it's just, ugh, not this shit again. I think, and again I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, that's what it boils down to for the people who are just rolling their eyes and saying "this is seriously basic stuff, come back when you have a clue."
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:46 AM on June 15, 2015 [12 favorites]
Excessive post deletions along with relentless and really absurd comment deletions are making Metafilter a hollow shell of what it was.I remain surprised and dismayed that most folks seem to like it just fine that way. In three weeks I'll have been here 15 years, and I see deletions of this sort, and the cheerleading for them, as an utter abandonment of the founding principles of this site. Matt gave the current moderators his blessing when he left them in charge, so that battle is lost, I suppose, but damnit you folks are disappointing.
posted by MrMoonPie at 6:52 AM on June 15, 2015 [26 favorites]
So I read this thread before I knew who this NAACP person was and what the story was. I thought Dolezal was trans. Turns out, she's white. I have no idea how trans people are related to this story and it seems like really out of left field and I imagine really hurtful to compare a whole group of diverse people with this one weirdo. Anyway, couldn't we have the discussion if we just had a blanket ban on anyone comparing her to a trans person?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:54 AM on June 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:54 AM on June 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
fffm: It's pretty reasonable to expect people to have a basic level of understanding about a subject before discussing it, no?
Okay, but some of the concepts raised in discussions like these do not strike me as "basic." I recognize that as privilege. But when it comes to minority issues (all minorities, not just race) people who aren't part of that group are going to have knowledge gaps. Filling those gaps isn't our responsibility, but when people are engaging in good faith, doing so can lead to smoother, more knowledgeable conversations.
I've spent a lot of time trying to explain Judaism 101, 201, 301, etc., on Metafilter and Metatalk. I try to think of them as small teachable moments. Sometimes it's been a bit frustrating. Exasperating. But explaining still strikes me as a better option than telling people to learn before participating. For me.
I would never, ever demand or expect that people on mefi educate me in my ignorance about their cultures and the issues that they deal with. But at the same time I'm grateful when they take the time and do so.
posted by zarq at 6:57 AM on June 15, 2015 [22 favorites]
Okay, but some of the concepts raised in discussions like these do not strike me as "basic." I recognize that as privilege. But when it comes to minority issues (all minorities, not just race) people who aren't part of that group are going to have knowledge gaps. Filling those gaps isn't our responsibility, but when people are engaging in good faith, doing so can lead to smoother, more knowledgeable conversations.
I've spent a lot of time trying to explain Judaism 101, 201, 301, etc., on Metafilter and Metatalk. I try to think of them as small teachable moments. Sometimes it's been a bit frustrating. Exasperating. But explaining still strikes me as a better option than telling people to learn before participating. For me.
I would never, ever demand or expect that people on mefi educate me in my ignorance about their cultures and the issues that they deal with. But at the same time I'm grateful when they take the time and do so.
posted by zarq at 6:57 AM on June 15, 2015 [22 favorites]
i've been here 13 years and i don't find we've utterly abandoned anything. things change, things evolve, things move forward. MrMoonPie, you've been unhappy with moderation here for years - long before matt left, long before we got to our current cadre of mods. if you're disappointed i think part of it has to be on you since you keep coming here expecting something different years after you've decided it's broken.
posted by nadawi at 7:00 AM on June 15, 2015 [40 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 7:00 AM on June 15, 2015 [40 favorites]
Not sure if this is Metafilter related, but I had a dream about a band playing at a bar I was visiting, and when I got close enough to the stage to see the name of the band on the drum kit bass drum, it read, "Bobby and the Bad Deletions."
posted by AugustWest at 7:05 AM on June 15, 2015 [10 favorites]
posted by AugustWest at 7:05 AM on June 15, 2015 [10 favorites]
Ah, you might want the thread down one, AugustWest.
posted by h00py at 7:07 AM on June 15, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by h00py at 7:07 AM on June 15, 2015 [7 favorites]
rtha: We have a lot of threads here where some mefites want to discuss one aspect of an fpp, but another group wants them to first explain basic stuff about that aspect.
Does this really happen though? It seems more common that people A share their own (informed or uninformed) thoughts on a subject and people B, who disagree with them, offer their own (informed or uninformed) corrections and explanations. The A people never asked anyone to correct them, if the B people want to weigh in and correct/inform/bloviate that's fair enough, but it's not as if the A people are out there demanding for their obvious wrongness to be remediated.
posted by pseudonick at 7:20 AM on June 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
Does this really happen though? It seems more common that people A share their own (informed or uninformed) thoughts on a subject and people B, who disagree with them, offer their own (informed or uninformed) corrections and explanations. The A people never asked anyone to correct them, if the B people want to weigh in and correct/inform/bloviate that's fair enough, but it's not as if the A people are out there demanding for their obvious wrongness to be remediated.
posted by pseudonick at 7:20 AM on June 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
that's not always true - aggressively wrong people tend to include some sort of "just asking questions! show me where i'm wrong!" sort of clause.
posted by nadawi at 7:24 AM on June 15, 2015 [24 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 7:24 AM on June 15, 2015 [24 favorites]
The A people never asked anyone to correct them, if the B people want to weigh in and correct/inform/bloviate that's fair enough, but it's not as if the A people are out there demanding for their obvious wrongness to be remediated.
Pretend you're in the B group and the A group's talking points are used to discriminate against you and justify violence against you. It's not an equal playing field.
posted by jaguar at 7:25 AM on June 15, 2015 [27 favorites]
Pretend you're in the B group and the A group's talking points are used to discriminate against you and justify violence against you. It's not an equal playing field.
posted by jaguar at 7:25 AM on June 15, 2015 [27 favorites]
The very existence of the wrongness--in this case most egregiously the 'transracial' bullshit--demands its remediation.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:28 AM on June 15, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:28 AM on June 15, 2015 [6 favorites]
I think the default assumption among many active members has become, "if you're not already educated, then too bad for you; we don't want you commenting in our threads."
Ok, fair enough if that's the community's price of participation. But it's becoming an increasingly high barrier to entry even to those of us trying our best.
posted by digitalprimate at 7:28 AM on June 15, 2015 [18 favorites]
Ok, fair enough if that's the community's price of participation. But it's becoming an increasingly high barrier to entry even to those of us trying our best.
posted by digitalprimate at 7:28 AM on June 15, 2015 [18 favorites]
or, y'know, what they said better.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:28 AM on June 15, 2015
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:28 AM on June 15, 2015
What ever happened to not going into threads that you don't like?
posted by five fresh fish at 7:29 AM on June 15, 2015 [18 favorites]
posted by five fresh fish at 7:29 AM on June 15, 2015 [18 favorites]
Or how ab out not comparing something to someone else's thing when it's a completely different kettle of cliche, and not getting all boohoo when told not to compare it? Surely the whole Godwin's law thing has taught us something!
posted by h00py at 7:33 AM on June 15, 2015 [11 favorites]
posted by h00py at 7:33 AM on June 15, 2015 [11 favorites]
that's not always true - aggressively wrong people tend to include some sort of "just asking questions! show me where i'm wrong!" sort of clause.
Yeah - sorry if anyone felt personally got at by the thing about "transracial" - my ire is really directed at lazy or actively malicious media who perpetuate this stuff, and who actually have at least a vestigial duty to accuracy - but I think one thing that is both a strength and a weakness of MetaFilter is that we tend to assume both that people know whereof they speak, and that they are participating in good faith.
The problem wouldn't be a problem if someone had brought up the transracial-as-equivalent-to-transgender canard in the thread, someone else had corrected them and that was it. The problem is more when either the same canard is repeated over and over, or one person continues to run that ball long after the whistle has blown. And blown again. And again.
posted by running order squabble fest at 7:33 AM on June 15, 2015 [8 favorites]
Yeah - sorry if anyone felt personally got at by the thing about "transracial" - my ire is really directed at lazy or actively malicious media who perpetuate this stuff, and who actually have at least a vestigial duty to accuracy - but I think one thing that is both a strength and a weakness of MetaFilter is that we tend to assume both that people know whereof they speak, and that they are participating in good faith.
The problem wouldn't be a problem if someone had brought up the transracial-as-equivalent-to-transgender canard in the thread, someone else had corrected them and that was it. The problem is more when either the same canard is repeated over and over, or one person continues to run that ball long after the whistle has blown. And blown again. And again.
posted by running order squabble fest at 7:33 AM on June 15, 2015 [8 favorites]
"The transphobic shite, the 'this is just like Caitlyn Jenner' stuff? Settled question in real life. Just because a bunch of cis mefites who don't engage with trans issues on any level except to pontificate like this without looking on the internet or genuinely thinking things through think it's new or haven't settled it yet, doesn't mean it's unsettled."
Yeah, to be clear, I think people talking about Caitlyn Jenner could just be deleted as a derail.
How people racially identify is not a settled question in real life - particularly people who are biracial or lighter skinned. And there are two components of racial identification - how people feel, and how they're identified by others. The how people feel issue doesn't just mean 'I feel like I've always been black' but more 'which half of my culture do I identify with? Who do I want to be? Who does everyone want me to be? What do I think about it?" Would you consider yourself X, or are you just X enough for Hitler? And this also plays into adoptions, and transracial adoptions as well - who are you born, vs who are you raised? And it's worth noting that transracial adoptions are not themselves uncomplicated or unchallenged - in part because of the issue of how different-race parents will raise their other-race children. Add that to the issue of how lighter-skinned POC are often taken eagerly as spokespeople, particularly in otherwise racist areas - and Spokane is a super whitebread town, which is yet another angle. Then add in what this means for lightskinned POC who already face questions of whether they are black enough or are taking scholarships and opportunities meant for people who face more examples of real prejudice - there are literally hundreds of thoughtful angles to ponder this through.
in this case most egregiously the 'transracial' bullshit--demands its remediation.
This is the hashtag that people are talking about it on Twitter by, which is largely saying that transracial is not a thing and that Dolezal doing what she did is actually ridiculously hurtful. It is impossible to talk about the community reaction effectively without mentioning it because it is embedded in a lot of the tweets, especially the ones about how POC (or at least, many) cannot just put on white privilege when they want to.
posted by corb at 7:33 AM on June 15, 2015 [11 favorites]
Yeah, to be clear, I think people talking about Caitlyn Jenner could just be deleted as a derail.
How people racially identify is not a settled question in real life - particularly people who are biracial or lighter skinned. And there are two components of racial identification - how people feel, and how they're identified by others. The how people feel issue doesn't just mean 'I feel like I've always been black' but more 'which half of my culture do I identify with? Who do I want to be? Who does everyone want me to be? What do I think about it?" Would you consider yourself X, or are you just X enough for Hitler? And this also plays into adoptions, and transracial adoptions as well - who are you born, vs who are you raised? And it's worth noting that transracial adoptions are not themselves uncomplicated or unchallenged - in part because of the issue of how different-race parents will raise their other-race children. Add that to the issue of how lighter-skinned POC are often taken eagerly as spokespeople, particularly in otherwise racist areas - and Spokane is a super whitebread town, which is yet another angle. Then add in what this means for lightskinned POC who already face questions of whether they are black enough or are taking scholarships and opportunities meant for people who face more examples of real prejudice - there are literally hundreds of thoughtful angles to ponder this through.
in this case most egregiously the 'transracial' bullshit--demands its remediation.
This is the hashtag that people are talking about it on Twitter by, which is largely saying that transracial is not a thing and that Dolezal doing what she did is actually ridiculously hurtful. It is impossible to talk about the community reaction effectively without mentioning it because it is embedded in a lot of the tweets, especially the ones about how POC (or at least, many) cannot just put on white privilege when they want to.
posted by corb at 7:33 AM on June 15, 2015 [11 favorites]
if people want a thread about the complicated nature of being multiracial, they should make that post (probably some other time since the well seem good and poisoned right this second), but hinging that on a white woman in bronze face is not really a great place to start the conversation, especially since most of what we "know" comes from parents she claims were abusive, so...it's really just filled with ick all around.
posted by nadawi at 7:38 AM on June 15, 2015 [25 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 7:38 AM on June 15, 2015 [25 favorites]
The problem is more when either the same canard is repeated over and over
This is one reason why I force myself to read at least some of TFA as well as the entire thread (especially if it's passed, say, 50 comments) before I weigh in. It's prevented me from repeating points already raised, avoided any number of mistakes, educated me on many issues (without my demanding it), and, occasionally, avoided stamping on peoples' feet. I suppose it also makes the mods' job a bit easier.
posted by GenjiandProust at 7:44 AM on June 15, 2015 [15 favorites]
This is one reason why I force myself to read at least some of TFA as well as the entire thread (especially if it's passed, say, 50 comments) before I weigh in. It's prevented me from repeating points already raised, avoided any number of mistakes, educated me on many issues (without my demanding it), and, occasionally, avoided stamping on peoples' feet. I suppose it also makes the mods' job a bit easier.
posted by GenjiandProust at 7:44 AM on June 15, 2015 [15 favorites]
there are literally hundreds of thoughtful angles to ponder this through
Except that many or all applicable to this case. And what may be "thoughtful angles to ponder" from a distance for you doesn't track with how personal it is to a lot of people, especially with the 100% unnecessary comparisons to transgender identities.
It is impossible to talk about the community reaction effectively without mentioning [transracial] because it is embedded in a lot of the tweets
No, it isn't. There's a fervent desire to make it part of the conversation, but there is absolutely no need to talk about it regardless of hashtag usage.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:44 AM on June 15, 2015 [10 favorites]
Except that many or all applicable to this case. And what may be "thoughtful angles to ponder" from a distance for you doesn't track with how personal it is to a lot of people, especially with the 100% unnecessary comparisons to transgender identities.
It is impossible to talk about the community reaction effectively without mentioning [transracial] because it is embedded in a lot of the tweets
No, it isn't. There's a fervent desire to make it part of the conversation, but there is absolutely no need to talk about it regardless of hashtag usage.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:44 AM on June 15, 2015 [10 favorites]
As a person who generally doesn't like deletions, I am perfectly fine with this one.
From my perspective, the media has done an irresponsibly terrible job of covering this story.
As an engineer and scientist, I've spent most of my life studying (and dealing with) difficult edge-case scenarios. Some of the most interesting data lies at the ends of the spectrum, and it's convenient to test if your hypothesis is bad by going straight to the edge-cases.
In the social sciences, this rule doesn't really apply. Every spectrum is blurry, and there are too many variables to consider. In the media, it's even more ridiculous to report on a sociological edge-case as though it's some sort of trend. No serious person in the media would suggest that Ben Carson or Herman Cain are part of any sort of meaningful resurgence of African American support of the GOP. The amount of attention that this story has gotten makes me disappointed, because it's only notable for being completely nonsensical and far removed from any established trend.
In the case of Rachel Dolezal, there are so many weird factors to consider, and the reporting was unbelievably sloppy and full of unsubstantiated conjecture (much of which bled over into the MetaFilter thread). Was there a smoking-gun "I am black" quote? Who erroneously captioned the photo that purported to show her with her father? What's the deal with her upbringing, and why are we believing her parents at face-value?
In the end, I don't think that things are going to look particularly good for Ms. Dolezal, but I don't think that we've gotten anything close to a complete or accurate story about what happened.
Rachel Dolzeal's life might make an interesting case study in a journal article, and it might make for an interesting conversation on MetaFilter if we knew more details. Right now, the media coverage is shaping any discussion of this matter into an angry mob.
posted by schmod at 7:45 AM on June 15, 2015 [23 favorites]
From my perspective, the media has done an irresponsibly terrible job of covering this story.
As an engineer and scientist, I've spent most of my life studying (and dealing with) difficult edge-case scenarios. Some of the most interesting data lies at the ends of the spectrum, and it's convenient to test if your hypothesis is bad by going straight to the edge-cases.
In the social sciences, this rule doesn't really apply. Every spectrum is blurry, and there are too many variables to consider. In the media, it's even more ridiculous to report on a sociological edge-case as though it's some sort of trend. No serious person in the media would suggest that Ben Carson or Herman Cain are part of any sort of meaningful resurgence of African American support of the GOP. The amount of attention that this story has gotten makes me disappointed, because it's only notable for being completely nonsensical and far removed from any established trend.
In the case of Rachel Dolezal, there are so many weird factors to consider, and the reporting was unbelievably sloppy and full of unsubstantiated conjecture (much of which bled over into the MetaFilter thread). Was there a smoking-gun "I am black" quote? Who erroneously captioned the photo that purported to show her with her father? What's the deal with her upbringing, and why are we believing her parents at face-value?
In the end, I don't think that things are going to look particularly good for Ms. Dolezal, but I don't think that we've gotten anything close to a complete or accurate story about what happened.
Rachel Dolzeal's life might make an interesting case study in a journal article, and it might make for an interesting conversation on MetaFilter if we knew more details. Right now, the media coverage is shaping any discussion of this matter into an angry mob.
posted by schmod at 7:45 AM on June 15, 2015 [23 favorites]
h00py: "Ah, you might want the thread down one, AugustWest."
Yup. Wrong thread.
posted by AugustWest at 7:56 AM on June 15, 2015
Yup. Wrong thread.
posted by AugustWest at 7:56 AM on June 15, 2015
what may be "thoughtful angles to ponder" from a distance for you doesn't track with how personal it is to a lot of people
As a Hispanic woman who can pass to some people as white and who constantly has to choose how I publicly racially identify, I promise, this is everything BUT impersonal or from a distance.
posted by corb at 8:00 AM on June 15, 2015 [13 favorites]
As a Hispanic woman who can pass to some people as white and who constantly has to choose how I publicly racially identify, I promise, this is everything BUT impersonal or from a distance.
posted by corb at 8:00 AM on June 15, 2015 [13 favorites]
I'm torn, because I think the "trans" angle is a massive, Internet-wide derail that spiked a story that could otherwise be discussed in a less awful way. I wouldn't mind a discussion of this that was just like "NOPE" on trans* comparisons – even to the point of not using the word. But I guess at this point there's really nasty stuff about "trans" that doesn't belong in the dialog as well as thoughtless shit about race, so I guess that the deletion winds up standing. I'm not happy about it but I understand.
posted by graymouser at 8:04 AM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by graymouser at 8:04 AM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
> Does this really happen though?
Yes.
What's almost worse, though, is when there's maybe just one person who wants to have the 101 learning right then and there and they get asked to read the links and then other people get all "why are you angry SJWs silencing people who just want to learn??!?!" and we end up with meTas like the #juneby[weneverdecidedonatag] one and the antisemitism one and so on.
posted by rtha at 8:04 AM on June 15, 2015 [15 favorites]
Yes.
What's almost worse, though, is when there's maybe just one person who wants to have the 101 learning right then and there and they get asked to read the links and then other people get all "why are you angry SJWs silencing people who just want to learn??!?!" and we end up with meTas like the #juneby[weneverdecidedonatag] one and the antisemitism one and so on.
posted by rtha at 8:04 AM on June 15, 2015 [15 favorites]
As a Hispanic woman who can pass to some people as white and who constantly has to choose how I publicly racially identify, I promise, this is everything BUT impersonal or from a distance.
The preceding sentence was supposed to read "Except that many or all of those angles aren't applicable to this case." And in this case, the pushback on your insistence on rehashing the story by relating it back to trans issues that are even less applicable both to the situation and your approach still stands.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:07 AM on June 15, 2015 [5 favorites]
The preceding sentence was supposed to read "Except that many or all of those angles aren't applicable to this case." And in this case, the pushback on your insistence on rehashing the story by relating it back to trans issues that are even less applicable both to the situation and your approach still stands.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:07 AM on June 15, 2015 [5 favorites]
corb, the second part of zombieflanders's sentence was especially with the 100% unnecessary comparisons to transgender identities., and as one cis white-passing POC to another I implore you not to ignore that.
posted by kagredon at 8:09 AM on June 15, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by kagredon at 8:09 AM on June 15, 2015 [9 favorites]
I thought the thread was gross and upsetting. [Transish white person here!]
1. I actually care about my participation in this site. I've met some neat people, I've had some interesting and moving experiences, I put a reasonable amount of time and thought into engaging here. This isn't just some "oh, I guess that conversation is kind of fucked up, but it's just some random blog that I clicked on" business. When it's gross here, it's gross at a place in which I have some investment. It feels personal in a way that "shitty comments on [blog somewhere]" do not.
2. I've had a whole host of both internet and personal dealings with TERFy people lately and this felt like just one more exhausting blow.
3. I feel some responsibility to the site - if someone is posting idiotic and ignorant things that I know are regularly used to attack trans women and black people, I feel the pull of obligation to deal with them. I don't always do it, but "just don't click on the thread" in this situation isn't the same as "just don't click on the thread about why people who like Olive Garden are gauche and provincial" or whatever.
4. The whole internet and several people in my personal life were talking about this in unbelievably ignorant "this is a logic problem!!!! blackness is like transness but for race, and transness is like blackness but for gender, so why can't we talk about them interchangeably!!!" ways all fucking weekend and I had an absolute shit weekend substantially as a result.
If folks want to discuss this in a thoughtful thread in a few weeks, and if some brave soul pulls a Juliet Banana and makes a really good "race and gender identity are not the same 101" header for the thread, I would be up for that.
posted by Frowner at 8:19 AM on June 15, 2015 [47 favorites]
1. I actually care about my participation in this site. I've met some neat people, I've had some interesting and moving experiences, I put a reasonable amount of time and thought into engaging here. This isn't just some "oh, I guess that conversation is kind of fucked up, but it's just some random blog that I clicked on" business. When it's gross here, it's gross at a place in which I have some investment. It feels personal in a way that "shitty comments on [blog somewhere]" do not.
2. I've had a whole host of both internet and personal dealings with TERFy people lately and this felt like just one more exhausting blow.
3. I feel some responsibility to the site - if someone is posting idiotic and ignorant things that I know are regularly used to attack trans women and black people, I feel the pull of obligation to deal with them. I don't always do it, but "just don't click on the thread" in this situation isn't the same as "just don't click on the thread about why people who like Olive Garden are gauche and provincial" or whatever.
4. The whole internet and several people in my personal life were talking about this in unbelievably ignorant "this is a logic problem!!!! blackness is like transness but for race, and transness is like blackness but for gender, so why can't we talk about them interchangeably!!!" ways all fucking weekend and I had an absolute shit weekend substantially as a result.
If folks want to discuss this in a thoughtful thread in a few weeks, and if some brave soul pulls a Juliet Banana and makes a really good "race and gender identity are not the same 101" header for the thread, I would be up for that.
posted by Frowner at 8:19 AM on June 15, 2015 [47 favorites]
4. The whole internet and several people in my personal life were talking about this in unbelievably ignorant "this is a logic problem!!!! blackness is like transness but for race, and transness is like blackness but for gender, so why can't we talk about them interchangeably!!!" ways all fucking weekend and I had an absolute shit weekend substantially as a result.
I think this bit is important to remember. It's great for those of you who were able to avoid all the nastiness already going around about the story. If my Facebook feed is anything to go by, a lot of trans and Black people were not able to avoid all that nastiness, which would indicate that a lot of non-allies were also getting exposed to a lot of hurtful misconceptions about a lot of aspects of the situation. A thread on a newsfilter story is not starting with a blank slate, and a thread about this particular story is likely already starting with a lot of hurt feelings and frustration.
posted by jaguar at 8:26 AM on June 15, 2015 [20 favorites]
I think this bit is important to remember. It's great for those of you who were able to avoid all the nastiness already going around about the story. If my Facebook feed is anything to go by, a lot of trans and Black people were not able to avoid all that nastiness, which would indicate that a lot of non-allies were also getting exposed to a lot of hurtful misconceptions about a lot of aspects of the situation. A thread on a newsfilter story is not starting with a blank slate, and a thread about this particular story is likely already starting with a lot of hurt feelings and frustration.
posted by jaguar at 8:26 AM on June 15, 2015 [20 favorites]
Let me just say as someone from a multi-racial family, with adopted siblings from other countries, having grown up a third culture kid, and being trans - "transracial" as a term is awful. It may have its origins in interesting discussion about adoptee identities, but at this point it had become pure poison, and it's not like there aren't alternative terms we can use with regard to racial and ethnic identities and adoption.
posted by Dysk at 8:29 AM on June 15, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 8:29 AM on June 15, 2015 [8 favorites]
The story had just broke. Rachel Dolezal had not offered any sort of public response. What existed in the media was the beginnings of a storm of tabloid-style garbage, and what existed elsewhere was it's-just-happened knee-jerk reactions, some of it whipped up by a delighted right wing, some of them racist, some of them transphobic, who were hitching their particular noxious hobby horse to a still-developing story.
We weren't have a good discussion about it -- in depth, informed, nuanced, specific. We were just participating in the noise machine, and it's all we could do at that moment, because it was all that existed.
This story will be better served when more details are known, when more considered voice have weighed in. It was a good deletion, especially since the conflation of Dolezal's behavior with the trans experience is essentially transphobic -- it's just one step removed from the "if gay people can marry, why can't I marry my dog?" nonsense that used to get kicked around.
I'm sorry that some people think this site is worse of for being sensitive about questions of race, sexual identity, and good discussion. But this has always been a better place because of its moderation, which has always rankled people who like the brutal, bullying free-for-all that is the rest of the web. This was good moderation and a good deletion.
posted by maxsparber at 8:30 AM on June 15, 2015 [46 favorites]
We weren't have a good discussion about it -- in depth, informed, nuanced, specific. We were just participating in the noise machine, and it's all we could do at that moment, because it was all that existed.
This story will be better served when more details are known, when more considered voice have weighed in. It was a good deletion, especially since the conflation of Dolezal's behavior with the trans experience is essentially transphobic -- it's just one step removed from the "if gay people can marry, why can't I marry my dog?" nonsense that used to get kicked around.
I'm sorry that some people think this site is worse of for being sensitive about questions of race, sexual identity, and good discussion. But this has always been a better place because of its moderation, which has always rankled people who like the brutal, bullying free-for-all that is the rest of the web. This was good moderation and a good deletion.
posted by maxsparber at 8:30 AM on June 15, 2015 [46 favorites]
I saw that thread and noped out. I do my fair share of educating on racial topics on this site - probably way more than is good for me, actually - but if that's to happen, white cis people need to not totally poison the well from the very get-go by chucking out simultaneously transphobic and racist gotcha points. There are plenty of interesting conversations to be had about passing for white, colorism, and racial hierarchies. A FPP about a white woman pretending to be black is not one of them. Stop pretending we can skip ahead to the nuanced conversation when that FPP clearly demonstrates most posters are still stuck on "but wait trans people say gender is a social construct, PoC say race is a social construct, CHECKMATE SJWs."
posted by Conspire at 8:31 AM on June 15, 2015 [34 favorites]
posted by Conspire at 8:31 AM on June 15, 2015 [34 favorites]
the more I read this thread, the more I realize that what I personally needed was not for the any of the original FPPS to survive, but for this meta to happen. Thanks to all for contributing.
posted by philip-random at 8:32 AM on June 15, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by philip-random at 8:32 AM on June 15, 2015 [7 favorites]
As someone who has spoken here before about their own personal appearance and racial issues when facing others, I have to say that I'm glad this topic hasn't become a thread-naught nightmare of moderation because it is a very, very complex thing that I have no interest in seeing devolve into some potentially, at the least, stuff that's a huge PITA to moderate for intent vs. content or vice versa or what have you.
Seriously, if it somehow became a media event that my family somehow wasn't 'Native American enough', not to mention if it impacted my family member's day to day activities (like my mom's amazing, skilled crafting stuff that is finally beginning to take off in a monetary/recognition sense), I would be so pissed, hurt, and angry. I see nothing but a fraught conversation here as the situation mimics that in frightening and potentially hurtful ways.
posted by RolandOfEld at 8:33 AM on June 15, 2015 [4 favorites]
Seriously, if it somehow became a media event that my family somehow wasn't 'Native American enough', not to mention if it impacted my family member's day to day activities (like my mom's amazing, skilled crafting stuff that is finally beginning to take off in a monetary/recognition sense), I would be so pissed, hurt, and angry. I see nothing but a fraught conversation here as the situation mimics that in frightening and potentially hurtful ways.
posted by RolandOfEld at 8:33 AM on June 15, 2015 [4 favorites]
Let's drop the trans derail in here too?
Actual, real transgender people are upset by this. Convincing somebody that they are wrong to be upset is classical trolling behavior, and something we should strive to avoid on MetaFilter.
I don't think that we should intimidate new users from participating in these discussions (sadly, everybody starts at 101), but I think that we've heard enough that we can drop this particular discussion?
A whole lot of *ACTUAL* POC and *ACTUAL* trans people have participated in these discussions to say "actually, there's not a whole lot in common, and can you please use a different adjective?"
Please respect these people. There's absolutely no cost for doing that. This is already a heated discussion, and we don't need to mix in another heated topic (which nobody close to the issue seems to think is relevant).
posted by schmod at 8:33 AM on June 15, 2015 [17 favorites]
Actual, real transgender people are upset by this. Convincing somebody that they are wrong to be upset is classical trolling behavior, and something we should strive to avoid on MetaFilter.
I don't think that we should intimidate new users from participating in these discussions (sadly, everybody starts at 101), but I think that we've heard enough that we can drop this particular discussion?
A whole lot of *ACTUAL* POC and *ACTUAL* trans people have participated in these discussions to say "actually, there's not a whole lot in common, and can you please use a different adjective?"
Please respect these people. There's absolutely no cost for doing that. This is already a heated discussion, and we don't need to mix in another heated topic (which nobody close to the issue seems to think is relevant).
posted by schmod at 8:33 AM on June 15, 2015 [17 favorites]
> I understand the line of thinking behind "Why can't we just talk about X?" but it seems like the vast majority of the time, this is someone in a (usually relatively privileged) out-group wanting to talk about a (usually less privileged) in-group, and it's the in-group being discussed who are saying, "Please, let's not have this discussion, because we are tired of reading this shit everywhere." Sure, there may be a few in group people saying, by all means, let's have this discussion, but one person who is female or black or gay or trans doesn't automatically outweigh the twenty other people saying "Please god no not again."
Yup. As a cis white male, even though I think of myself as "progressive" I have all the baggage my cis white maledom brings along with it, and my first reactions to events are frequently full of the sort of cluelessness that gets smacked down on MeFi by those who suffer from it and are sick and tired of putting up with it. It's not vile and reprehensible to be clueless, it's perfectly natural... up until the point where you're exposed to clues, at which point you have two choices: to get a clue, or to get resentful and start griping about free speech and "what ever happened to the old MetaFilter, where we [privileged people] could say all that fun stuff [and didn't have to worry about what less privileged people thought about it]?" One of the things I'm most grateful to MeFi for is having educated me in areas of concern to people who suffer from sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and other forms of oppression so that I am now frequently able to catch my cluelessness before it escapes the barrier of my teeth (or keyboard).
As regards the post in question, at first I was glad it was there and was learning a certain amount from the discussion, but I soon realized how toxic it was getting, and I'm very glad it was deleted. The mods are learning from recent difficult discussions and are taking appropriate action, and I am grateful to them. And for all those who are taking the position "I don't care about the feelings of a few trans people, I want my sacred free-speech discussion," a quote from Dostoyevsky:
Yup. As a cis white male, even though I think of myself as "progressive" I have all the baggage my cis white maledom brings along with it, and my first reactions to events are frequently full of the sort of cluelessness that gets smacked down on MeFi by those who suffer from it and are sick and tired of putting up with it. It's not vile and reprehensible to be clueless, it's perfectly natural... up until the point where you're exposed to clues, at which point you have two choices: to get a clue, or to get resentful and start griping about free speech and "what ever happened to the old MetaFilter, where we [privileged people] could say all that fun stuff [and didn't have to worry about what less privileged people thought about it]?" One of the things I'm most grateful to MeFi for is having educated me in areas of concern to people who suffer from sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and other forms of oppression so that I am now frequently able to catch my cluelessness before it escapes the barrier of my teeth (or keyboard).
As regards the post in question, at first I was glad it was there and was learning a certain amount from the discussion, but I soon realized how toxic it was getting, and I'm very glad it was deleted. The mods are learning from recent difficult discussions and are taking appropriate action, and I am grateful to them. And for all those who are taking the position "I don't care about the feelings of a few trans people, I want my sacred free-speech discussion," a quote from Dostoyevsky:
Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last. Imagine that you are doing this but that it is essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature...in order to found that edifice on its unavenged tears. Would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me. Tell the truth.posted by languagehat at 8:37 AM on June 15, 2015 [78 favorites]
"No, I wouldn't consent," said Alyosha softly.
posted by Xavier Xavier at 8:42 AM on June 15, 2015 [13 favorites]
posted by Xavier Xavier at 8:42 AM on June 15, 2015 [13 favorites]
We were just participating in the noise machine
This mirrors my feelings. There's pitifully little there there in the story as it stands. There will be a much better opportunity for discussion when it's not a bunch of internet pundits gesturing wildly at a thing that isn't very clear at the moment.
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 8:44 AM on June 15, 2015 [36 favorites]
This mirrors my feelings. There's pitifully little there there in the story as it stands. There will be a much better opportunity for discussion when it's not a bunch of internet pundits gesturing wildly at a thing that isn't very clear at the moment.
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 8:44 AM on June 15, 2015 [36 favorites]
Regarding "it's not my job to educate you", much of the burden of education is often put on the shoulders of marginalized people despite the fact that they/we are often exhausted of doing that kind of work and we are less likely to be listened to because of preexisting prejudices. The context of this that I'm most used to is women not being listened to until a man echoes what we said, but this also happens intersectionally for other marginalized groups.
I'm usually willing to do this kind of work in real life when I'm talking to people who I know aren't just JAQing off, and I actually have been spending a lot of time working on my own projects that create 101 level education on a lot of social justice issues. But online, people have usually not earned the benefit of the doubt that they actually want to learn about this stuff, especially when a lot of their questions can be answered by easily found 101 level material that can be googled, and it is exhausting to have people demand, over and over again, that we repeat the work that the creators of that material have already done and that we've often already done repeatedly ourselves.
People asking questions about social justice issues really need to establish good faith and that they aren't just JAQing off. I'm hoping that the moderation policy discussions, especially about boyzone stuff, that we've had lately will lead to less of the bad experiences with people taking enormous shits in threads and maybe a general ability for people to trust that community members are acting in good faith, but that's a long way out.
posted by NoraReed at 8:56 AM on June 15, 2015 [32 favorites]
I'm usually willing to do this kind of work in real life when I'm talking to people who I know aren't just JAQing off, and I actually have been spending a lot of time working on my own projects that create 101 level education on a lot of social justice issues. But online, people have usually not earned the benefit of the doubt that they actually want to learn about this stuff, especially when a lot of their questions can be answered by easily found 101 level material that can be googled, and it is exhausting to have people demand, over and over again, that we repeat the work that the creators of that material have already done and that we've often already done repeatedly ourselves.
People asking questions about social justice issues really need to establish good faith and that they aren't just JAQing off. I'm hoping that the moderation policy discussions, especially about boyzone stuff, that we've had lately will lead to less of the bad experiences with people taking enormous shits in threads and maybe a general ability for people to trust that community members are acting in good faith, but that's a long way out.
posted by NoraReed at 8:56 AM on June 15, 2015 [32 favorites]
...a general ability for people to trust that community members are acting in good faith, but that's a long way out.
Allies can be helpful in that regard. It's easier for those of us who are not directly being targeted by viciousness online and offline to initially assume good faith until proven otherwise.
posted by zarq at 9:10 AM on June 15, 2015
Allies can be helpful in that regard. It's easier for those of us who are not directly being targeted by viciousness online and offline to initially assume good faith until proven otherwise.
posted by zarq at 9:10 AM on June 15, 2015
I've also been here for 15 years and I'm one of those people who reads some old threads and thinks "thank god that sort of casual misogyny/everyday sexism is no longer tolerated here". For better or worse, the reduced tolerance for that sort of hostility is why I comment more now. It will be nice when other populations reach that "wow! 15 years ago this place was really hostile to me! thank god that sort of casual hate is no longer tolerated here." moment.
posted by crush-onastick at 9:14 AM on June 15, 2015 [15 favorites]
posted by crush-onastick at 9:14 AM on June 15, 2015 [15 favorites]
Literally go anywhere else on the internet if you want to engage in "debate" about the actual topic. It's not healthy here.
This is what's become of this place?
posted by amorphatist at 9:26 AM on June 15, 2015 [13 favorites]
This is what's become of this place?
posted by amorphatist at 9:26 AM on June 15, 2015 [13 favorites]
I get that we don't want to do conversations we don't do well, but for hot-button topics, there's nowhere else I want to go to talk/read about them. Metafilter does it best! Even if "best" is a relative term.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 9:30 AM on June 15, 2015 [21 favorites]
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 9:30 AM on June 15, 2015 [21 favorites]
it is essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature...in order to found that edifice on its unavenged tears. Would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me. Tell the truth.
If it was the mosquito in my tent two weeks ago, then I have to say, yes. Yes I would consent.
Also, tough call but acceptable deletion.
posted by Rumple at 9:36 AM on June 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
If it was the mosquito in my tent two weeks ago, then I have to say, yes. Yes I would consent.
Also, tough call but acceptable deletion.
posted by Rumple at 9:36 AM on June 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
How many "this comment/thread should not have been deleted" MeTas over the years have ended with something other than a general agreement that "yeah, that comment/thread needed to be deleted?" It seems every time it comes up, when I read the deleted comment/thread, my reaction is almost always "oh hell, that is even worse than I thought" rather than "grave injustice has been done!!!!!" And the predictable chorus of "The Mods are Out of Control with All This Deleting!!!!" fails to convince me otherwise.
Comments and threads are not precious resources that must be preserved at all costs; not even my comments are so precious (and my comments are pretty precious; I spend minutes writing them) that their deletion is anything more than a momentary annoyance. Often, it's a blessing, because I was participating in a derail or had stepped over a line or just lost the plot for a moment*. No individual comment or thread is necessary for the future and health of MetaFilter, and, indeed judicious pruning of content is what makes MetaFilter a healthy site compared to the rest of the internet.
So pretty much any time you feel "this deletion was a gross miscarriage of justice," there is about a 99% chance that you are wrong and MetaFilter has been improved, not harmed, by that particular mod action.
* I've occasionally felt ill-done by a deletion, but, these days, I am way way more likely to flag my own stuff and send a note to the mods saying "can you axe this? I'm not helping things" than I am to protest a deletion.
posted by GenjiandProust at 9:42 AM on June 15, 2015 [13 favorites]
Comments and threads are not precious resources that must be preserved at all costs; not even my comments are so precious (and my comments are pretty precious; I spend minutes writing them) that their deletion is anything more than a momentary annoyance. Often, it's a blessing, because I was participating in a derail or had stepped over a line or just lost the plot for a moment*. No individual comment or thread is necessary for the future and health of MetaFilter, and, indeed judicious pruning of content is what makes MetaFilter a healthy site compared to the rest of the internet.
So pretty much any time you feel "this deletion was a gross miscarriage of justice," there is about a 99% chance that you are wrong and MetaFilter has been improved, not harmed, by that particular mod action.
* I've occasionally felt ill-done by a deletion, but, these days, I am way way more likely to flag my own stuff and send a note to the mods saying "can you axe this? I'm not helping things" than I am to protest a deletion.
posted by GenjiandProust at 9:42 AM on June 15, 2015 [13 favorites]
can anyone tell me what is gained from having this thread now instead of having it once we have a fuller picture of what happened (if that picture ever materializes)?
posted by nadawi at 9:45 AM on June 15, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 9:45 AM on June 15, 2015 [5 favorites]
Literally go anywhere else on the internet if you want to engage in "debate" about the actual topic
That does strike me as an unfortunate way to put it - more like engage in debate about "the actual topic."
posted by atoxyl at 9:49 AM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
That does strike me as an unfortunate way to put it - more like engage in debate about "the actual topic."
posted by atoxyl at 9:49 AM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
can anyone tell me what is gained from having this thread now instead of having it once we have a fuller picture of what happened (if that picture ever materializes)?
More shouting and bad feelings based on less evidence and time for consideration of the facts and their implications?
More succinctly: not much.
posted by GenjiandProust at 9:50 AM on June 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
More shouting and bad feelings based on less evidence and time for consideration of the facts and their implications?
More succinctly: not much.
posted by GenjiandProust at 9:50 AM on June 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
The internet totally sucks.
posted by phaedon at 9:53 AM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by phaedon at 9:53 AM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
> That does strike me as an unfortunate way to put it - more like engage in debate about "the actual topic."
Well, no, because what is there to "debate"? That race and transgender issues are/are not just the same? That some people have opinions about things that they want to make sure "win" the "debate"?
posted by rtha at 9:53 AM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
Well, no, because what is there to "debate"? That race and transgender issues are/are not just the same? That some people have opinions about things that they want to make sure "win" the "debate"?
posted by rtha at 9:53 AM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
can anyone tell me what is gained from having this thread now instead of having it once we have a fuller picture of what happened (if that picture ever materializes)?
Well, my concern - because I was actually compiling links and thinking of posting in a week or so if no one else had - is that given the multiple deletes, no one will know when it will be time, and we won't have the conversation at all.
posted by corb at 9:53 AM on June 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
Well, my concern - because I was actually compiling links and thinking of posting in a week or so if no one else had - is that given the multiple deletes, no one will know when it will be time, and we won't have the conversation at all.
posted by corb at 9:53 AM on June 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
The actual topic being the racial implications of Kozlal's story (as discussed by people who actually know something about the history of race) and not the derail concocted to get the half-informed to say transphobic and racist things.
posted by atoxyl at 9:55 AM on June 15, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by atoxyl at 9:55 AM on June 15, 2015 [6 favorites]
How many "this comment/thread should not have been deleted" MeTas over the years have ended with something other than a general agreement that "yeah, that comment/thread needed to be deleted?
I don't think that's the general agreement here. 220 comments later, I still think it was a terrible deletion.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:55 AM on June 15, 2015 [9 favorites]
I don't think that's the general agreement here. 220 comments later, I still think it was a terrible deletion.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:55 AM on June 15, 2015 [9 favorites]
And it's more than fair to say there isn't enough information to have that conversation. But my whole point in shifting those quotes was to say what you said - that the "topic" that became the focus here isn't a real topic.
posted by atoxyl at 9:56 AM on June 15, 2015
posted by atoxyl at 9:56 AM on June 15, 2015
I think my post was the first one on the subject and subequently deleted, not the second one that had 100+ comments.
I asked for some clarification as to what the difference was between the two posts but came to understand the reasoning that LB posted now, and I have no problems with it being deleted (especially seeing the comments quickly go downhill in the second post).
While I don't have any objections to the post being deleted for the reasons being stated now, my chief confusion was more that the reasons stated in the first deletion didn't really seem to mesh with that idea and also was done so quickly (within 5-10 minutes!) of the post that it didn't even have an opportunity for the discussion to grow. Granted it got toxic quick in the second post, but I'd like to see at least the opportunity be given.
posted by Karaage at 9:58 AM on June 15, 2015
I asked for some clarification as to what the difference was between the two posts but came to understand the reasoning that LB posted now, and I have no problems with it being deleted (especially seeing the comments quickly go downhill in the second post).
While I don't have any objections to the post being deleted for the reasons being stated now, my chief confusion was more that the reasons stated in the first deletion didn't really seem to mesh with that idea and also was done so quickly (within 5-10 minutes!) of the post that it didn't even have an opportunity for the discussion to grow. Granted it got toxic quick in the second post, but I'd like to see at least the opportunity be given.
posted by Karaage at 9:58 AM on June 15, 2015
It seems to me that whenever an FPP presents a topic that is guaranteed to be contentious, some kind of evaluation has to be made as to the balance between the mod-hours that must be devoted to keeping the thread civil and focused on the one hand versus the likelihood that the FPP will generate insightful, interesting and useful discussion on the other hand. This particular topic doesn't seem to balance these two competing groups of considerations very well.
Fundamentally this is just a person who did a thing for reasons that are difficult to untangle or understand right now, and a huge media spectacle and internet piling-on has grown out of it. Sure, there may be some interesting subjects packed in there somewhere, but there is far too much competing baggage standing in the way of having a very good discussion. Perhaps later on an insightful and interesting fact or article will appear that could help focus discussion on an aspect of this event in a way that would make the expenditure of mod-hours and likely affect on the community worthwhile. But absent the possibility of saying "this thread may discuss this and this but not that, that and that" -- which doesn't seem within the compass of Metafilter's culture and practices -- I don't see what would realistically be good about having an open thread around Rachel Dolezal right now. Just because a discussion could be interesting and valuable in a certain way doesn't mean it has any likelihood of actually being that way.
posted by slkinsey at 9:58 AM on June 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
Fundamentally this is just a person who did a thing for reasons that are difficult to untangle or understand right now, and a huge media spectacle and internet piling-on has grown out of it. Sure, there may be some interesting subjects packed in there somewhere, but there is far too much competing baggage standing in the way of having a very good discussion. Perhaps later on an insightful and interesting fact or article will appear that could help focus discussion on an aspect of this event in a way that would make the expenditure of mod-hours and likely affect on the community worthwhile. But absent the possibility of saying "this thread may discuss this and this but not that, that and that" -- which doesn't seem within the compass of Metafilter's culture and practices -- I don't see what would realistically be good about having an open thread around Rachel Dolezal right now. Just because a discussion could be interesting and valuable in a certain way doesn't mean it has any likelihood of actually being that way.
posted by slkinsey at 9:58 AM on June 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
Well, my concern - because I was actually compiling links and thinking of posting in a week or so if no one else had - is that given the multiple deletes, no one will know when it will be time, and we won't have the conversation at all.
the mods are very open to 1 on 1 discussion about when a post that has previously been a no-go is fleshed out to the point that it can stand. if this is something you feel needs to happen, once you feel like we have enough information to even have the discussion without it being based on 99% conjecture, get with them and see what they say. they aren't some faceless cabal behind a curtain who are unreachable for clarification.
posted by nadawi at 10:00 AM on June 15, 2015 [12 favorites]
the mods are very open to 1 on 1 discussion about when a post that has previously been a no-go is fleshed out to the point that it can stand. if this is something you feel needs to happen, once you feel like we have enough information to even have the discussion without it being based on 99% conjecture, get with them and see what they say. they aren't some faceless cabal behind a curtain who are unreachable for clarification.
posted by nadawi at 10:00 AM on June 15, 2015 [12 favorites]
I don't think that's the general agreement here. 220 comments later, I still think it was a terrible deletion.
If we're polling the room, allow me to say that I think this was a good deletion, for many of the reasons stated above.
posted by Lexica at 10:05 AM on June 15, 2015 [10 favorites]
If we're polling the room, allow me to say that I think this was a good deletion, for many of the reasons stated above.
posted by Lexica at 10:05 AM on June 15, 2015 [10 favorites]
Comments and threads are not precious resources that must be preserved at all costs; not even my comments are so precious (and my comments are pretty precious; I spend minutes writing them) that their deletion is anything more than a momentary annoyance. Often, it's a blessing, because I was participating in a derail or had stepped over a line or just lost the plot for a moment*. No individual comment or thread is necessary for the future and health of MetaFilter, and, indeed judicious pruning of content is what makes MetaFilter a healthy site compared to the rest of the internet.
And there's nothing wrong with questioning 'how much judicious pruning' is necessary, either.
My impression, and I think it's borne out by evidence, is that the mods have been deleting more threads before they accumulate comments than they used to. I've seen quite a few threads get deleted without a single comment lately. Not because they were spam, a self-link or "obviously" inappropriate for MeFi, but rather because the mods didn't think the thread would go well.
While that sort of deletion did happen in the past, I think it's happening more now. I've noticed, and it bothers me. The team used to give most threads a chance to survive and accumulate comments before deciding whether or not they should be deleted.
There are no doubt a variety of reasons for this, including new moderation standards, new mods providing new perspectives, tighter resources and less mod coverage, etc. As well as a stronger intolerance for threads that could potentially become a headache. And I've spoken against this apparent change in deletion standards before in MetaTalk, and no doubt will again. I think site quality drops when posts deemed "potentially" (but not actually) problematic and are deleted without being given the opportunity to do well.
So pretty much any time you feel "this deletion was a gross miscarriage of justice," there is about a 99% chance that you are wrong and MetaFilter has been improved, not harmed, by that particular mod action.
This is a pretty bold assertion. I disagree with you.
Post deletions teach those who post what the mods find acceptable. So that change has now affected what I choose to post here, and how often. In the last three years, my post output has fallen considerably. So have my post topics. Not because I think having my own posts deleted is a "miscarriage of justice." It's laughably not. But because I don't want to spend valuable time constructing a post only to see it summarily deleted because it "might" become a problem.
That said, I'm okay with the deletion that prompted this meta.
posted by zarq at 10:05 AM on June 15, 2015 [12 favorites]
And there's nothing wrong with questioning 'how much judicious pruning' is necessary, either.
My impression, and I think it's borne out by evidence, is that the mods have been deleting more threads before they accumulate comments than they used to. I've seen quite a few threads get deleted without a single comment lately. Not because they were spam, a self-link or "obviously" inappropriate for MeFi, but rather because the mods didn't think the thread would go well.
While that sort of deletion did happen in the past, I think it's happening more now. I've noticed, and it bothers me. The team used to give most threads a chance to survive and accumulate comments before deciding whether or not they should be deleted.
There are no doubt a variety of reasons for this, including new moderation standards, new mods providing new perspectives, tighter resources and less mod coverage, etc. As well as a stronger intolerance for threads that could potentially become a headache. And I've spoken against this apparent change in deletion standards before in MetaTalk, and no doubt will again. I think site quality drops when posts deemed "potentially" (but not actually) problematic and are deleted without being given the opportunity to do well.
So pretty much any time you feel "this deletion was a gross miscarriage of justice," there is about a 99% chance that you are wrong and MetaFilter has been improved, not harmed, by that particular mod action.
This is a pretty bold assertion. I disagree with you.
Post deletions teach those who post what the mods find acceptable. So that change has now affected what I choose to post here, and how often. In the last three years, my post output has fallen considerably. So have my post topics. Not because I think having my own posts deleted is a "miscarriage of justice." It's laughably not. But because I don't want to spend valuable time constructing a post only to see it summarily deleted because it "might" become a problem.
That said, I'm okay with the deletion that prompted this meta.
posted by zarq at 10:05 AM on June 15, 2015 [12 favorites]
can anyone tell me what is gained from having this thread now instead of having it once we have a fuller picture of what happened (if that picture ever materializes)?
1. A viable discussion about race rather than what the most of the internet has doing in terms of mixing up race and transphobia. I've seen a lot of that on Facebook and MeFi can definitely do better than that. Just nix the discussions about trans stuff and trans racial. It won't be an easy discussion, but at least it can be had, rather than repeatedly shot down.
2. It was pretty clear what happened from the start, there's not a lot mystery there, other than why she did it.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:06 AM on June 15, 2015 [7 favorites]
1. A viable discussion about race rather than what the most of the internet has doing in terms of mixing up race and transphobia. I've seen a lot of that on Facebook and MeFi can definitely do better than that. Just nix the discussions about trans stuff and trans racial. It won't be an easy discussion, but at least it can be had, rather than repeatedly shot down.
2. It was pretty clear what happened from the start, there's not a lot mystery there, other than why she did it.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:06 AM on June 15, 2015 [7 favorites]
Well, my concern - because I was actually compiling links and thinking of posting in a week or so if no one else had - is that given the multiple deletes, no one will know when it will be time, and we won't have the conversation at all.
posted by corb at 11:53 AM on June 15 [+] [!]
First, it's already been stated that next week isn't probably far enough out.
Second, I would suggest you're a). not likely to be the one that has a post on this topic survive. b). would also suggest if you disagree with a). you need to reflect a bit.
posted by cjorgensen at 10:08 AM on June 15, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by corb at 11:53 AM on June 15 [+] [!]
First, it's already been stated that next week isn't probably far enough out.
Second, I would suggest you're a). not likely to be the one that has a post on this topic survive. b). would also suggest if you disagree with a). you need to reflect a bit.
posted by cjorgensen at 10:08 AM on June 15, 2015 [6 favorites]
And it's more than fair to say there isn't enough information to have that conversation. But my whole point in shifting those quotes was to say what you said - that the "topic" that became the focus here isn't a real topic.
I mean my point was that it's possible to believe MeFi is a place for having discussions that aren't necessarily 100% "safe" - unless there is significant interest in explicitly changing policy on that, which is fine with me if it's the way people want the site to go - and still think this particular pseudo-issue is pointless and toxic and that even the rest of the discussion is premature.
posted by atoxyl at 10:08 AM on June 15, 2015
I mean my point was that it's possible to believe MeFi is a place for having discussions that aren't necessarily 100% "safe" - unless there is significant interest in explicitly changing policy on that, which is fine with me if it's the way people want the site to go - and still think this particular pseudo-issue is pointless and toxic and that even the rest of the discussion is premature.
posted by atoxyl at 10:08 AM on June 15, 2015
people will complain when a thread is immediately deleted, people will complain when a thread is deleted after a conversation is tried. i honestly don't see a winning move for the mods besides relying on their discretion on a case by case basis.
posted by nadawi at 10:10 AM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 10:10 AM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
It's not vile and reprehensible to be clueless, it's perfectly natural... up until the point where you're exposed to clues, at which point you have two choices: to get a clue, or to get resentful and start griping about free speech and "what ever happened to the old MetaFilter, where we [privileged people] could say all that fun stuff [and didn't have to worry about what less privileged people thought about it]?"
languagehat, with all respect, and I sincerely mean it because I love your contributions, this is a false dichotomy. Some, maybe many of us fall into that excluded middle.
posted by digitalprimate at 10:10 AM on June 15, 2015 [4 favorites]
languagehat, with all respect, and I sincerely mean it because I love your contributions, this is a false dichotomy. Some, maybe many of us fall into that excluded middle.
posted by digitalprimate at 10:10 AM on June 15, 2015 [4 favorites]
...if this is something you feel needs to happen, once you feel like we have enough information to even have the discussion without it being based on 99% conjecture...
This, in my view, is one of the best justifications for the "wait until the topic has fleshed out" approach to making an FPP. Today it is entirely unclear that this is a discussion that "needs to happen" right now. At some future tomorrow that could change, of course. But more often than not, once the pressure of salacious media coverage and internet outrage over a current event subsides, there is not so much left to hang a good discussion around.
posted by slkinsey at 10:11 AM on June 15, 2015 [6 favorites]
This, in my view, is one of the best justifications for the "wait until the topic has fleshed out" approach to making an FPP. Today it is entirely unclear that this is a discussion that "needs to happen" right now. At some future tomorrow that could change, of course. But more often than not, once the pressure of salacious media coverage and internet outrage over a current event subsides, there is not so much left to hang a good discussion around.
posted by slkinsey at 10:11 AM on June 15, 2015 [6 favorites]
1. A viable discussion about race rather than what the most of the internet has doing in terms of mixing up race and transphobia. I've seen a lot of that on Facebook and MeFi can definitely do better than that. Just nix the discussions about trans stuff and trans racial. It won't be an easy discussion, but at least it can be had, rather than repeatedly shot down.
Judging by the deleted thread, that would've been prohibitively mod-intensive. At least at the moment, the way the story is being talked about everywhere is thoroughly transphobic, and I don't think it's realistic to expect Mefi to be an oasis of sanity like that.
posted by Dysk at 10:30 AM on June 15, 2015 [7 favorites]
Judging by the deleted thread, that would've been prohibitively mod-intensive. At least at the moment, the way the story is being talked about everywhere is thoroughly transphobic, and I don't think it's realistic to expect Mefi to be an oasis of sanity like that.
posted by Dysk at 10:30 AM on June 15, 2015 [7 favorites]
"I don't know where to find good content about [race, transracialism, transgender issues] etc"
"I don't understand how to use tumblr/twitter/etc"
Boy, if only there were a site on THIS SAME DOMAIN that you could ask people what to read and how to read it. I don't expect someone to give me a Physics 101 explanation in an astronomy thread. In fact, I don't go into astronomy (or math) threads because I only have the shallowest understanding of wtf they're talking about and I don't want to interrupt the flow of conversation. If I wanted to know, I'd post a question on this HYPOTHETICAL SITE ON THIS VERY SAME DOMAIN that apparently lot of people don't know about. In fact, I bet such questions have been asked before. I bet there is a search link somewhere on this very page! MAYBE EVEN TWO.
posted by desjardins at 10:40 AM on June 15, 2015 [31 favorites]
"I don't understand how to use tumblr/twitter/etc"
Boy, if only there were a site on THIS SAME DOMAIN that you could ask people what to read and how to read it. I don't expect someone to give me a Physics 101 explanation in an astronomy thread. In fact, I don't go into astronomy (or math) threads because I only have the shallowest understanding of wtf they're talking about and I don't want to interrupt the flow of conversation. If I wanted to know, I'd post a question on this HYPOTHETICAL SITE ON THIS VERY SAME DOMAIN that apparently lot of people don't know about. In fact, I bet such questions have been asked before. I bet there is a search link somewhere on this very page! MAYBE EVEN TWO.
posted by desjardins at 10:40 AM on June 15, 2015 [31 favorites]
...but it's not as if the A people are out there demanding for their obvious wrongness to be remediated.
obligatory xkcd
posted by Jacqueline at 10:45 AM on June 15, 2015
obligatory xkcd
posted by Jacqueline at 10:45 AM on June 15, 2015
There's a lot of really interesting history and cultural context on "passing" in the USA, and it runs far afield of white/black and black/white and ties into some profound cultural experiences, and I'd be thrilled to see it discussed with nuance and depth. It's got diddly bupkis to do with being transgender for reasons that are obvious if given just the barest smidge of thought or empathy. It's in the "Not Even Wrong" category of error. It's... it's... I'll just let Charles Babbage explain why the deletions are a good idea right now:
On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.posted by Slap*Happy at 10:53 AM on June 15, 2015 [12 favorites]
I sort of want to "have the conversation here"--or, really, watch more eloquent and intelligent people than me have it here--but I don't think it's a great loss if we never do. Dolezal's story is really weird for sure, but there are plenty of other topics that could explore racial identity, growing up in a mixed race family/environment, racial/ethnic/cultural appropriation, colorism, etc. etc. with a lot more substance and a lot less sensationalism. The way this story has been largely coopted by bigots in order to push an (at best, unnecessary and confusing; at worst, greatly hurtful and harmful) conflation of race and trans identities, resulting in a transphobic and racist double whammy gotcha, makes it fraught with a lot of justified anger and hurt right out of the gate. It is going to be really difficult to avoid automatic and super hurtful derails in any general discussion about it until things settle down and people whose knowledge and experiences are actually relevant have had time to weigh in. Right now, there are some good essays and a tidal wave of tabloidy garbage tainted with a bunch of inchoate transphobia and racism. I would love to see the essays without the trash tsunami, but that would take some really intense mod/community curation.
posted by byanyothername at 11:03 AM on June 15, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by byanyothername at 11:03 AM on June 15, 2015 [8 favorites]
If I wanted to know, I'd post a question on this HYPOTHETICAL SITE ON THIS VERY SAME DOMAIN that apparently lot of people don't know about. In fact, I bet such questions have been asked before. I bet there is a search link somewhere on this very page! MAYBE EVEN TWO.
Is there a place around here that I could post a question about how to find this hypothetical question-asking sub-site?
posted by SpacemanStix at 11:06 AM on June 15, 2015 [5 favorites]
Is there a place around here that I could post a question about how to find this hypothetical question-asking sub-site?
posted by SpacemanStix at 11:06 AM on June 15, 2015 [5 favorites]
Is there a place around here that I could post a question about how to find this hypothetical question-asking sub-site?
You could Ask Me.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:08 AM on June 15, 2015 [4 favorites]
You could Ask Me.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:08 AM on June 15, 2015 [4 favorites]
Sorry, I'm a little bit green on all of this, but I'll pick it up soon.
posted by SpacemanStix at 11:10 AM on June 15, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by SpacemanStix at 11:10 AM on June 15, 2015 [8 favorites]
> languagehat, with all respect, and I sincerely mean it because I love your contributions, this is a false dichotomy. Some, maybe many of us fall into that excluded middle.
With all respect, I'm not sure what you mean. Could you elaborate? I mean, "getting a clue" is not a high bar.
posted by languagehat at 11:16 AM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
With all respect, I'm not sure what you mean. Could you elaborate? I mean, "getting a clue" is not a high bar.
posted by languagehat at 11:16 AM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
I don't expect someone to give me a Physics 101 explanation in an astronomy thread.
And yet, nearly every physics thread involves at least one comment that begins, "As a person who has had no experience in science aside from reading a page out of Discover magazine in my dentist's office in 2003, I would like to explain dark energy thusly..."
posted by mittens at 11:17 AM on June 15, 2015 [10 favorites]
And yet, nearly every physics thread involves at least one comment that begins, "As a person who has had no experience in science aside from reading a page out of Discover magazine in my dentist's office in 2003, I would like to explain dark energy thusly..."
posted by mittens at 11:17 AM on June 15, 2015 [10 favorites]
And yet, nearly every physics thread involves at least one comment that begins, "As a person who has had no experience in science aside from reading a page out of Discover magazine in my dentist's office in 2003, I would like to explain dark energy thusly..."
To be fair though, those people usually shut up and don't argue when physicsmatt shows up.
posted by pseudonick at 11:30 AM on June 15, 2015 [15 favorites]
To be fair though, those people usually shut up and don't argue when physicsmatt shows up.
posted by pseudonick at 11:30 AM on June 15, 2015 [15 favorites]
I was kind of in the "yeah, but..." camp, but LobsterMitten's response off the top, and a lot of the discussion here, has brought me roundly around to the "good deletion" camp.
I'm a doofy cis white guy and I can indulge in chin-scratching doofy cis-white "but I don't get it" conversations with the best of them, but I guess my key takeaway here is that my curiosity about these issues doesn't need to be satisfied this very minute.
As somebody with no stakes in play here, if I'm actively hurting somebody just to indulge my doofy cis-white wonderings about, well, anything, really, I'm being a jerk. If somebody is experiencing active harm, their needs far outweigh my 100% passive desire to learn about things that don't really have a direct impact on my tremendously comfortable life.
posted by Shepherd at 11:32 AM on June 15, 2015 [44 favorites]
I'm a doofy cis white guy and I can indulge in chin-scratching doofy cis-white "but I don't get it" conversations with the best of them, but I guess my key takeaway here is that my curiosity about these issues doesn't need to be satisfied this very minute.
As somebody with no stakes in play here, if I'm actively hurting somebody just to indulge my doofy cis-white wonderings about, well, anything, really, I'm being a jerk. If somebody is experiencing active harm, their needs far outweigh my 100% passive desire to learn about things that don't really have a direct impact on my tremendously comfortable life.
posted by Shepherd at 11:32 AM on June 15, 2015 [44 favorites]
I don't expect someone to give me a Physics 101 explanation in an astronomy thread. In fact, I don't go into astronomy (or math) threads because I only have the shallowest understanding of wtf they're talking about and I don't want to interrupt the flow of conversation.
People expect to have a learning curve with mathematical or scientific concepts. They don't necessarily have the same expectations regarding comparing their own lived experiences to other peoples'. Personally, I think they should. But I suspect folks who probably wouldn't think twice about stupidly weighing in minority issues (racial, gender-related, identity-related, religious, etc) that don't directly apply to them, are probably a lot more wary of proclaiming their own ignorance in math/science threads. Or they seem more likely to back off and not argue when someone who is obviously more knowledgeable than they are weighs in.
posted by zarq at 11:32 AM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
People expect to have a learning curve with mathematical or scientific concepts. They don't necessarily have the same expectations regarding comparing their own lived experiences to other peoples'. Personally, I think they should. But I suspect folks who probably wouldn't think twice about stupidly weighing in minority issues (racial, gender-related, identity-related, religious, etc) that don't directly apply to them, are probably a lot more wary of proclaiming their own ignorance in math/science threads. Or they seem more likely to back off and not argue when someone who is obviously more knowledgeable than they are weighs in.
posted by zarq at 11:32 AM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
MetaFilter: shut up and don't argue when physicsmatt shows up.
posted by Jacqueline at 11:34 AM on June 15, 2015 [15 favorites]
posted by Jacqueline at 11:34 AM on June 15, 2015 [15 favorites]
People expect to have a learning curve with mathematical or scientific concepts [...]
Also, the dynamic in those types of threads is entirely different. They're often fun topics, and even when they aren't, they're topics that a subset of people really enjoy explaining. They are also generally not topics that are linked with people's identity and the way they get treated in the world. At least, I don't think anyone is going to say they identify as a right triangle and are getting really tired of requests to explain Pythagoras 101.
posted by FishBike at 12:19 PM on June 15, 2015 [10 favorites]
Also, the dynamic in those types of threads is entirely different. They're often fun topics, and even when they aren't, they're topics that a subset of people really enjoy explaining. They are also generally not topics that are linked with people's identity and the way they get treated in the world. At least, I don't think anyone is going to say they identify as a right triangle and are getting really tired of requests to explain Pythagoras 101.
posted by FishBike at 12:19 PM on June 15, 2015 [10 favorites]
I get that we don't want to do conversations we don't do well, but for hot-button topics, there's nowhere else I want to go to talk/read about them. Metafilter does it best! Even if "best" is a relative term.
Yes, but this is a story that currently has very little substance.
The people who "know better" are going to keep quiet and refrain from participating in the thread, which reduces the pool of participants for the discussion down to the clueless few who have drawn their own conclusions before they RTFA.
In this case, I see the deletion as an indicator that MetaFilter has higher standards than the general press. The story isn't ready for public consumption, and we're going to hurt a lot of people if we legitimize it by printing it.
Nobody would have been hurt if The Guardian spent another week tracking down sources for this story, and I'm pretty upset that they didn't. The toxicity of the discussion was a strong indicator that the framing of the story was fundamentally flawed, and I'm glad that we pulled the plug on it.
posted by schmod at 12:37 PM on June 15, 2015 [10 favorites]
Yes, but this is a story that currently has very little substance.
The people who "know better" are going to keep quiet and refrain from participating in the thread, which reduces the pool of participants for the discussion down to the clueless few who have drawn their own conclusions before they RTFA.
In this case, I see the deletion as an indicator that MetaFilter has higher standards than the general press. The story isn't ready for public consumption, and we're going to hurt a lot of people if we legitimize it by printing it.
Nobody would have been hurt if The Guardian spent another week tracking down sources for this story, and I'm pretty upset that they didn't. The toxicity of the discussion was a strong indicator that the framing of the story was fundamentally flawed, and I'm glad that we pulled the plug on it.
posted by schmod at 12:37 PM on June 15, 2015 [10 favorites]
And yet, nearly every physics thread involves at least one comment that begins, [etc]
Scientists are not discriminated against en masse for their identity as scientists (at least not in western countries). They might roll their eyes at basic questions, but they face no constant, pervasive threat to their identity. When people ask questions in science threads, they're not usually questioning the underlying assumptions. I'm sure there's the rare creationist on mefi, but people don't usually argue with the answers they're given. And I can't speak for physicsmatt, but in my experience, a lot of science geeks like explaining things.
posted by desjardins at 12:43 PM on June 15, 2015 [13 favorites]
Scientists are not discriminated against en masse for their identity as scientists (at least not in western countries). They might roll their eyes at basic questions, but they face no constant, pervasive threat to their identity. When people ask questions in science threads, they're not usually questioning the underlying assumptions. I'm sure there's the rare creationist on mefi, but people don't usually argue with the answers they're given. And I can't speak for physicsmatt, but in my experience, a lot of science geeks like explaining things.
posted by desjardins at 12:43 PM on June 15, 2015 [13 favorites]
They don't necessarily have the same expectations regarding comparing their own lived experiences to other peoples'
I was a child, let me tell you about parenting.
I was a student, let me tell you about teaching.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 12:49 PM on June 15, 2015 [6 favorites]
I was a child, let me tell you about parenting.
I was a student, let me tell you about teaching.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 12:49 PM on June 15, 2015 [6 favorites]
And yet, nearly every physics thread involves at least one comment that begins, "As a person who has had no experience in science aside from reading a page out of Discover magazine in my dentist's office in 2003, I would like to explain dark energy thusly..."
I was a child, let me tell you about parenting.
I was a student, let me tell you about teaching.
Yes, those are also stupid deraily rhetorical things people do. I do not understand how that is supposed to justify people doing stupid deraily rhetorical shit about race and LGBT issues.
posted by kagredon at 1:04 PM on June 15, 2015 [6 favorites]
I was a child, let me tell you about parenting.
I was a student, let me tell you about teaching.
Yes, those are also stupid deraily rhetorical things people do. I do not understand how that is supposed to justify people doing stupid deraily rhetorical shit about race and LGBT issues.
posted by kagredon at 1:04 PM on June 15, 2015 [6 favorites]
And I can't speak for physicsmatt, but in my experience, a lot of science geeks like explaining things.
Yeah, and this point is a big reason why I hate it when we veer into Analogyland instead of just talking about the subject. We end up arguing the example, looking for rhetorical footholds that do not exist in the subject that is being represented by the analogy. "But what about physics" completely misses the point of what exactly some people feel is tedious and deraily about Education 101 moments when it comes to race, gender, class, or other areas where oppression runs rampant.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 1:05 PM on June 15, 2015 [13 favorites]
Yeah, and this point is a big reason why I hate it when we veer into Analogyland instead of just talking about the subject. We end up arguing the example, looking for rhetorical footholds that do not exist in the subject that is being represented by the analogy. "But what about physics" completely misses the point of what exactly some people feel is tedious and deraily about Education 101 moments when it comes to race, gender, class, or other areas where oppression runs rampant.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 1:05 PM on June 15, 2015 [13 favorites]
When people ask questions in science threads, they're not usually questioning the underlying assumptions.
It happens. In most threads where there's a significant activism component, GMO, environmental contamination, "organic" food labels, vaccines.
The answer for me is that there is absolutely no requirement for anyone to post on Metafilter, ever. It's frustrating to see work I know a lot about posted and mocked for political rather than science reasons, but no one ever has to respond here. I don't think it helps a great deal to get into those kind of fights either. I did a few times and nothing ever came of it except heartache and frustration.
posted by bonehead at 1:06 PM on June 15, 2015 [5 favorites]
It happens. In most threads where there's a significant activism component, GMO, environmental contamination, "organic" food labels, vaccines.
The answer for me is that there is absolutely no requirement for anyone to post on Metafilter, ever. It's frustrating to see work I know a lot about posted and mocked for political rather than science reasons, but no one ever has to respond here. I don't think it helps a great deal to get into those kind of fights either. I did a few times and nothing ever came of it except heartache and frustration.
posted by bonehead at 1:06 PM on June 15, 2015 [5 favorites]
superficially-maybe-reasonable-sounding abstract questions
I'd just like to push back against this notion, which I've encountered a few times, that arguments about the social construction of race and gender are somehow "abstract" intellectual indulgences to all but a small subsection of site users. The disputes between some transgender activists and some feminists, for example, are not disputes between some people talking about something they really care about, on the one hand, and some other people who don't really care and are just spitballing, on the other.
Who knows whether these things can be discussed civilly on Metafilter or not, but I don't think you can reasonably apply a standard of "let's delete things that upset the people who really care, because the other people don't really care". It's a too-easy way to not have to consider one set of arguments.
posted by oliverburkeman at 1:16 PM on June 15, 2015 [31 favorites]
I'd just like to push back against this notion, which I've encountered a few times, that arguments about the social construction of race and gender are somehow "abstract" intellectual indulgences to all but a small subsection of site users. The disputes between some transgender activists and some feminists, for example, are not disputes between some people talking about something they really care about, on the one hand, and some other people who don't really care and are just spitballing, on the other.
Who knows whether these things can be discussed civilly on Metafilter or not, but I don't think you can reasonably apply a standard of "let's delete things that upset the people who really care, because the other people don't really care". It's a too-easy way to not have to consider one set of arguments.
posted by oliverburkeman at 1:16 PM on June 15, 2015 [31 favorites]
tmotat: I was a child, let me tell you about parenting.
I was a student, let me tell you about teaching.
Yes. Those are opinions informed by lived experiences.
posted by zarq at 1:19 PM on June 15, 2015 [8 favorites]
I was a student, let me tell you about teaching.
Yes. Those are opinions informed by lived experiences.
posted by zarq at 1:19 PM on June 15, 2015 [8 favorites]
Who knows whether these things can be discussed civilly on Metafilter or not, but I don't think you can reasonably apply a standard of "let's delete things that upset the people who really care, because the other people don't really care". It's a too-easy way to not have to consider one set of arguments.
yeah but when there are a bunch of people on one hand who are saying "I have skin in the game, and this was hurtful and here's why" and a bunch of people on the other who are saying "oooh, but it's so hard for me to google some articles about this", maybe there is actually some truth to that dichotomy in this specific case?
posted by kagredon at 1:21 PM on June 15, 2015 [17 favorites]
yeah but when there are a bunch of people on one hand who are saying "I have skin in the game, and this was hurtful and here's why" and a bunch of people on the other who are saying "oooh, but it's so hard for me to google some articles about this", maybe there is actually some truth to that dichotomy in this specific case?
posted by kagredon at 1:21 PM on June 15, 2015 [17 favorites]
languagehat: With all respect, I'm not sure what you mean. Could you elaborate? I mean, "getting a clue" is not a high bar.
Fair point, and within the confines of Metafilter (which I suppose is the domain of MeTa) quite true.
What I meant was that, there is a difference between having "A clue" [emphasis added] and attempting to be clued in in general. The latter does not imply "silenced all my life/OMG censorship" which appeared to be the stark distinction you were making.
But consider that, "getting a clue" is indeed a relatively "high bar" for people with little exposure or experience to smaller communities outside their frame of reference. I think there is a sincere difference between people show no willingness to get a clue and those who have A clue who want to engage with others to get more clues.
And I think this thread has shown that this is where the discussion polarizes, and breaks down.
posted by digitalprimate at 1:26 PM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
Fair point, and within the confines of Metafilter (which I suppose is the domain of MeTa) quite true.
What I meant was that, there is a difference between having "A clue" [emphasis added] and attempting to be clued in in general. The latter does not imply "silenced all my life/OMG censorship" which appeared to be the stark distinction you were making.
But consider that, "getting a clue" is indeed a relatively "high bar" for people with little exposure or experience to smaller communities outside their frame of reference. I think there is a sincere difference between people show no willingness to get a clue and those who have A clue who want to engage with others to get more clues.
And I think this thread has shown that this is where the discussion polarizes, and breaks down.
posted by digitalprimate at 1:26 PM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
I don't want to try to speak for languagehat (ever), but I think the problem often is that those who want to "get a clue" too often don't just stand back in listen but feel the only way to engage is to offer an opinion or playing devil's advocate despite having previously had little exposure to the topic. Often this ends up being done with consideration to the real impact that might have on the community of people to whom they are trying to learn.
I do things like this all the time, and for some topics it probably doesn't matter. But in others, I can see (especially looking over not-as-recent past contributions) where I might have come off as boorish or insensitive to real problems affecting real people.
Because this is often really hard for people to gauge as individuals, when very specific topics tend to trigger moments like this for people, I think it's a good idea for mods to consider them 'hot topics' or 'things Metafilter doesn't do well' or whatever you want to call that.
For those reasons, and I say this as someone who was commenting passionately more-than-my-average in one of the Dolezal threads before it was deleted, I think this example was a good deletion. The topic itself is interesting in the abstract. The biggest problem (as I said in that thread) is that Dolezal didn't seem to deserve her passionate defense. The more we learn, the more right this seems. "Breaking news" plus "an already complex topic" can almost always only equal a good conversation given time. Unfortunately, we can imagine the good conversation so there will probably be instanaces like this one when we can get to 100+ comments and then the mods have to realize "yeah, this thing, this time...not so much"; I'd actually prefer that world to one where we have to just ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ when the train has already started going down a really shitty track.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 1:55 PM on June 15, 2015 [6 favorites]
I do things like this all the time, and for some topics it probably doesn't matter. But in others, I can see (especially looking over not-as-recent past contributions) where I might have come off as boorish or insensitive to real problems affecting real people.
Because this is often really hard for people to gauge as individuals, when very specific topics tend to trigger moments like this for people, I think it's a good idea for mods to consider them 'hot topics' or 'things Metafilter doesn't do well' or whatever you want to call that.
For those reasons, and I say this as someone who was commenting passionately more-than-my-average in one of the Dolezal threads before it was deleted, I think this example was a good deletion. The topic itself is interesting in the abstract. The biggest problem (as I said in that thread) is that Dolezal didn't seem to deserve her passionate defense. The more we learn, the more right this seems. "Breaking news" plus "an already complex topic" can almost always only equal a good conversation given time. Unfortunately, we can imagine the good conversation so there will probably be instanaces like this one when we can get to 100+ comments and then the mods have to realize "yeah, this thing, this time...not so much"; I'd actually prefer that world to one where we have to just ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ when the train has already started going down a really shitty track.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 1:55 PM on June 15, 2015 [6 favorites]
I'd just like to push back against this notion, which I've encountered a few times, that arguments about the social construction of race and gender are somehow "abstract" intellectual indulgences to all but a small subsection of site users. The disputes between some transgender activists and some feminists, for example, are not disputes between some people talking about something they really care about, on the one hand, and some other people who don't really care and are just spitballing, on the other.
There is a world of difference between a trans person saying "I experience discrimination and have difficulty accessing care; this was my experience with how I decided to transition; these are things that could materially help me live in the world" and a TERFy feminist saying "I am angered by trans people claiming that they want to be another gender because gender is just an artifact of the patriarchy". One can care very deeply about an abstraction. The issue is whether such "caring" is the kind of caring that we want in this space given that it is caring by a non-marginalized group about the decisions and actions of a marginalized group.
posted by Frowner at 2:09 PM on June 15, 2015 [29 favorites]
The disputes between some transgender activists and some feminists, for example, are not disputes between some people talking about something they really care about, on the one hand, and some other people who don't really care and are just spitballing, on the other.
Alarm bells. Alarm bells.
posted by Dysk at 2:12 PM on June 15, 2015 [20 favorites]
Alarm bells. Alarm bells.
posted by Dysk at 2:12 PM on June 15, 2015 [20 favorites]
But consider that, "getting a clue" is indeed a relatively "high bar" for people with little exposure or experience to smaller communities outside their frame of reference.
It's really not that a high a bar - many people hurdle it every day.
If you have little exposure or experience to a "smaller" community outside of your frame of reference then maybe you should do some sherlocking first.
In other words: if you are venturing into unknown territory, does it not make sense that you would seek out what resources you can find as to the language, culture, landscape, etc, of the territory you are exploring?
It makes sense if you want to explore with respect and empathy.
posted by jammy at 2:15 PM on June 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
It's really not that a high a bar - many people hurdle it every day.
If you have little exposure or experience to a "smaller" community outside of your frame of reference then maybe you should do some sherlocking first.
In other words: if you are venturing into unknown territory, does it not make sense that you would seek out what resources you can find as to the language, culture, landscape, etc, of the territory you are exploring?
It makes sense if you want to explore with respect and empathy.
posted by jammy at 2:15 PM on June 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
I think the problem often is that those who want to "get a clue" too often don't just stand back in listen but feel the only way to engage is to offer an opinion or playing devil's advocate despite having previously had little exposure to the topic.
Yeah, it seems like "I'm not your teacher" gets deployed most often in response to "this is my opinion" thinly disguised as questions.
posted by Gygesringtone at 2:17 PM on June 15, 2015 [11 favorites]
Yeah, it seems like "I'm not your teacher" gets deployed most often in response to "this is my opinion" thinly disguised as questions.
posted by Gygesringtone at 2:17 PM on June 15, 2015 [11 favorites]
I'd just like to push back against this notion, which I've encountered a few times, that arguments about the social construction of race and gender are somehow "abstract" intellectual indulgences to all but a small subsection of site users. The disputes between some transgender activists and some feminists, for example, are not disputes between some people talking about something they really care about, on the one hand, and some other people who don't really care and are just spitballing, on the other.
The thing is, some people can be just spitballing - "la la, one thing sounds sort of like another, so I will reason by analogy just for the sheer puzzle factor".
Other people can care deeply about and reason about someone else's lived experience while disparaging and overriding what those people have to say about their own experience - sort of an "early 20th century anthropologist" approach. I feel like we as a site have pretty much decided that this is not okay when it's punching down; to be done with caution and frequently frustrating even when it's punching up; and best reserved for things of the "those people drink really hoppy beer, they are barbaric" end of the spectrum.
posted by Frowner at 2:17 PM on June 15, 2015 [12 favorites]
The thing is, some people can be just spitballing - "la la, one thing sounds sort of like another, so I will reason by analogy just for the sheer puzzle factor".
Other people can care deeply about and reason about someone else's lived experience while disparaging and overriding what those people have to say about their own experience - sort of an "early 20th century anthropologist" approach. I feel like we as a site have pretty much decided that this is not okay when it's punching down; to be done with caution and frequently frustrating even when it's punching up; and best reserved for things of the "those people drink really hoppy beer, they are barbaric" end of the spectrum.
posted by Frowner at 2:17 PM on June 15, 2015 [12 favorites]
Just to be clear, my point was not about people caring deeply about or reasoning about other people's lived experience (this could clearly be done in an informed or ignorant, compassionate or bigoted way – and absolutely, ignorant/bigoted is bad) but about their own.
But this is surely the problem with any argument that turns on disagreement between social constructionist and biological/essentialist positions: whether or not a topic is legitimately any of your personal business or not, and whether a given comparison is offensive or not, will be dependent on which of those positions you take.
posted by oliverburkeman at 2:29 PM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
But this is surely the problem with any argument that turns on disagreement between social constructionist and biological/essentialist positions: whether or not a topic is legitimately any of your personal business or not, and whether a given comparison is offensive or not, will be dependent on which of those positions you take.
posted by oliverburkeman at 2:29 PM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
It sure looks like you're inserting a "this is an interesting intellectual topic, let me spitball some thoughts I'm having" into a conversation that's in part about how one person's "interesting intellectual topic" is another person's "I have to deal with this crap all day every day".
posted by Gygesringtone at 2:46 PM on June 15, 2015 [12 favorites]
posted by Gygesringtone at 2:46 PM on June 15, 2015 [12 favorites]
I really think we need to differentiate between issues of race/gender/sexual orientation and pretty much everything else. If someone says something ignorant about your favorite sports team or even your political party, then that's annoying, but it's never going to be comparable to the micro and macro aggressions related to these kind of core identity issues.*
There are a couple key differences that I see. First, gender and race affect all of our interactions with the world. Whether or not they should, they very much do. They're also relatively (although not always completely) fixed. They're not the kind of thing that you can cast on and cast off at will. This is with you in your public and private life, all day, every day. And of course, there's also the issue of privilege, which a lot of people have spoken about much more articulately than I could.
I really don't want to speak for anyone else here, so I'm going to talk about my experience: I'm a a cis-woman. I'm also Jewish (though not really an observant Jew). However I'm white and look pretty WASP-y and have a common American last name, so no one would know I'm Jewish unless I told them. I'm fortunate enough that I don't generally encounter anti-semitism in my day-to-day life. However, the fact that I'm a woman follows me everywhere. And I mean everywhere. It followed me into an inpatient psych ward where this guy asking me on a date and trying to get my number or give me his number. We're literally trapped in the same small space, I'm not allowed to have shoelaces, and this guy is pestering me for a date. Or there was the time I was in an outpatient program, and I had a married man 20 years older than me who kept escalating his 'flirtation' until one day he tried to follow me home. And on a day to day basis, like the other day when I was wearing shorts because it was hot as fuck but of course then I'm getting random comments from men on the street.
I have a lot of things I feel strongly about. My political views, my fandoms of choice, and a whole bunch of other random stuff. On any given day, I might be happy to engage on those topics with someone who is either pretty ignorant on the topic or contrarian, but if I'm not in the mood, then I'll just leave it. And when I'm out running errands, the fact that I'm a total Sherlock fangirl doesn't affect anything. But the fact that I'm a woman does.
I just think we need to keep in mind that when we're dealing with race/gender/sexual orientation, we shouldn't automatically approach those discussions in the same way we would if we were talking about science or pop culture or whatever. Because when you're talking about race/gender/sexual orientation, you're pretty much always going to be talking about someone's personal, daily, lived experience. And we really need to make sure we respect that, and I'm okay with holding discussions that touch on those issues to a much higher bar.
*Is there a better collective word for this? Seems like there should be.
posted by litera scripta manet at 2:48 PM on June 15, 2015 [33 favorites]
There are a couple key differences that I see. First, gender and race affect all of our interactions with the world. Whether or not they should, they very much do. They're also relatively (although not always completely) fixed. They're not the kind of thing that you can cast on and cast off at will. This is with you in your public and private life, all day, every day. And of course, there's also the issue of privilege, which a lot of people have spoken about much more articulately than I could.
I really don't want to speak for anyone else here, so I'm going to talk about my experience: I'm a a cis-woman. I'm also Jewish (though not really an observant Jew). However I'm white and look pretty WASP-y and have a common American last name, so no one would know I'm Jewish unless I told them. I'm fortunate enough that I don't generally encounter anti-semitism in my day-to-day life. However, the fact that I'm a woman follows me everywhere. And I mean everywhere. It followed me into an inpatient psych ward where this guy asking me on a date and trying to get my number or give me his number. We're literally trapped in the same small space, I'm not allowed to have shoelaces, and this guy is pestering me for a date. Or there was the time I was in an outpatient program, and I had a married man 20 years older than me who kept escalating his 'flirtation' until one day he tried to follow me home. And on a day to day basis, like the other day when I was wearing shorts because it was hot as fuck but of course then I'm getting random comments from men on the street.
I have a lot of things I feel strongly about. My political views, my fandoms of choice, and a whole bunch of other random stuff. On any given day, I might be happy to engage on those topics with someone who is either pretty ignorant on the topic or contrarian, but if I'm not in the mood, then I'll just leave it. And when I'm out running errands, the fact that I'm a total Sherlock fangirl doesn't affect anything. But the fact that I'm a woman does.
I just think we need to keep in mind that when we're dealing with race/gender/sexual orientation, we shouldn't automatically approach those discussions in the same way we would if we were talking about science or pop culture or whatever. Because when you're talking about race/gender/sexual orientation, you're pretty much always going to be talking about someone's personal, daily, lived experience. And we really need to make sure we respect that, and I'm okay with holding discussions that touch on those issues to a much higher bar.
*Is there a better collective word for this? Seems like there should be.
posted by litera scripta manet at 2:48 PM on June 15, 2015 [33 favorites]
A while back I was part of a group of Mefites who got together to sing. One of them was rtha.
She's a lovely person with an excellent singing voice, and I've always respected her contributions to MetaFilter.
She's also a check on my conscience. Because it's really simple to ask myself, if I'm about to write something (or say something, or think something): is what I'm about to write (say, think) a thing that will cause pain to this person I know?.
There aren't many things I can think of, that I need to say, that would justify making rtha's day worse.
And it's not much of a step from there to realizing that everyone on MetaFilter is just as real as rtha. Even though I may not have met them in person.
Is what I'm about to write or say or think going to materially make a real person's day worse? That's what it comes down to for me. Sure, it's simplistic, and trite, and so forth. But it sure as hell works to keep me from treating peoples' lives as an abstraction.
posted by scrump at 2:55 PM on June 15, 2015 [24 favorites]
She's a lovely person with an excellent singing voice, and I've always respected her contributions to MetaFilter.
She's also a check on my conscience. Because it's really simple to ask myself, if I'm about to write something (or say something, or think something): is what I'm about to write (say, think) a thing that will cause pain to this person I know?.
There aren't many things I can think of, that I need to say, that would justify making rtha's day worse.
And it's not much of a step from there to realizing that everyone on MetaFilter is just as real as rtha. Even though I may not have met them in person.
Is what I'm about to write or say or think going to materially make a real person's day worse? That's what it comes down to for me. Sure, it's simplistic, and trite, and so forth. But it sure as hell works to keep me from treating peoples' lives as an abstraction.
posted by scrump at 2:55 PM on June 15, 2015 [24 favorites]
But this is surely the problem with any argument that turns on disagreement between social constructionist and biological/essentialist positions: whether or not a topic is legitimately any of your personal business or not, and whether a given comparison is offensive or not, will be dependent on which of those positions you take.
Nope. Whether or not a topic is your business and whether it's offensive largely depends on whether you have any actual skin in the game. If you don't know what you're talking about, you're privileging your alleged thinking over the actual lived experience of other people.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:55 PM on June 15, 2015 [13 favorites]
Nope. Whether or not a topic is your business and whether it's offensive largely depends on whether you have any actual skin in the game. If you don't know what you're talking about, you're privileging your alleged thinking over the actual lived experience of other people.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:55 PM on June 15, 2015 [13 favorites]
I don't want to try to speak for languagehat (ever), but I think the problem often is that those who want to "get a clue" too often don't just stand back in listen
The tricky part here is to neither comment in some tactless or ignorant way, nor to ask a question that can all be too easily read as "sealioning" . This does leave just listening and hoping to learn, but perhaps not actually hearing the answers to the unspoken questions, which clearly some people find frustrating. Anyway, I try pretty hard just to listen on these tricky topics, which on MeFi can be remarkably educational, but it is definitely not my right to be educated by people nor is it my right to have these threads stand.
And I don't ever want to speak for languagehat either: my brain is too small, as is my dictionary.
posted by Rumple at 3:03 PM on June 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
The tricky part here is to neither comment in some tactless or ignorant way, nor to ask a question that can all be too easily read as "sealioning" . This does leave just listening and hoping to learn, but perhaps not actually hearing the answers to the unspoken questions, which clearly some people find frustrating. Anyway, I try pretty hard just to listen on these tricky topics, which on MeFi can be remarkably educational, but it is definitely not my right to be educated by people nor is it my right to have these threads stand.
And I don't ever want to speak for languagehat either: my brain is too small, as is my dictionary.
posted by Rumple at 3:03 PM on June 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
Oh, also:
>Yeah, but in this case, I think the underprivileged in-group in question is the group that wants to be discussing it. There are a lot of implications for the black community and also other communities of color, particularly ones that suffer from erasure and a shortage of scholarships and leadership opportunities,
This is a fair point, and I should have been clearer in my first comment. I was talking about a broader trend, and in doing so, I elided some of the the particulars of this scenario, where there's the intersection of race and trans issues.
One of the reasons I cited the Juneby MeTas is that it seemed like one big hurdle to making the Dolezal discussion okay was the way trans issues were getting pulled in when they had no actual bearing on the topic at hand. It's a tough thing to negotiate, since I don't see it as a matter of favoring trans issues over racial issues (or vice versa), but the trans stuff just did not belong in there at all. And sure, you can say, well just don't read it, but I could totally see someone who is trans going into that thread to discuss the article and race and all of that, and then they get walloped with this other toxic crap about transracial being the same thing as transgender, and to me that's one of the main things that made the thread fundamentally unworkable, especially since that's combined with the other contentious issues that are brought up about what race is and means and racial appropriation and all of that.
Anyway, I apologize for not making this clearer in my first comment. I didn't mean to ignore the mefites who are persons of color that very much did want to have a discussion on this topic. I do hope that a discussion can be had about racial appropriation and racial identity at some point in the near future without the transracial derail.
I totally wrote this comment much earlier in the day, but I had a million windows open, and just realized I forgot to post it.
posted by litera scripta manet at 3:07 PM on June 15, 2015
>Yeah, but in this case, I think the underprivileged in-group in question is the group that wants to be discussing it. There are a lot of implications for the black community and also other communities of color, particularly ones that suffer from erasure and a shortage of scholarships and leadership opportunities,
This is a fair point, and I should have been clearer in my first comment. I was talking about a broader trend, and in doing so, I elided some of the the particulars of this scenario, where there's the intersection of race and trans issues.
One of the reasons I cited the Juneby MeTas is that it seemed like one big hurdle to making the Dolezal discussion okay was the way trans issues were getting pulled in when they had no actual bearing on the topic at hand. It's a tough thing to negotiate, since I don't see it as a matter of favoring trans issues over racial issues (or vice versa), but the trans stuff just did not belong in there at all. And sure, you can say, well just don't read it, but I could totally see someone who is trans going into that thread to discuss the article and race and all of that, and then they get walloped with this other toxic crap about transracial being the same thing as transgender, and to me that's one of the main things that made the thread fundamentally unworkable, especially since that's combined with the other contentious issues that are brought up about what race is and means and racial appropriation and all of that.
Anyway, I apologize for not making this clearer in my first comment. I didn't mean to ignore the mefites who are persons of color that very much did want to have a discussion on this topic. I do hope that a discussion can be had about racial appropriation and racial identity at some point in the near future without the transracial derail.
I totally wrote this comment much earlier in the day, but I had a million windows open, and just realized I forgot to post it.
posted by litera scripta manet at 3:07 PM on June 15, 2015
oliverburkeman: "But this is surely the problem with any argument that turns on disagreement between social constructionist and biological/essentialist positions: whether or not a topic is legitimately any of your personal business or not, and whether a given comparison is offensive or not, will be dependent on which of those positions you take."
The only people that get to choose what position they take are white, male and cisgender. Everyone else gets their position chosen for them, often without their consent.
posted by scrump at 3:16 PM on June 15, 2015 [20 favorites]
The only people that get to choose what position they take are white, male and cisgender. Everyone else gets their position chosen for them, often without their consent.
posted by scrump at 3:16 PM on June 15, 2015 [20 favorites]
I've seen a lot of threads on racial and trans issues where someone came in, asked a question that maybe indicated they were in a relatively privileged or less-knowledgeable position on the issue at hand, had it answered and the thread rolled along smoothly. The main factors in this seem to be:
(a) not asking a question that had been addressed by the FPP links or earlier in the thread (and, ideally, not one that had been addressed in another very recent thread); in general showing an awareness of what had been in the links and the earlier discussion.
(b) acknowledging they were coming from a privileged or less-educated position
(c) showing awareness that they are asking a question about something that is personal to other thread participants
I do not see this as a high bar for asking questions. The behavior that people complain about in Meta re: JAQing off and etc. mainly seems to comprise the opposite of these points:
(a) Asking a question that was addressed recently, or recurrently asking variants on the same question in the same thread ("But what if...") or across many threads.
(b) Ignoring or denying that they lack lived experience with the issue at hand or treating it as unimportant
(c) devaluing the lived experience of other users, speaking as though issues are hypothetical, not respecting the time and effort that other users expend on responding to them.
posted by kagredon at 3:21 PM on June 15, 2015 [32 favorites]
(a) not asking a question that had been addressed by the FPP links or earlier in the thread (and, ideally, not one that had been addressed in another very recent thread); in general showing an awareness of what had been in the links and the earlier discussion.
(b) acknowledging they were coming from a privileged or less-educated position
(c) showing awareness that they are asking a question about something that is personal to other thread participants
I do not see this as a high bar for asking questions. The behavior that people complain about in Meta re: JAQing off and etc. mainly seems to comprise the opposite of these points:
(a) Asking a question that was addressed recently, or recurrently asking variants on the same question in the same thread ("But what if...") or across many threads.
(b) Ignoring or denying that they lack lived experience with the issue at hand or treating it as unimportant
(c) devaluing the lived experience of other users, speaking as though issues are hypothetical, not respecting the time and effort that other users expend on responding to them.
posted by kagredon at 3:21 PM on June 15, 2015 [32 favorites]
Anyway, I try pretty hard just to listen on these tricky topics, which on MeFi can be remarkably educational, but it is definitely not my right to be educated by people nor is it my right to have these threads stand.
The best thing I ever learned to do here (with varying degrees of success) was to try and listen much more than I speak. I think a really good practice for those who are just compelled to write, "yeah, but what if..." comments is to hold on to that feeling for awhile and listen to people telling their stories. Take it in for awhile. The world isn't going to collapse if you don't point out a perceived logical or social irregularity. Sometimes those kinds of questions can be discussed, but more essential to that is treating people as people (or more specifically, as you would want for yourself for your more sensitive lived experiences), knowing them before you draw conclusions in an abstract way.
Squelching the urge to respond quickly is a really good virtue to develop, by the way (and I'm trying to get better at it), and practicing what some mystics and religious people have referred to as a "discipline of silence." What you find is that not always needing to defend an idea or even yourself at the possible expense of Great Justice does not make your world fall apart. It also calms us down a bit and allows us to observe more as we collect information rather than correcting it, which is a great epistemic virtue that contributes better to collective learning.
The benefit to this that is often not anticipated is that listening before speaking also engenders trust in a community, and trust is fundamental to being heard for those times when it's really, really important to press a point. People before ideas, basically. Tend to the first before you tend to the second, although there's something of a symbiotic relationship that exists between the two. But one is definitely the cart that comes after the horse, not before.*
*people are not horses
posted by SpacemanStix at 3:21 PM on June 15, 2015 [12 favorites]
The best thing I ever learned to do here (with varying degrees of success) was to try and listen much more than I speak. I think a really good practice for those who are just compelled to write, "yeah, but what if..." comments is to hold on to that feeling for awhile and listen to people telling their stories. Take it in for awhile. The world isn't going to collapse if you don't point out a perceived logical or social irregularity. Sometimes those kinds of questions can be discussed, but more essential to that is treating people as people (or more specifically, as you would want for yourself for your more sensitive lived experiences), knowing them before you draw conclusions in an abstract way.
Squelching the urge to respond quickly is a really good virtue to develop, by the way (and I'm trying to get better at it), and practicing what some mystics and religious people have referred to as a "discipline of silence." What you find is that not always needing to defend an idea or even yourself at the possible expense of Great Justice does not make your world fall apart. It also calms us down a bit and allows us to observe more as we collect information rather than correcting it, which is a great epistemic virtue that contributes better to collective learning.
The benefit to this that is often not anticipated is that listening before speaking also engenders trust in a community, and trust is fundamental to being heard for those times when it's really, really important to press a point. People before ideas, basically. Tend to the first before you tend to the second, although there's something of a symbiotic relationship that exists between the two. But one is definitely the cart that comes after the horse, not before.*
*people are not horses
posted by SpacemanStix at 3:21 PM on June 15, 2015 [12 favorites]
There were some terribly douchey comments and one commenter who especially would not give it a break in that deleted thread (rangi). If the mods lack the resource/inclination to aggressively police that level of noise, I don't blame them, at all, and I kinda get a vibe some people think this is a judgment on metafilter or mefites as a whole, as if the mods are saying "you, personally, are incapable of having this discussion in a good way" - but I don't think that's the case at all.
You only need a few bad apples to really shit up a thread, and they do ruin it for everyone else. The counter to this is that mods need to be more aggressive with shutting those people/arguments down. I personally as a "pro-censorship" (ha) mefite feel that as a generality, the mods have in fact stepped it up in this respect - but I don't expect them to do it in every case. This was one such case where for a variety o excellently articulated reasons, they chose not to pursue it, cie la vie. They might leave the next thread up with the on-point and vigilant modding it needs.
I'm reluctant to read any trends into this except to recognise that after several gigantic metas, the mods are being conscientious and more deliberate about topics with potential to hurt - and I applaud them for it, and I think we all benefit, if not from this topic, from many of the others they bring this scrutiny to. Thanks, guys.
posted by smoke at 3:34 PM on June 15, 2015 [20 favorites]
You only need a few bad apples to really shit up a thread, and they do ruin it for everyone else. The counter to this is that mods need to be more aggressive with shutting those people/arguments down. I personally as a "pro-censorship" (ha) mefite feel that as a generality, the mods have in fact stepped it up in this respect - but I don't expect them to do it in every case. This was one such case where for a variety o excellently articulated reasons, they chose not to pursue it, cie la vie. They might leave the next thread up with the on-point and vigilant modding it needs.
I'm reluctant to read any trends into this except to recognise that after several gigantic metas, the mods are being conscientious and more deliberate about topics with potential to hurt - and I applaud them for it, and I think we all benefit, if not from this topic, from many of the others they bring this scrutiny to. Thanks, guys.
posted by smoke at 3:34 PM on June 15, 2015 [20 favorites]
The main factors in this seem to be:
The other factor that I see a lot in good interactions of this sort are people then, after having their questions answering, saying thanks and being quiet for a while afterwards. Too often we see people using someone responding to their question as a jumping off point for "Okay I have started a debate, now here is my response to your response..." and while it can be an understandable impetus, to keep that particular conversation going since it's interesting and maybe (being charitable) you are learning things, it's not great dynamics in these sorts of threads.
This is, to my read, where the threads that may be touchy to begin with turn into messy ungood threads. Many people are forgiven for asking a one-off possibly unintentionally ignorant question if they do that and then stand back and let the original discussion continue. Many people are (rightly imo) taken to task for letting their possibly unintentionally ignorant question become an entire derail about what they want to talk about.
I've gotten better, on MeFi, about just being okay with being sometimes (to my mind) misunderstood or living with someone else (sometimes lots of someone elses) just disagreeing with my well-intentioned (though surely sometimes also unintentionally ignorant) comments. I know sometimes it seems like it's going to be more useful for you personally to have your questions about a topic get directly addressed by the entire thread. However it's rarely useful for the thread and I think this is a worthwhile distinction, that the two things can sometimes be different.
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 4:07 PM on June 15, 2015 [39 favorites]
The other factor that I see a lot in good interactions of this sort are people then, after having their questions answering, saying thanks and being quiet for a while afterwards. Too often we see people using someone responding to their question as a jumping off point for "Okay I have started a debate, now here is my response to your response..." and while it can be an understandable impetus, to keep that particular conversation going since it's interesting and maybe (being charitable) you are learning things, it's not great dynamics in these sorts of threads.
This is, to my read, where the threads that may be touchy to begin with turn into messy ungood threads. Many people are forgiven for asking a one-off possibly unintentionally ignorant question if they do that and then stand back and let the original discussion continue. Many people are (rightly imo) taken to task for letting their possibly unintentionally ignorant question become an entire derail about what they want to talk about.
I've gotten better, on MeFi, about just being okay with being sometimes (to my mind) misunderstood or living with someone else (sometimes lots of someone elses) just disagreeing with my well-intentioned (though surely sometimes also unintentionally ignorant) comments. I know sometimes it seems like it's going to be more useful for you personally to have your questions about a topic get directly addressed by the entire thread. However it's rarely useful for the thread and I think this is a worthwhile distinction, that the two things can sometimes be different.
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 4:07 PM on June 15, 2015 [39 favorites]
But this is surely the problem with any argument that turns on disagreement between social constructionist and biological/essentialist positions
Be clear that the 'debate' that you referenced above does not necessarily hinge on that disagreement.
posted by Dysk at 4:09 PM on June 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
Be clear that the 'debate' that you referenced above does not necessarily hinge on that disagreement.
posted by Dysk at 4:09 PM on June 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
It's pretty reasonable to expect people to have a basic level of understanding about a subject before discussing it, no?
but what it is clearly intended to mean is 'go away and come back when you agree with me'
posted by Sebmojo at 4:16 PM on June 15, 2015 [17 favorites]
but what it is clearly intended to mean is 'go away and come back when you agree with me'
posted by Sebmojo at 4:16 PM on June 15, 2015 [17 favorites]
Related to what kagredon said: my default mode for responding to questions on subjects I have a personal stake in as per my lived experience is to respond initially assuming good faith, because sometimes in my own defensiveness I can completely misread someone and end up causing an escalating derail. I'll cop to that. BUT. There are some recurring characters in these kinds of threads who seem to delight in taking some contrarian stance in a very aggressive manner, who willfully ignore thoughtful responses or cherry pick phrases from them out of context and engage in a really tedious and patrician scolding of all us totally unreasonable moral police who should, nay, NEED to be kept honest by the power of the contrarian's rhetoric of righteous criticism. They suck all the fucking oxygen out of a discussion and sap the will to engage at all, let alone to say "holy shit will you get off it already", and then they complain that hey, how am I supposed to learn if you won't teach me?
These people know exactly what they are doing. It's "winning" the argument by wearing everyone else down and killing the thread. It may not break guidelines per se, but if anyone is still wondering why no one wants to do the 101 Dance again and how unfair that is, look no further than the suffocating gas left behind by these crusaders.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 4:16 PM on June 15, 2015 [17 favorites]
These people know exactly what they are doing. It's "winning" the argument by wearing everyone else down and killing the thread. It may not break guidelines per se, but if anyone is still wondering why no one wants to do the 101 Dance again and how unfair that is, look no further than the suffocating gas left behind by these crusaders.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 4:16 PM on June 15, 2015 [17 favorites]
but what it is clearly intended to mean is 'go away and come back when you agree with me'
Have you considered using your ability to read minds over the Internet to get the answers to questions you want to ask?
posted by kagredon at 4:21 PM on June 15, 2015 [35 favorites]
Have you considered using your ability to read minds over the Internet to get the answers to questions you want to ask?
posted by kagredon at 4:21 PM on June 15, 2015 [35 favorites]
I do not see this as a high bar for asking questions.
It's not. And if I can throw in my two cents, if you ask a respectful question and get a long, insightful, thoughtful, philosophical answer in return, one that goes into a lot of foundational principles and background and history, don't respond in a way that dismisses or ignores all that thought and work that someone did for you at your request and only focuses on some shallow or surface issue, or even just re-asks the very same question that someone just was so careful to answer for you. If you disagree with the foundational principles, if you have a different understanding of the background or history, then sure, go there with it, although I'd argue that has a high potential to derail and should probably be taken to memail sooner rather than later. But don't just wave all that aside and ask your same question over again. It's rude.
posted by KathrynT at 4:27 PM on June 15, 2015 [19 favorites]
It's not. And if I can throw in my two cents, if you ask a respectful question and get a long, insightful, thoughtful, philosophical answer in return, one that goes into a lot of foundational principles and background and history, don't respond in a way that dismisses or ignores all that thought and work that someone did for you at your request and only focuses on some shallow or surface issue, or even just re-asks the very same question that someone just was so careful to answer for you. If you disagree with the foundational principles, if you have a different understanding of the background or history, then sure, go there with it, although I'd argue that has a high potential to derail and should probably be taken to memail sooner rather than later. But don't just wave all that aside and ask your same question over again. It's rude.
posted by KathrynT at 4:27 PM on June 15, 2015 [19 favorites]
Sebmojo: "It's pretty reasonable to expect people to have a basic level of understanding about a subject before discussing it, no?
but what it is clearly intended to mean is 'go away and come back when you agree with me'"
I have to ask: do you genuinely believe this? Even after reading the thoughtful responses in this thread, and even after being a part of MetaFilter?
Because it sure reads like a pre-formed one-liner based on a caricature of a strawman. It doesn't come off as contributing to the conversation, and it doesn't come off as a particularly insightful read of MetaFilter.
So I have to wonder what your purpose is in dropping this into the conversation. And I figured it would be charitable to give you a chance to explain, rather than just make an assumption about what you meant.
posted by scrump at 4:35 PM on June 15, 2015 [10 favorites]
but what it is clearly intended to mean is 'go away and come back when you agree with me'"
I have to ask: do you genuinely believe this? Even after reading the thoughtful responses in this thread, and even after being a part of MetaFilter?
Because it sure reads like a pre-formed one-liner based on a caricature of a strawman. It doesn't come off as contributing to the conversation, and it doesn't come off as a particularly insightful read of MetaFilter.
So I have to wonder what your purpose is in dropping this into the conversation. And I figured it would be charitable to give you a chance to explain, rather than just make an assumption about what you meant.
posted by scrump at 4:35 PM on June 15, 2015 [10 favorites]
Whether or not a topic is your business and whether it's offensive largely depends on whether you have any actual skin in the game.
Oh god, but a fucking majority of us do have skin in these games. If you are a woman, you have skin in feminist theory, whether you agree or not. If you are a POC, you have skin in the game of critical race theory, whether you agree or not. Between the two of those, that's a majority of Mefites.
I'm just really frustrated with this idea that anytime academic language gets broken out that it's all just 'theory', as though theory were some nebulous far-off thing that never affected people in the real world. The reason we have theories is because we are suffering and want to know why it is happening and how we can fucking stop it.
posted by corb at 4:43 PM on June 15, 2015 [10 favorites]
Oh god, but a fucking majority of us do have skin in these games. If you are a woman, you have skin in feminist theory, whether you agree or not. If you are a POC, you have skin in the game of critical race theory, whether you agree or not. Between the two of those, that's a majority of Mefites.
I'm just really frustrated with this idea that anytime academic language gets broken out that it's all just 'theory', as though theory were some nebulous far-off thing that never affected people in the real world. The reason we have theories is because we are suffering and want to know why it is happening and how we can fucking stop it.
posted by corb at 4:43 PM on June 15, 2015 [10 favorites]
I came into this thread disappointed that the topic couldn't be discussed at MetaFilter, but now feel pretty opposite after reading how the discourse in the deleted thread(s?) made a lot of trans Mefites feel. Personally, I don't actively consume any social media on a regular basis, so the "transracial" derail was not on my radar as something that would even be a thing, much less be remotely germane to what I initially thought was an interesting question of racial identity.
You know, after writing this, I'm actually feeling somewhat re-disappointed about our inability to respectfully discuss this story, because the trans aspect here is 100% a bigotry/culture-war thing, and has no inherent thematic relation whatsoever to the events in question.
posted by threeants at 4:48 PM on June 15, 2015 [10 favorites]
You know, after writing this, I'm actually feeling somewhat re-disappointed about our inability to respectfully discuss this story, because the trans aspect here is 100% a bigotry/culture-war thing, and has no inherent thematic relation whatsoever to the events in question.
posted by threeants at 4:48 PM on June 15, 2015 [10 favorites]
I'm reluctant to read any trends into this except to recognise that after several gigantic metas, the mods are being conscientious and more deliberate about topics with potential to hurt - and I applaud them for it, and I think we all benefit, if not from this topic, from many of the others they bring this scrutiny to. Thanks, guys.
I'm kind of hoping LobsterMitten's comment at the top of this thread is a watershed moment. I can't think of another circumstance where we've had the mods actually make a stand and say "Your desire for a what feels like a nice abstract discussion of a hypothetical does not outweigh the burden it puts on others for whom it is not so hypothetical."
posted by hoyland at 4:52 PM on June 15, 2015 [33 favorites]
I'm kind of hoping LobsterMitten's comment at the top of this thread is a watershed moment. I can't think of another circumstance where we've had the mods actually make a stand and say "Your desire for a what feels like a nice abstract discussion of a hypothetical does not outweigh the burden it puts on others for whom it is not so hypothetical."
posted by hoyland at 4:52 PM on June 15, 2015 [33 favorites]
because the trans aspect here is 100% a bigotry/culture-war thing, and has no inherent thematic relation whatsoever to the events in question.
So at the risk of getting flamed I think the whole Dolezal situation opens up a lot of questions about essential/assigned identity versus self identity which is, at least I think, a pretty major issue for transgender people. Maybe the point where self-constructed identity crosses over with appropriation is obvious to you, it's not totally obvious to me.
That said, I don't think the comparison is infinitely interesting and for all the people that said they thought it was a bad comparison I'm willing to respect their opinions. And god only knows I'm not going to tell black people what their opinions should be on the matter. I get my opinion and that's more than enough.
But Metafilter don't have to host every possible discussion and while I wish this could have worked, if it didn't, it didn't.
posted by GuyZero at 4:57 PM on June 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
So at the risk of getting flamed I think the whole Dolezal situation opens up a lot of questions about essential/assigned identity versus self identity which is, at least I think, a pretty major issue for transgender people. Maybe the point where self-constructed identity crosses over with appropriation is obvious to you, it's not totally obvious to me.
That said, I don't think the comparison is infinitely interesting and for all the people that said they thought it was a bad comparison I'm willing to respect their opinions. And god only knows I'm not going to tell black people what their opinions should be on the matter. I get my opinion and that's more than enough.
But Metafilter don't have to host every possible discussion and while I wish this could have worked, if it didn't, it didn't.
posted by GuyZero at 4:57 PM on June 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
I know it's interesting but again, we are really, really not going to discuss the nature of gender identity here.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 4:59 PM on June 15, 2015 [13 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 4:59 PM on June 15, 2015 [13 favorites]
I'm kind of hoping LobsterMitten's comment at the top of this thread is a watershed moment.
Yeah, I perked up at that, too. It was a clear and concise identification of one of the most noxious elements of internet discussion.
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:05 PM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I perked up at that, too. It was a clear and concise identification of one of the most noxious elements of internet discussion.
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:05 PM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
Did I really just badly repeat what LobsterMitten wrote at the very top of the thread?
Huh.
Well, there it is. My only defence is that it's been a long thread. Sorry about that.
posted by GuyZero at 5:09 PM on June 15, 2015
Huh.
Well, there it is. My only defence is that it's been a long thread. Sorry about that.
posted by GuyZero at 5:09 PM on June 15, 2015
(Not at all, you're fine; I'm glad we agree!)
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 5:22 PM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 5:22 PM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
Dostoyevsky had a knack for fucking up omnipotence.
Fair deletions. I was concerned the posts stayed up for awhile but a mistake acknowledged goes along way.
posted by clavdivs at 5:23 PM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
Fair deletions. I was concerned the posts stayed up for awhile but a mistake acknowledged goes along way.
posted by clavdivs at 5:23 PM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
but what it is clearly intended to mean is 'go away and come back when you agree with me'
Yes. And on social justice issues, on equality issues, I--and I'm guessing, a wide swath of the userbase--am entirely comfortable saying exactly that thing. We don't need to hear more fucking bigotry.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:39 PM on June 15, 2015 [14 favorites]
Yes. And on social justice issues, on equality issues, I--and I'm guessing, a wide swath of the userbase--am entirely comfortable saying exactly that thing. We don't need to hear more fucking bigotry.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:39 PM on June 15, 2015 [14 favorites]
That just pushed the discussion up a level as we see from time to time. Instead of arguing about whether or not bigotry is acceptable (since the consensus is now that it is not) you get arguments about what constitutes bigotry and what constitutes legitimate disagreement. And it takes discussion to hash out which is which.
posted by Justinian at 5:58 PM on June 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 5:58 PM on June 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
(I didn't see any of the Dolezal threads before they were axed so they may well have been full of clear bigotry, I have no idea.)
posted by Justinian at 6:01 PM on June 15, 2015
posted by Justinian at 6:01 PM on June 15, 2015
I'm okay with that hashing being here on the Grey rather than over there on the Blue, though.
posted by Etrigan at 6:02 PM on June 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Etrigan at 6:02 PM on June 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
This is, to my read, where the threads that may be touchy to begin with turn into messy ungood threads. Many people are forgiven for asking a one-off possibly unintentionally ignorant question if they do that and then stand back and let the original discussion continue. Many people are (rightly imo) taken to task for letting their possibly unintentionally ignorant question become an entire derail about what they want to talk about.
The other problem is that someone posts a not-super-great question, and then 20 people respond. Now the thread is, at least temporarily, about that question.
It's not always just that person coming back for more, it's that the question or presumption takes such a stinky dump on the thread that everyone feels they need to call it out.
posted by emptythought at 6:13 PM on June 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
The other problem is that someone posts a not-super-great question, and then 20 people respond. Now the thread is, at least temporarily, about that question.
It's not always just that person coming back for more, it's that the question or presumption takes such a stinky dump on the thread that everyone feels they need to call it out.
posted by emptythought at 6:13 PM on June 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
Corb, I've actually commented in the past about the way the "it's not abstract for some of us" line sometimes comes out like "oh this is just fun and games to you" when it seems to me that people are discussing important stuff and trying to balance out their positions on intersecting issues. I know "not a safe space" doesn't mean "you can say whatever the hell you want" but sometimes when I see that response it does feel like a request for a de facto safe space - which I am fine with really but which I would prefer to be written policy. But that's because I believe "unsafe" discussions (and the no-skin-in-the-game perspective in fact) are of practical value in some situations. I don't really find this to be one of those situations, not least because trans equality and racial equality are not conflicting goals.
posted by atoxyl at 6:16 PM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by atoxyl at 6:16 PM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
"It's not always just that person coming back for more, it's that the question or presumption takes such a stinky dump on the thread that everyone feels they need to call it out."
This made reading most of these posts worth it.
T
posted by Andrew Thewes at 7:09 PM on June 15, 2015
This made reading most of these posts worth it.
T
posted by Andrew Thewes at 7:09 PM on June 15, 2015
One comment deleted. We're not going to discuss Dolezal or what the media are saying about her in here.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:48 PM on June 15, 2015
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:48 PM on June 15, 2015
Are you kidding? I didn't discuss what the media was saying, I just said CNN was doing a piece. I can open up another Meta over that deletion if you'd like. But that's an absolutely absurd deletion.
posted by Justinian at 7:52 PM on June 15, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 7:52 PM on June 15, 2015 [4 favorites]
This is Meta, the standards for deletion have been long hashed out. You shouldn't be unilaterally changing them.
posted by Justinian at 7:53 PM on June 15, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 7:53 PM on June 15, 2015 [6 favorites]
It's not relevant to the site issues we're discussing here. I've been consistently stating through this whole thread: don't bring discussion of Dolezal herself, or the idea of "transracialism", in here, that's not what this thread is about.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:55 PM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:55 PM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
That's not what has been the standard for deletions in Metatalk for 15 years. Are you saying that the new standard is you unilaterally declaring what topics are and are not allowed to be discussed and deleting anything you consider even slightly off topic?
That's never been the standard and such a change would seem to me to be something that needs to be hashed on, yes, here on Metatalk.
posted by Justinian at 7:57 PM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
That's never been the standard and such a change would seem to me to be something that needs to be hashed on, yes, here on Metatalk.
posted by Justinian at 7:57 PM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
MetaTalk is for discussing site issues. It's been a longstanding thing that mods sometimes need to say "look, don't argue I/P in here, this is not the place for that." This is a case like that.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:59 PM on June 15, 2015 [14 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:59 PM on June 15, 2015 [14 favorites]
And virtually never deleted anything, up to and including inane comments about RECIPES which have no bearing on the subject. The only thing that ever gets deleted in Metatalk are blatant personal attacks. You're plain wrong here.
posted by Justinian at 8:01 PM on June 15, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 8:01 PM on June 15, 2015 [5 favorites]
To put it another way, you've apparently unilaterally decided to start applying the moderation standards of the Blue to the Gray and I don't think you should be able to do that, certainly not without any sort of discussion.
posted by Justinian at 8:02 PM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 8:02 PM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
I feel like what she said was clear and this has been a topic that's been a giant mess. It's a meta-discussion not a discussion about Dolezal.
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 8:04 PM on June 15, 2015 [22 favorites]
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 8:04 PM on June 15, 2015 [22 favorites]
Deletions above and beyond for just "fuck you no fuck you!" Have been happening at least a couple of years now and I don't think it's a bad thing. I don't think mods should be required to tell multiple people multiple times that we are not discussing the subject of the deleted post here just because multiple people don't read the comments.
Why'd you post that link, anyway? We're not fricking discussing it! So why? So what if CNN is talking about it? And if they are they are not exactly obscure: people will find out elsewhere that CNN did a blather on it.
posted by rtha at 8:07 PM on June 15, 2015 [6 favorites]
Why'd you post that link, anyway? We're not fricking discussing it! So why? So what if CNN is talking about it? And if they are they are not exactly obscure: people will find out elsewhere that CNN did a blather on it.
posted by rtha at 8:07 PM on June 15, 2015 [6 favorites]
I didn't post a link. "The news is talking about this right now" with the implication that therefore it is the type of post which should be able to stand is a meta-discussion.
posted by Justinian at 8:08 PM on June 15, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 8:08 PM on June 15, 2015 [6 favorites]
I thought that for at least the past few months there has been a trend towards increased pruning in Metatalk for various reasons. And hell, I don't think recipes have really been okay here for a while now, have they? I thought those had started going away even before the mod staff cutbacks last year.
Acting like this is a case of LobsterMitten going rogue seems kind of ridiculous.
posted by DingoMutt at 8:10 PM on June 15, 2015 [15 favorites]
Acting like this is a case of LobsterMitten going rogue seems kind of ridiculous.
posted by DingoMutt at 8:10 PM on June 15, 2015 [15 favorites]
Well, that would apparently need to be a whole different Metatalk. I do think the moderation is this particular thread has been well beyond what we generally see and, yeah, I think that's a problem.
posted by Justinian at 8:11 PM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 8:11 PM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
I cannot even begin to count the number of times the mods have told people that a post in the grey about a deleted item is for talking about the deletion decision and policy, not talking about the content of what was deleted -- that is, that it is absolutely not to be used as a proxy for discussing the topic as if it were a post on the blue. That CNN is writing about the topic is not relevant to whether it should or should not have been deleted.
If you've been here 15 years and don't know that, you haven't been paying attention.
posted by tocts at 8:12 PM on June 15, 2015 [23 favorites]
If you've been here 15 years and don't know that, you haven't been paying attention.
posted by tocts at 8:12 PM on June 15, 2015 [23 favorites]
I was one of the people who commented in the second thread.
I was in the middle of a follow-up comment when the thread was deleted, which would have clearly explained why the qualifiers for Black identities are vastly different and otherwise incomparable to that of other marginalized communities. It seemed necessary. It should not have been.
And I also saw how hurtful my response to the whole "but what if she feels trapped in a white body?" line of reasoning and transracialism could have read to trans* people who had no clue why their matters of identity were being dragged into a conversation about Black communities and this woman. If you switch out a few race-specific words, it looks just like a TERF screed. I'm incredibly sorry for that.
posted by Ashen at 8:13 PM on June 15, 2015 [17 favorites]
I was in the middle of a follow-up comment when the thread was deleted, which would have clearly explained why the qualifiers for Black identities are vastly different and otherwise incomparable to that of other marginalized communities. It seemed necessary. It should not have been.
And I also saw how hurtful my response to the whole "but what if she feels trapped in a white body?" line of reasoning and transracialism could have read to trans* people who had no clue why their matters of identity were being dragged into a conversation about Black communities and this woman. If you switch out a few race-specific words, it looks just like a TERF screed. I'm incredibly sorry for that.
posted by Ashen at 8:13 PM on June 15, 2015 [17 favorites]
> "The news is talking about this right now" with the implication that therefore it is the type of post which should be able to stand is a meta-discussion.
Why? We are not talking about that. We are talking about the policy of handling threads like these, not whether someone else is talking about them - who cares?
(Also? We haven't had recipes in meTas for a good five years, at least not in contentious/policy-discussion meTas.)
posted by rtha at 8:16 PM on June 15, 2015 [11 favorites]
Why? We are not talking about that. We are talking about the policy of handling threads like these, not whether someone else is talking about them - who cares?
(Also? We haven't had recipes in meTas for a good five years, at least not in contentious/policy-discussion meTas.)
posted by rtha at 8:16 PM on June 15, 2015 [11 favorites]
It's been less than that but they've certainly been getting pushback for five years. But "recipes" was just a placeholder for "things tangentially related to the topic of the thread" which are common.
posted by Justinian at 8:19 PM on June 15, 2015
posted by Justinian at 8:19 PM on June 15, 2015
"The news is talking about this right now" with the implication that therefore it is the type of post which should be able to stand is a meta-discussion.
Last I checked, "CNN is talking about this" is not the standard that we use to determine whether an FPP should stand or not. It's a matter of "Is this content worthy of an FPP?" and "Is this a discussion we can have without it turning into a clusterfuck?"
These FPPs may or may not have satisfied the first part, but as demonstrated by the second deleted Dolezal FPP, they definitely failed the "not a clusterfuck" standard.
posted by litera scripta manet at 8:22 PM on June 15, 2015 [5 favorites]
Last I checked, "CNN is talking about this" is not the standard that we use to determine whether an FPP should stand or not. It's a matter of "Is this content worthy of an FPP?" and "Is this a discussion we can have without it turning into a clusterfuck?"
These FPPs may or may not have satisfied the first part, but as demonstrated by the second deleted Dolezal FPP, they definitely failed the "not a clusterfuck" standard.
posted by litera scripta manet at 8:22 PM on June 15, 2015 [5 favorites]
I think it's a fine deletion, but a not-great deletion reason; saying 'perhaps when more information comes out' would have been maybe a bit more appropriate, and along with letting things calm down and there being more information, the transgender derail can be cut off whenever it rears its ugly head.
That being said, I would generally like more information from those who express their dislike; too often nowadays commenters will just say how terrible a thread is or that they noped out or that it's as bad as reddit, but if you don't see it they're not there to educate you and that's your privilege blinding you to how horrible these discussions are. The lack of specificity creates a wall of 'because I said so' which is uninformative, unwelcoming, and grounds threads like this in opinion rather than example.
They also tend to drown out, in the sense that negative comments are 'louder' than positive comments, those few times when users are specific, do provide examples, do point and explain. The tendency to immediately dismiss questioners as sealioning or disingenuous (and the implied addition that they are therefore deserving of contempt) makes the site have more general deterrents than actually needed.
posted by gadge emeritus at 8:24 PM on June 15, 2015 [12 favorites]
That being said, I would generally like more information from those who express their dislike; too often nowadays commenters will just say how terrible a thread is or that they noped out or that it's as bad as reddit, but if you don't see it they're not there to educate you and that's your privilege blinding you to how horrible these discussions are. The lack of specificity creates a wall of 'because I said so' which is uninformative, unwelcoming, and grounds threads like this in opinion rather than example.
They also tend to drown out, in the sense that negative comments are 'louder' than positive comments, those few times when users are specific, do provide examples, do point and explain. The tendency to immediately dismiss questioners as sealioning or disingenuous (and the implied addition that they are therefore deserving of contempt) makes the site have more general deterrents than actually needed.
posted by gadge emeritus at 8:24 PM on June 15, 2015 [12 favorites]
This MeTa is happening in the context of several recent Blue and Grey threads that actively hurt trans members of the site to the point that several people left because they were unsafe here. It's happening in the context of a national conversation about what it means to be trans that is bringing every bigot and her cousin out of the woodwork to opine loudly.It's happening in the context of a national conversation about the devaluation of Black life, and a corresponding rise in documentation of anti-Black violence by white police agencies at the behest of white power structures. Given the context, it should not surprise anyone that this MeTa is very personal and sensitive to a couple of minority populations in the MetaFilter community, and that moderation is going to be pretty stringent.
posted by gingerest at 8:34 PM on June 15, 2015 [33 favorites]
posted by gingerest at 8:34 PM on June 15, 2015 [33 favorites]
> That being said, I would generally like more information from those who express their dislike
A lot of people here have discussed this in pretty decent detail. Is there something beyond this that you would like? Can you be specific about what, exactly?
posted by rtha at 8:35 PM on June 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
A lot of people here have discussed this in pretty decent detail. Is there something beyond this that you would like? Can you be specific about what, exactly?
posted by rtha at 8:35 PM on June 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
We are not talking about that. We are talking about the policy of handling threads like these, not whether someone else is talking about them - who cares?
Yes, this. Like right off the bat, the point was made a couple times very early in the thread that this is not the place for discussing the subject of the FPP by proxy, but to discuss the moderation of said FPP. Which is the bog standard basis for what MeTa is for, so to my mind it seems pretty consistent MeTa moderatening.
They also tend to drown out, in the sense that negative comments are 'louder' than positive comments, those few times when users are specific, do provide examples, do point and explain.
My experience is that the shouty, scolding "prove me wrong" contrarians are the ones who tend to drown out any reasonable or thoughtful responses, as they either deliberately ignore them, mischaracterize them, or cherry pick phrases out of context to piggyback some quixotic point they're trying to make. I don't think there's a dearth of information, here or really anywhere else on the internet, that can shed light on particular positions for the truly curious.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 8:36 PM on June 15, 2015 [12 favorites]
Yes, this. Like right off the bat, the point was made a couple times very early in the thread that this is not the place for discussing the subject of the FPP by proxy, but to discuss the moderation of said FPP. Which is the bog standard basis for what MeTa is for, so to my mind it seems pretty consistent MeTa moderatening.
They also tend to drown out, in the sense that negative comments are 'louder' than positive comments, those few times when users are specific, do provide examples, do point and explain.
My experience is that the shouty, scolding "prove me wrong" contrarians are the ones who tend to drown out any reasonable or thoughtful responses, as they either deliberately ignore them, mischaracterize them, or cherry pick phrases out of context to piggyback some quixotic point they're trying to make. I don't think there's a dearth of information, here or really anywhere else on the internet, that can shed light on particular positions for the truly curious.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 8:36 PM on June 15, 2015 [12 favorites]
The inability of this site to actually discuss an issue with these considerations is emblematic of why this site is a hollow shell of its former self. This is a discussion board for very fragile people now. What a waste.
posted by Mayor Curley at 8:44 PM on June 15, 2015 [18 favorites]
posted by Mayor Curley at 8:44 PM on June 15, 2015 [18 favorites]
It's pretty easy to talk about how fragile people are when you're not in a position of being under siege.
posted by gingerest at 8:46 PM on June 15, 2015 [34 favorites]
posted by gingerest at 8:46 PM on June 15, 2015 [34 favorites]
It is kind of odd that we can't discuss the topic in MetaFilter OR in MetaTalk, but it is being discussed on every national news program tonight, and no doubt in every newsweekly magazine next week.
posted by yhbc at 8:47 PM on June 15, 2015 [13 favorites]
posted by yhbc at 8:47 PM on June 15, 2015 [13 favorites]
Oh, spare me. I can read the archives just like you, just like anyone else. A lot of those discussions back in the "good" old days were shitty and terrible and preemptively chased off a lot of voices that are here now and speak now. You all were not some bunch of iconoclastic freedom-truth-speakers with no echo chamber. It was just saying shitty stuff and not getting called out for it.
posted by rtha at 8:48 PM on June 15, 2015 [61 favorites]
posted by rtha at 8:48 PM on June 15, 2015 [61 favorites]
(That was to Mayor Curley, btw. Slow internet tonight.)
posted by rtha at 8:49 PM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by rtha at 8:49 PM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
A lot of people here have discussed this in pretty decent detail.
No, a lot of people have said it was a shitshow and terrible. Few have gone into why and how. Those few are much appreciated, but also get very easily lost in the long line of commenters simply expressing their distaste. Even a link to a comment that says what they agree with would help, rather than just a wall of nope.
Everyone here misreads, or skims, or won't fully take in everything they're reading at once at least some of the time. And it's been well-established by now, especially by the mods, how negative voices are more heavily weighed than positive ones. Pointing out a particular comment, or just a few words to say say more, can differentiate for the site the difference between 'this is bad because I said so' and 'this is bad because I saw this example, which is bad' - not even a whole explanation, just more than 'it was terrible, you're all terrible' - would help.
This isn't directed to any one issue, just one approach to the site. 'This is bad' is essentially meaningless when coming from a random other user. Adding a because allows very important context.
posted by gadge emeritus at 8:51 PM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
No, a lot of people have said it was a shitshow and terrible. Few have gone into why and how. Those few are much appreciated, but also get very easily lost in the long line of commenters simply expressing their distaste. Even a link to a comment that says what they agree with would help, rather than just a wall of nope.
Everyone here misreads, or skims, or won't fully take in everything they're reading at once at least some of the time. And it's been well-established by now, especially by the mods, how negative voices are more heavily weighed than positive ones. Pointing out a particular comment, or just a few words to say say more, can differentiate for the site the difference between 'this is bad because I said so' and 'this is bad because I saw this example, which is bad' - not even a whole explanation, just more than 'it was terrible, you're all terrible' - would help.
This isn't directed to any one issue, just one approach to the site. 'This is bad' is essentially meaningless when coming from a random other user. Adding a because allows very important context.
posted by gadge emeritus at 8:51 PM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
I'm a doofy cis white guy and I can indulge in chin-scratching doofy cis-white "but I don't get it" conversations with the best of them ...
[33 favorites +] [!]
so much about Mefi is contained in these words
posted by jayder at 8:52 PM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
[33 favorites +] [!]
so much about Mefi is contained in these words
posted by jayder at 8:52 PM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
It was just saying shitty stuff and not getting called out for it.
Nah, it was actual discussion. People actually dissented without their comment or the whole goddamn thread getting deleted to prevent the squeakiest wheels from suffering the indignity of being contradicted.
posted by Mayor Curley at 8:56 PM on June 15, 2015 [15 favorites]
Nah, it was actual discussion. People actually dissented without their comment or the whole goddamn thread getting deleted to prevent the squeakiest wheels from suffering the indignity of being contradicted.
posted by Mayor Curley at 8:56 PM on June 15, 2015 [15 favorites]
The inability of this site to actually discuss an issue with these considerations is emblematic of why this site is a hollow shell of its former self. This is a discussion board for very fragile people now. What a waste.
You are literally saying that the framing of these discussions must be left up to the people that these discussions aren't even about, because the people these discussions are about are too 'fragile' to handle it.
I don't even know where to begin with how and why that's completely not okay.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:57 PM on June 15, 2015 [21 favorites]
You are literally saying that the framing of these discussions must be left up to the people that these discussions aren't even about, because the people these discussions are about are too 'fragile' to handle it.
I don't even know where to begin with how and why that's completely not okay.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:57 PM on June 15, 2015 [21 favorites]
Jaydar, I'm not sure of your intention in quoting only the first half of that comment, but I think the second half is fairly important, and you not quoting it is somewhat baffling.
The full sentence was:
I'm a doofy cis white guy and I can indulge in chin-scratching doofy cis-white "but I don't get it" conversations with the best of them, but I guess my key takeaway here is that my curiosity about these issues doesn't need to be satisfied this very minute.
posted by dotgirl at 8:58 PM on June 15, 2015 [13 favorites]
The full sentence was:
I'm a doofy cis white guy and I can indulge in chin-scratching doofy cis-white "but I don't get it" conversations with the best of them, but I guess my key takeaway here is that my curiosity about these issues doesn't need to be satisfied this very minute.
posted by dotgirl at 8:58 PM on June 15, 2015 [13 favorites]
> to prevent the squeakiest wheels from suffering the indignity of being contradicted.
This is how you talk about people who are right here? Why the fuck would anyone want to "discuss" something with you? Bleh. This is tiresome bullshit.
And... are you not squeaky right now? You sound pretty whiny and sour-grapes to me, is what. Can't stand it, stay out of it.
posted by rtha at 8:59 PM on June 15, 2015 [56 favorites]
This is how you talk about people who are right here? Why the fuck would anyone want to "discuss" something with you? Bleh. This is tiresome bullshit.
And... are you not squeaky right now? You sound pretty whiny and sour-grapes to me, is what. Can't stand it, stay out of it.
posted by rtha at 8:59 PM on June 15, 2015 [56 favorites]
A lot of those discussions back in the "good" old days were shitty and terrible and preemptively chased off a lot of voices that are here now and speak now.
one fourcheesemac or devymetal (to name just two great members chased off by the growing harsh/shrill/bully/shutin culture of this site) is worth ten, no, a hundred of the current Mefi's mascot members.
posted by jayder at 8:59 PM on June 15, 2015 [6 favorites]
one fourcheesemac or devymetal (to name just two great members chased off by the growing harsh/shrill/bully/shutin culture of this site) is worth ten, no, a hundred of the current Mefi's mascot members.
posted by jayder at 8:59 PM on June 15, 2015 [6 favorites]
It's preferable to be chasing off women and/or trans people and/or QUILTBAG people and/or people of colour by making them/us feel uncomfortable and unsafe, is it?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:01 PM on June 15, 2015 [11 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:01 PM on June 15, 2015 [11 favorites]
It's funny how these tiresome complaints about the current "echo chamber" of *~tender sensibilities~* harken back to the good old days when the most societally marginalized were shouted down and made to feel unwelcome, leaving nothing but a space for the majority. Almost as if it were some kind of contained space, wherein voices reverberate off the walls. Wish there was a name for that.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 9:01 PM on June 15, 2015 [33 favorites]
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 9:01 PM on June 15, 2015 [33 favorites]
It is kind of odd that we can't discuss the topic in MetaFilter OR in MetaTalk, but it is being discussed on every national news program tonight, and no doubt in every newsweekly magazine next week.
Yeah, in a wistful way I agree, I'd like for these tough topics to go better here. But on the flip side, we have discussions that those giant national outlets can't have, because we're a different kind of space. We try to maintain some kind of community baseline of knowing each other and being considerate of members who say (en masse and over time) that something is seriously offensive to them. Yes, it means the site culture has changed some.
Mayor Curley and jayder, if you want to have a real discussion that's fine but don't come in here just to be insulting and stir the pot.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:03 PM on June 15, 2015 [7 favorites]
Yeah, in a wistful way I agree, I'd like for these tough topics to go better here. But on the flip side, we have discussions that those giant national outlets can't have, because we're a different kind of space. We try to maintain some kind of community baseline of knowing each other and being considerate of members who say (en masse and over time) that something is seriously offensive to them. Yes, it means the site culture has changed some.
Mayor Curley and jayder, if you want to have a real discussion that's fine but don't come in here just to be insulting and stir the pot.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:03 PM on June 15, 2015 [7 favorites]
Nah, it was actual discussion
Nah. It was shitty. The fact that you like shitty discussion doesn't change a searchable archive of "I'd hit it," silencing tactics, bullying potshots, and women and others noping out every other month.
Sorry. We have to share this site now, and that involves a higher standard of behavior than was tolerated before.
posted by maxsparber at 9:03 PM on June 15, 2015 [29 favorites]
Nah. It was shitty. The fact that you like shitty discussion doesn't change a searchable archive of "I'd hit it," silencing tactics, bullying potshots, and women and others noping out every other month.
Sorry. We have to share this site now, and that involves a higher standard of behavior than was tolerated before.
posted by maxsparber at 9:03 PM on June 15, 2015 [29 favorites]
It's pretty easy to talk about how fragile people are when you're not in a position of being under siege.
How are you under siege here? You're not in any physical danger. What you're saying is that you shouldn't have to see opinions that you think are stupid, mean, naive or contradictory. Well, that's not how knowledge grows or opinions get changed.
What you really want a site that features commiseration about how everyone unlike you is a Philistine. Congrats! You got it!
posted by Mayor Curley at 9:04 PM on June 15, 2015 [17 favorites]
How are you under siege here? You're not in any physical danger. What you're saying is that you shouldn't have to see opinions that you think are stupid, mean, naive or contradictory. Well, that's not how knowledge grows or opinions get changed.
What you really want a site that features commiseration about how everyone unlike you is a Philistine. Congrats! You got it!
posted by Mayor Curley at 9:04 PM on June 15, 2015 [17 favorites]
squeakiest wheels from suffering the indignity of being contradicted.
This isn't about the fragile squeaky wheels not wanting to be contradicted. This is about people, actual, real live metafilter members, who are forced to deal with this stuff everywhere they go, and they rightfully are asking that metafilter not be another hostile place where the louder privileged voices among us are allowed to dominate conversations.
Metafilter is at its best when it's a place where we take it as a given that bigotry and sexism and racism are fundamentally not okay. That should be the baseline we're starting from. We should do whatever is necessary to protect that baseline. I'm okay with a few privileged voices not getting to throw in their shitty contrarian opinions so that we can make sure that this is a safe space for all members.
posted by litera scripta manet at 9:06 PM on June 15, 2015 [22 favorites]
This isn't about the fragile squeaky wheels not wanting to be contradicted. This is about people, actual, real live metafilter members, who are forced to deal with this stuff everywhere they go, and they rightfully are asking that metafilter not be another hostile place where the louder privileged voices among us are allowed to dominate conversations.
Metafilter is at its best when it's a place where we take it as a given that bigotry and sexism and racism are fundamentally not okay. That should be the baseline we're starting from. We should do whatever is necessary to protect that baseline. I'm okay with a few privileged voices not getting to throw in their shitty contrarian opinions so that we can make sure that this is a safe space for all members.
posted by litera scripta manet at 9:06 PM on June 15, 2015 [22 favorites]
No, what we're saying is that we shouldn't have to put up with bigotry.
You are digging yourself into a really, really deep hole here.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:06 PM on June 15, 2015 [15 favorites]
You are digging yourself into a really, really deep hole here.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:06 PM on June 15, 2015 [15 favorites]
(not you, lsm)
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:07 PM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:07 PM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
"He never physically hurt anyone"
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 9:07 PM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 9:07 PM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
I'm an overeducated middle-aged affluent cis white woman. I'm not under siege. I'm sympathetic to those who are, and I know about their difficulties because mostly I shut up and listen.
posted by gingerest at 9:08 PM on June 15, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by gingerest at 9:08 PM on June 15, 2015 [4 favorites]
Mayor Curley and jayder, if you want to have a real discussion that's fine but don't come in here just to be insulting and stir the pot.
I came in to say what I said because I believe it is applicable to the topic at hand. That is all. I am expressing my dissatisfaction publicly and that's all. It was acceptable at one point.
posted by Mayor Curley at 9:08 PM on June 15, 2015 [13 favorites]
I came in to say what I said because I believe it is applicable to the topic at hand. That is all. I am expressing my dissatisfaction publicly and that's all. It was acceptable at one point.
posted by Mayor Curley at 9:08 PM on June 15, 2015 [13 favorites]
It's not relevant to the site issues we're discussing here.
Yes, it is. Much of this discussion has been about how and whether some of these components can or should be part of a MetaFilter thread on the subject. It's relevant that CNN, or the NYTimes or any other major outlet, is discussing those components. If you want to distinguish MetaFilter from that, cool, there's plenty of grounds to make that argument; major-media coverage certainly isn't a dispositive factor. But saying it's not relevant is absurd.
This is some disingenuous moderation all around. One thread was deleted because "there's little to actually discuss here," notwithstanding the past week's countless thoughtful and contradictory op-eds addressing myriad different angles. Be honest: you don't want to discuss X or Y or Z—so you're either going to have a tightly restricted discussion of the topic where X and Y and Z are banned, or else you're not going to allow discussion at all because X or Y or Z would inevitably be brought up since everyone from Camile Gear Rich to Whoopi Goldberg are discussing them.
That's fine. It's your site. But I don't think it's defensible to host a thread about prohibiting X or Y or Z and then to insist that pointing out those aspects' play in the wider media is "not relevant." If you want to say it's not dispositive, then sure, that's fair. Deleting it as irrelevant isn't. If that's your tack, then just issue the edict and close the thread. It'd be more honest.
posted by cribcage at 9:12 PM on June 15, 2015 [16 favorites]
Yes, it is. Much of this discussion has been about how and whether some of these components can or should be part of a MetaFilter thread on the subject. It's relevant that CNN, or the NYTimes or any other major outlet, is discussing those components. If you want to distinguish MetaFilter from that, cool, there's plenty of grounds to make that argument; major-media coverage certainly isn't a dispositive factor. But saying it's not relevant is absurd.
This is some disingenuous moderation all around. One thread was deleted because "there's little to actually discuss here," notwithstanding the past week's countless thoughtful and contradictory op-eds addressing myriad different angles. Be honest: you don't want to discuss X or Y or Z—so you're either going to have a tightly restricted discussion of the topic where X and Y and Z are banned, or else you're not going to allow discussion at all because X or Y or Z would inevitably be brought up since everyone from Camile Gear Rich to Whoopi Goldberg are discussing them.
That's fine. It's your site. But I don't think it's defensible to host a thread about prohibiting X or Y or Z and then to insist that pointing out those aspects' play in the wider media is "not relevant." If you want to say it's not dispositive, then sure, that's fair. Deleting it as irrelevant isn't. If that's your tack, then just issue the edict and close the thread. It'd be more honest.
posted by cribcage at 9:12 PM on June 15, 2015 [16 favorites]
> What you're saying is that you shouldn't have to see opinions that you think are stupid, mean, naive or contradictory.
*I'm* saying I'm tired of hearing stupid, mean, and repeatedly naive and contradictory opinions passed off as some kind of speaking truth to power, man! and are somehow important. Or new. I'm sorry if some or all of that transphobic and racist bullshit and "yeah but what if...??" in that thread was stuff you'd never heard before but boy oh boy that's not the case for me or a whole lot of other people here.
posted by rtha at 9:13 PM on June 15, 2015 [45 favorites]
*I'm* saying I'm tired of hearing stupid, mean, and repeatedly naive and contradictory opinions passed off as some kind of speaking truth to power, man! and are somehow important. Or new. I'm sorry if some or all of that transphobic and racist bullshit and "yeah but what if...??" in that thread was stuff you'd never heard before but boy oh boy that's not the case for me or a whole lot of other people here.
posted by rtha at 9:13 PM on June 15, 2015 [45 favorites]
Yeah, people who overall pine for the lost golden age of Metafilter tend to wedge that into every MeTa because hey, MeTa is about site policy, ergo my gripe repeated for the jillionth time is totally relevant.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 9:13 PM on June 15, 2015 [22 favorites]
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 9:13 PM on June 15, 2015 [22 favorites]
Everybody knows it's been all over the media, cribcage, and nobody has disputed that. That's neither here nor there in terms of the reasoning for the deletions, which has to do with how a thread would go here on this site. CNN does a lot of things we don't do here, it's a different kind of entity altogether.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:15 PM on June 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:15 PM on June 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
And I'm saying there is so much noise of bigoted and willfully ignorant commentary in the world that I appreciate the amplification of voices that aren't that.
posted by gingerest at 9:17 PM on June 15, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by gingerest at 9:17 PM on June 15, 2015 [8 favorites]
For its faults, this is still a pretty good space and I like just about everybody here, but button-pushy bullhorn whinging about people expressing their valid discomfort over discomforting things, or whinging about not being able to discuss the deleted threads' content by proxy, are not adding anything at all here. Everybody just go to bed, good lord.
posted by byanyothername at 9:18 PM on June 15, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by byanyothername at 9:18 PM on June 15, 2015 [4 favorites]
(That was an addendum/response to rtha's comment, not a response to LM)
posted by gingerest at 9:18 PM on June 15, 2015
posted by gingerest at 9:18 PM on June 15, 2015
words of wisdom from the FAQ of the only good subreddit:
Q: This sub used to be good but it's bad now. I don't have a question, I just wanted to put that out there.
A: Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. This also applies to moderately enjoyable moments on the internet.
posted by NoraReed at 9:19 PM on June 15, 2015 [27 favorites]
Q: This sub used to be good but it's bad now. I don't have a question, I just wanted to put that out there.
A: Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. This also applies to moderately enjoyable moments on the internet.
posted by NoraReed at 9:19 PM on June 15, 2015 [27 favorites]
Metafilter: on the flip side, we have discussions that those giant national outlets can't have, because we're a different kind of space.
Yeah, that's true.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:25 PM on June 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
Yeah, that's true.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:25 PM on June 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
Nah, it was actual discussion. People actually dissented without their comment or the whole goddamn thread getting deleted to prevent the squeakiest wheels from suffering the indignity of being contradicted.
I don't know how you can read the archives and believe this, unless you think freedom to spew a bunch of sexist or racist bullshit is integral to good discussion. I read through a very old front page post about Monica Lewinsky after she gave that TED talk. It was posted in, I don't know, 2003? 2004? And this "actual discussion" consisted of people calling her a slutty bimbo. If that's "actual discussion" then I'll take my imaginary discussion, thanks.
posted by Anonymous at 9:39 PM on June 15, 2015
I don't know how you can read the archives and believe this, unless you think freedom to spew a bunch of sexist or racist bullshit is integral to good discussion. I read through a very old front page post about Monica Lewinsky after she gave that TED talk. It was posted in, I don't know, 2003? 2004? And this "actual discussion" consisted of people calling her a slutty bimbo. If that's "actual discussion" then I'll take my imaginary discussion, thanks.
posted by Anonymous at 9:39 PM on June 15, 2015
MetaFilter has changed. And thank fucking God.
At one time it privileged the ability of members to speak ignorance, sexism, misogyny and so forth over the requirement that other members put up with those things.
Now, slowly, MetaFilter is turning into a place where you don't get to just say any damn fool thing you want without pushback.
I know which one I prefer, for damn sure. Because an awful lot of the Good Old Days was garbage, and the signal-to-noise ratio here is a hell of a lot better now than it used to be.
posted by scrump at 9:42 PM on June 15, 2015 [27 favorites]
At one time it privileged the ability of members to speak ignorance, sexism, misogyny and so forth over the requirement that other members put up with those things.
Now, slowly, MetaFilter is turning into a place where you don't get to just say any damn fool thing you want without pushback.
I know which one I prefer, for damn sure. Because an awful lot of the Good Old Days was garbage, and the signal-to-noise ratio here is a hell of a lot better now than it used to be.
posted by scrump at 9:42 PM on June 15, 2015 [27 favorites]
I would like to speak up as someone who is very interested in a lot of the issues surrounding Rachel Dolezal but also very disappointed and upset by the discussion in the long deleted thread. When Joakim Ziegler repeatedly compared African-Americans to TERFs for not accepting Dolezal as black I personally saw red. There was no pushback against that statement and the comment received several favorites. It wasn't the only one like it in the thread, but that one particularly bothered me because it specifically called out the "reaction" of black people to this situation, and it's in that wonderful and multifaceted reaction that I've personally seen the greatest discourse. It took all of the great conversations and pieces about Dolezal spearheaded by black writers and commentators and reduced them to mean-spirited ignorant bigotry. It felt like I was being gaslit.
There actually are a lot of interesting discussions and insights around the web with regard to this subject, but these discussions usually center the perspectives of African-Americans. Yet in two FPPs about a white woman masquerading as a black woman, there was not a single included piece written by a black woman. Really, how could a Dolezal post entitled "When Life Imitates Art" be a reference to Tootsie and not Soul Man? I have found that it is very hard to make white people focus on the opinions and experiences of black people, so when the framing of an FPP does not help then it's pretty hopeless.
posted by Danila at 9:44 PM on June 15, 2015 [36 favorites]
There actually are a lot of interesting discussions and insights around the web with regard to this subject, but these discussions usually center the perspectives of African-Americans. Yet in two FPPs about a white woman masquerading as a black woman, there was not a single included piece written by a black woman. Really, how could a Dolezal post entitled "When Life Imitates Art" be a reference to Tootsie and not Soul Man? I have found that it is very hard to make white people focus on the opinions and experiences of black people, so when the framing of an FPP does not help then it's pretty hopeless.
posted by Danila at 9:44 PM on June 15, 2015 [36 favorites]
Actually, I should say I don't know the racial identity of every writer on those articles, but the articles themselves are very little about the black experience or perspective and are just generally scandal-oriented news pieces.
posted by Danila at 9:47 PM on June 15, 2015
posted by Danila at 9:47 PM on June 15, 2015
I think Potomac Avenue's post, which was the most recent one, centered around a link by a black writer.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:50 PM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:50 PM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
Mayor Curley: "The inability of this site to actually discuss an issue with these considerations is emblematic of why this site is a hollow shell of its former self. This is a discussion board for very fragile people now. What a waste."
These fragile people, I'm assuming they're the ones who live under a constant onslaught in their daily lives of sexual harassment, racist power structures, rampant discrimination, and then still get up the next day and do it again?
In MetaFilter's case, usually after patiently spending day after day doing Education 101 on their lived experiences, experiences which are invisible to the vast majority of MetaFilter users?
When I see them, I see a lot of things, but fragile isn't one of them.
Your behavior, on the other hand, evokes an impression in me...I'm sure there's a word for it, if I just think long enough.
posted by scrump at 9:51 PM on June 15, 2015 [23 favorites]
These fragile people, I'm assuming they're the ones who live under a constant onslaught in their daily lives of sexual harassment, racist power structures, rampant discrimination, and then still get up the next day and do it again?
In MetaFilter's case, usually after patiently spending day after day doing Education 101 on their lived experiences, experiences which are invisible to the vast majority of MetaFilter users?
When I see them, I see a lot of things, but fragile isn't one of them.
Your behavior, on the other hand, evokes an impression in me...I'm sure there's a word for it, if I just think long enough.
posted by scrump at 9:51 PM on June 15, 2015 [23 favorites]
Sorry LobsterMitten, I didn't see that one, just the first two, including the longer one that some people are saying they wanted to keep.
posted by Danila at 9:53 PM on June 15, 2015
posted by Danila at 9:53 PM on June 15, 2015
Yeah, no reason you would have seen it before now.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:55 PM on June 15, 2015
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:55 PM on June 15, 2015
I also want to chime in that I think it's too soon for a solid discussion about this on MeFi. Every day the situation deepens and changes. Some of the things revealed on Monday changed the conversation for a lot of people but wouldn't have even fit in a discussion primarily focused on the "transracial" red herring. It's not one of the "newsfilter" topics that can do well with up-to-the-minute discussion because in a lot of ways its too frivolous (the news of the weird aspect).
I definitely would like to discuss it here eventually, in a well-framed FPP when the story is finished the telling. I think there is a lot of interesting stuff on the web about this that would fit in here and even more to come, it's not strictly news of the weird. Way more interesting than Dolezal herself is the reaction to the situation and how it happened in the first place. But I really applaud the decision and especially LobsterMitten's first comment/explanation.
posted by Danila at 10:04 PM on June 15, 2015 [16 favorites]
I definitely would like to discuss it here eventually, in a well-framed FPP when the story is finished the telling. I think there is a lot of interesting stuff on the web about this that would fit in here and even more to come, it's not strictly news of the weird. Way more interesting than Dolezal herself is the reaction to the situation and how it happened in the first place. But I really applaud the decision and especially LobsterMitten's first comment/explanation.
posted by Danila at 10:04 PM on June 15, 2015 [16 favorites]
Oh, spare me. I can read the archives just like you, just like anyone else. A lot of those discussions back in the "good" old days were shitty and terrible and preemptively chased off a lot of voices that are here now and speak now. You all were not some bunch of iconoclastic freedom-truth-speakers with no echo chamber. It was just saying shitty stuff and not getting called out for it.
I'd argue the site used to be an echo chamber, if we're going to talk about echo chambers. In that sense that if you didn't agree with the loud prolific dude posters, then it was basically "oh piss off and quit riding that so hard".
It was an echo chamber of being an asshole to women, and to some extent minorities.
I think a fairly strong argument could be made that this site was an echo chamber in the "i'd hit that" days.
posted by emptythought at 10:36 PM on June 15, 2015 [21 favorites]
I'd argue the site used to be an echo chamber, if we're going to talk about echo chambers. In that sense that if you didn't agree with the loud prolific dude posters, then it was basically "oh piss off and quit riding that so hard".
It was an echo chamber of being an asshole to women, and to some extent minorities.
I think a fairly strong argument could be made that this site was an echo chamber in the "i'd hit that" days.
posted by emptythought at 10:36 PM on June 15, 2015 [21 favorites]
...or scrump already said what i wrote better
posted by emptythought at 10:37 PM on June 15, 2015
posted by emptythought at 10:37 PM on June 15, 2015
Manufactured is the word I was looking for. It's a manufactured derail, carefully planned and executed for the lols.
It has reminded me quite a bit of the pushbacks against feminism I see on Imgur: "A 'feminist' said this careless or foolish thing, therefore (contempt for women's rights)". It's a very provocative way to express contempt towards people and one that's obnoxious to argue against for people that don't hate women/poc/etc.
posted by sebastienbailard at 10:41 PM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
It has reminded me quite a bit of the pushbacks against feminism I see on Imgur: "A 'feminist' said this careless or foolish thing, therefore (contempt for women's rights)". It's a very provocative way to express contempt towards people and one that's obnoxious to argue against for people that don't hate women/poc/etc.
posted by sebastienbailard at 10:41 PM on June 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
Man, Major Curley, for someone whining about "fragility," you sure do seem to be super easily hurt about the idea that voices other than yours might be welcome in the discussion.
posted by KathrynT at 10:46 PM on June 15, 2015 [39 favorites]
posted by KathrynT at 10:46 PM on June 15, 2015 [39 favorites]
you sure do seem to be super easily hurt about the idea that voices other than yours might be welcome in the discussion
I don't necessarily agree with Mayor Curley's position, but this seems to be exactly the opposite of what he was trying to say. It seems to me that his position is that the greater the diversity of opinions and comments the better.
what you are saying is that the site you would prefer to exist is one where people get to be unrepentant bigots
Yes, because bigotry is solely a characteristic of republicans and any who dare challenge the consensus opinion here on metafilter, amirite?
I am really conflicted about this. On principle I agree with the delete and seeming policy shift, but for some reason I feel like we are losing something by implementing it. I guess, ultimately, what I would argue is that for this topic it was a good delete, but moving forward we should be very careful about how the mods apply this new approach.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:58 PM on June 15, 2015 [13 favorites]
I don't necessarily agree with Mayor Curley's position, but this seems to be exactly the opposite of what he was trying to say. It seems to me that his position is that the greater the diversity of opinions and comments the better.
what you are saying is that the site you would prefer to exist is one where people get to be unrepentant bigots
Yes, because bigotry is solely a characteristic of republicans and any who dare challenge the consensus opinion here on metafilter, amirite?
I am really conflicted about this. On principle I agree with the delete and seeming policy shift, but for some reason I feel like we are losing something by implementing it. I guess, ultimately, what I would argue is that for this topic it was a good delete, but moving forward we should be very careful about how the mods apply this new approach.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:58 PM on June 15, 2015 [13 favorites]
Just to be super clear, what you are saying is that the site you would prefer to exist is one where people get to be unrepentant bigots. At some point, the rest of us decided that this is not a place for bigotry. That seems pretty civilized.
That is such a ridiculous mischaracterization that you actually personify the thing that needs to be opposed.
posted by amorphatist at 10:59 PM on June 15, 2015 [10 favorites]
That is such a ridiculous mischaracterization that you actually personify the thing that needs to be opposed.
posted by amorphatist at 10:59 PM on June 15, 2015 [10 favorites]
"needs"
posted by NoraReed at 11:02 PM on June 15, 2015 [16 favorites]
posted by NoraReed at 11:02 PM on June 15, 2015 [16 favorites]
One deleted; dial it back folks and don't get into namecalling.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 11:03 PM on June 15, 2015
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 11:03 PM on June 15, 2015
Yes, because bigotry is solely a characteristic of republicans and any who dare challenge the consensus opinion here on metafilter, amirite?
Insert Ainsley's "you don't like people who do like guns" speech here...
posted by Jacqueline at 11:09 PM on June 15, 2015
Insert Ainsley's "you don't like people who do like guns" speech here...
posted by Jacqueline at 11:09 PM on June 15, 2015
Who the fuck said anything about Republicans?
posted by en forme de poire at 11:24 PM on June 15, 2015 [12 favorites]
posted by en forme de poire at 11:24 PM on June 15, 2015 [12 favorites]
Mayor Curley: "The inability of this site to actually discuss an issue with these considerations is emblematic of why this site is a hollow shell of its former self. This is a discussion board for very fragile people now. What a waste."
This is such nonsense. First best rule of Metafilter: if anybody starts telling you how it was once upon a time, they're probably telling a fable that is dear to them as a simple way of explaining a complicated reality.
"I came in to say what I said because I believe it is applicable to the topic at hand. That is all. I am expressing my dissatisfaction publicly and that's all. It was acceptable at one point."
Ha. Yeah, back then we'd just all have told you that you were an utter idiot, and that you were full of shit, and that any reasonably intelligent person should know better. Halcyon days, right? Now you've just got a nice person asking you in a nice way not to get shirty. What a loss to free discourse everywhere!
posted by koeselitz at 11:34 PM on June 15, 2015 [19 favorites]
This is such nonsense. First best rule of Metafilter: if anybody starts telling you how it was once upon a time, they're probably telling a fable that is dear to them as a simple way of explaining a complicated reality.
"I came in to say what I said because I believe it is applicable to the topic at hand. That is all. I am expressing my dissatisfaction publicly and that's all. It was acceptable at one point."
Ha. Yeah, back then we'd just all have told you that you were an utter idiot, and that you were full of shit, and that any reasonably intelligent person should know better. Halcyon days, right? Now you've just got a nice person asking you in a nice way not to get shirty. What a loss to free discourse everywhere!
posted by koeselitz at 11:34 PM on June 15, 2015 [19 favorites]
I have to ask: do you genuinely believe this? Even after reading the thoughtful responses in this thread, and even after being a part of MetaFilter?
Because it sure reads like a pre-formed one-liner based on a caricature of a strawman. It doesn't come off as contributing to the conversation, and it doesn't come off as a particularly insightful read of MetaFilter.
So I have to wonder what your purpose is in dropping this into the conversation. And I figured it would be charitable to give you a chance to explain, rather than just make an assumption about what you meant.
Well, I --
Yes. And on social justice issues, on equality issues, I--and I'm guessing, a wide swath of the userbase--am entirely comfortable saying exactly that thing. We don't need to hear more fucking bigotry.
Hm.
Snarky quoting aside (and I'm not picking out FFFM, I could have quoted at least half a dozen other people that would have supported my point just as well), yes. I think that's exactly what it means. "This isn't a topic on which it's permissible, for social reasons, to disagree so go away and don't come back if you're going to argue about it". It's not a far-fetched reading.
I'm not grumpy about it, though I'm a bit sad that we're deleting MeTa posts now.
posted by Sebmojo at 11:38 PM on June 15, 2015 [8 favorites]
Because it sure reads like a pre-formed one-liner based on a caricature of a strawman. It doesn't come off as contributing to the conversation, and it doesn't come off as a particularly insightful read of MetaFilter.
So I have to wonder what your purpose is in dropping this into the conversation. And I figured it would be charitable to give you a chance to explain, rather than just make an assumption about what you meant.
Well, I --
Yes. And on social justice issues, on equality issues, I--and I'm guessing, a wide swath of the userbase--am entirely comfortable saying exactly that thing. We don't need to hear more fucking bigotry.
Hm.
Snarky quoting aside (and I'm not picking out FFFM, I could have quoted at least half a dozen other people that would have supported my point just as well), yes. I think that's exactly what it means. "This isn't a topic on which it's permissible, for social reasons, to disagree so go away and don't come back if you're going to argue about it". It's not a far-fetched reading.
I'm not grumpy about it, though I'm a bit sad that we're deleting MeTa posts now.
posted by Sebmojo at 11:38 PM on June 15, 2015 [8 favorites]
Who the fuck said anything about Republicans?
I did. Specifically, in the context of people who hold non-consensus viewpoints being labeled as "bigots." Surely you've read political threads around here and are aware of what exactly our opinions are supposed to be about republicans.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 11:42 PM on June 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
I did. Specifically, in the context of people who hold non-consensus viewpoints being labeled as "bigots." Surely you've read political threads around here and are aware of what exactly our opinions are supposed to be about republicans.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 11:42 PM on June 15, 2015 [2 favorites]
Also -
Mayor Curley: "What you really want a site that features commiseration about how everyone unlike you is a Philistine. Congrats! You got it!"
"Commiseration about how everyone unlike you is a Philistine" is such a perfect description of Metafilter from day one that I'm pretty sure it was one of the taglines featured in the header here circa 2003.
posted by koeselitz at 11:44 PM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
Mayor Curley: "What you really want a site that features commiseration about how everyone unlike you is a Philistine. Congrats! You got it!"
"Commiseration about how everyone unlike you is a Philistine" is such a perfect description of Metafilter from day one that I'm pretty sure it was one of the taglines featured in the header here circa 2003.
posted by koeselitz at 11:44 PM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
It's almost as though there's a gambit afoot attempting to egg mods into closing/deleting this MeTa thread because we're proving not able to have it civilly.
Just. (w)ow.
posted by progosk at 11:47 PM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
Just. (w)ow.
posted by progosk at 11:47 PM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
Look, guys. If we had infinite moderation resources then I sincerely believe that we could discuss anything here in a manner that was both productive and respectful.
If we had infinite moderation resources, comments could be subjected to a prescreening process similar to peer reviewed journals in which the mods could send back problematic comments with extensive notes and a request to "revise and resubmit." If we had infinite moderation resources, the mods could call up the authors of problematic comments and have long discussions in which they tutored them one-on-one in all the basic 101-level stuff and made sure that every commenter in a thread had at least the same minimum level of understanding before commenting on a topic. If we had infinite moderation resources, the mods could also call up people who were personally hurt by insensitive comments and talk them down before they escalate the thread into a flame war.
But we don't have infinite moderation resources. We actually have less moderation resources now than we did a few years ago. We can only afford to pay for a finite number of mods to cover a finite number of hours and thus their attention must be divided amongst a finite number of threads and other moderation duties.
So, if we have a thread that requires one or more mods to monitor it full-time because it's such a sensitive subject that it would otherwise quickly turn into a shitstorm, that means that many many other threads on the site are being neglected. Thus, several other threads turn into shitstorms because early threadshitting/derailing comments aren't deleted. Or maybe we've got a bunch of AskMes in which people are giving potentially litigiously bad advice or just berating the asker instead of being helpful. Or we've got "please tell me the best way to commit suicide" AskMes getting through without a mod contacting the poster to help make sure that he/she is okay and is going to live to see the morning and thus some MeFites literally DIE because the mods are distracted elsewhere.
(No, that's not just hyperbole. Seriously, based on several things that the mods have alluded to over the years, I am 99.7% confident that they have saved lives thanks to their quick responses to suicidal AskMes.)
Meanwhile, given our finite moderation resources, if we insist upon total shitstorm threads being allowed to exist here, then that takes a psychological toll on the mod(s) stuck monitoring those threads. Given that Matt was enough of mensch to hire his mods as employees (instead of 1099ing them as independent contractors) and thus bought them health insurance, that means that increased stress on the mods leads to higher medical bills for their therapy and/or antidepressant/anti-anxiety meds, which means increased insurance premiums, which means increased operating costs, which in the worst case scenario means an increased probability of the site either going bankrupt and shutting down or being sold out to automobile advertisers in a way that seriously hinders the functioning and aesthetics of the site. Or, in the best case scenario, it means less money to pay pb to add more cool new features to the site like books discussions in Fanfare.
Meanwhile, the social costs of such threads in the absence of infinite moderation resources is that many members who were great contributors to the discussions here are going to quit and/or become so soured on the site that they significant lower/worsen their participation here. That leaves us with almost no one to converse with but a bunch of thick-skinned assholes who are predominantly white, male, cisgendered, upper-middle-class, and American. And while there's nothing inherently wrong with people from that demographic, only ever hearing from them and their opinions and their life experiences gets really boring after a while, no?
So please stop reading this situation as an example of how the biased mods are actively working to turn this place into a squishy touchy feely leftist safe space. Instead, see it as an example of the mods making a sensible cost/benefit analysis and deciding that the likely costs (to both their own mental health and the continuing survival of the spirit of lovingkindness in our community) to hosting such a conversation here exceed the potential benefit (which in the best case scenario would be that we have a somewhat enlightening conversation about a really weird edge case).
If you really to want to have discussions in which anything goes and you can post whatever, please feel free to start your own blog or make a Reddit account or whatever. But the fact that y'all are still here despite all your griping is just evidence that even with all your criticisms that MetaFilter is significantly better than anywhere else for internet discussions.
posted by Jacqueline at 11:51 PM on June 15, 2015 [19 favorites]
If we had infinite moderation resources, comments could be subjected to a prescreening process similar to peer reviewed journals in which the mods could send back problematic comments with extensive notes and a request to "revise and resubmit." If we had infinite moderation resources, the mods could call up the authors of problematic comments and have long discussions in which they tutored them one-on-one in all the basic 101-level stuff and made sure that every commenter in a thread had at least the same minimum level of understanding before commenting on a topic. If we had infinite moderation resources, the mods could also call up people who were personally hurt by insensitive comments and talk them down before they escalate the thread into a flame war.
But we don't have infinite moderation resources. We actually have less moderation resources now than we did a few years ago. We can only afford to pay for a finite number of mods to cover a finite number of hours and thus their attention must be divided amongst a finite number of threads and other moderation duties.
So, if we have a thread that requires one or more mods to monitor it full-time because it's such a sensitive subject that it would otherwise quickly turn into a shitstorm, that means that many many other threads on the site are being neglected. Thus, several other threads turn into shitstorms because early threadshitting/derailing comments aren't deleted. Or maybe we've got a bunch of AskMes in which people are giving potentially litigiously bad advice or just berating the asker instead of being helpful. Or we've got "please tell me the best way to commit suicide" AskMes getting through without a mod contacting the poster to help make sure that he/she is okay and is going to live to see the morning and thus some MeFites literally DIE because the mods are distracted elsewhere.
(No, that's not just hyperbole. Seriously, based on several things that the mods have alluded to over the years, I am 99.7% confident that they have saved lives thanks to their quick responses to suicidal AskMes.)
Meanwhile, given our finite moderation resources, if we insist upon total shitstorm threads being allowed to exist here, then that takes a psychological toll on the mod(s) stuck monitoring those threads. Given that Matt was enough of mensch to hire his mods as employees (instead of 1099ing them as independent contractors) and thus bought them health insurance, that means that increased stress on the mods leads to higher medical bills for their therapy and/or antidepressant/anti-anxiety meds, which means increased insurance premiums, which means increased operating costs, which in the worst case scenario means an increased probability of the site either going bankrupt and shutting down or being sold out to automobile advertisers in a way that seriously hinders the functioning and aesthetics of the site. Or, in the best case scenario, it means less money to pay pb to add more cool new features to the site like books discussions in Fanfare.
Meanwhile, the social costs of such threads in the absence of infinite moderation resources is that many members who were great contributors to the discussions here are going to quit and/or become so soured on the site that they significant lower/worsen their participation here. That leaves us with almost no one to converse with but a bunch of thick-skinned assholes who are predominantly white, male, cisgendered, upper-middle-class, and American. And while there's nothing inherently wrong with people from that demographic, only ever hearing from them and their opinions and their life experiences gets really boring after a while, no?
So please stop reading this situation as an example of how the biased mods are actively working to turn this place into a squishy touchy feely leftist safe space. Instead, see it as an example of the mods making a sensible cost/benefit analysis and deciding that the likely costs (to both their own mental health and the continuing survival of the spirit of lovingkindness in our community) to hosting such a conversation here exceed the potential benefit (which in the best case scenario would be that we have a somewhat enlightening conversation about a really weird edge case).
If you really to want to have discussions in which anything goes and you can post whatever, please feel free to start your own blog or make a Reddit account or whatever. But the fact that y'all are still here despite all your griping is just evidence that even with all your criticisms that MetaFilter is significantly better than anywhere else for internet discussions.
posted by Jacqueline at 11:51 PM on June 15, 2015 [19 favorites]
en forme de poire: Who the fuck said anything about Republicans?
AElfwine Evenstar: I did. Specifically, in the context of people who hold non-consensus viewpoints being labeled as "bigots." Surely you've read political threads around here and are aware of what exactly our opinions are supposed to be about republicans.
Riiiiight. So you saw that literally nobody else in this long and rocky conversation mentioned republicans or conservatism at all, and you decided to use your copious spare straw to build a nice big ol'man, did you? I'm sure that will help immensely, thank you.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 12:00 AM on June 16, 2015 [29 favorites]
AElfwine Evenstar: I did. Specifically, in the context of people who hold non-consensus viewpoints being labeled as "bigots." Surely you've read political threads around here and are aware of what exactly our opinions are supposed to be about republicans.
Riiiiight. So you saw that literally nobody else in this long and rocky conversation mentioned republicans or conservatism at all, and you decided to use your copious spare straw to build a nice big ol'man, did you? I'm sure that will help immensely, thank you.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 12:00 AM on June 16, 2015 [29 favorites]
There's something about threads where the "It used to be so much better back when I could say l'd hit that" comments come up that makes me clench my jaw till it hurts to avoid getting really sarcastic.
So instead I'm going to say this- I may not be the best ally, and damn I'm still ignorant about a lot of stuff. But I'm learning. And if bunch of trans and PoC posters say a thread is hurtful and misleading, then yah, it's a good idea to close it. So, good call, mods.
posted by happyroach at 12:04 AM on June 16, 2015 [10 favorites]
So instead I'm going to say this- I may not be the best ally, and damn I'm still ignorant about a lot of stuff. But I'm learning. And if bunch of trans and PoC posters say a thread is hurtful and misleading, then yah, it's a good idea to close it. So, good call, mods.
posted by happyroach at 12:04 AM on June 16, 2015 [10 favorites]
I did. Specifically, in the context of people who hold non-consensus viewpoints being labeled as "bigots."
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, what you will notice is that before you jumped in here, we were specifically talking about the kind of reception and "free discussion" women and PoC were subject to during the bygone age on Metafilter. Literally no one was complaining about Republicans. I think you're making an argument against a point no one made.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 12:10 AM on June 16, 2015 [9 favorites]
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, what you will notice is that before you jumped in here, we were specifically talking about the kind of reception and "free discussion" women and PoC were subject to during the bygone age on Metafilter. Literally no one was complaining about Republicans. I think you're making an argument against a point no one made.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 12:10 AM on June 16, 2015 [9 favorites]
I second (or third or whatever) the notion that topics that the mods deem too hot to handle be identified on the main page.
FWIW, I spent some time on a post about Laura Kipnis that was deleted because it would cause too many problems for the mods. This was not noted on MetaTalk (though I did get an e-mail from someone who thought the post was a good one). If mod "resources" are so strained that certain topics are banned, then say so up front and save us some trouble. The fact that three Dolezal FPPs have been deleted is a sign that MeFites think this a topic worthy of discussion; if the mods cannot handle that discussion, then let's have a notice upfront -- perhaps a list of mod trigger topics or whatever you want to call it.
posted by CCBC at 12:18 AM on June 16, 2015 [10 favorites]
FWIW, I spent some time on a post about Laura Kipnis that was deleted because it would cause too many problems for the mods. This was not noted on MetaTalk (though I did get an e-mail from someone who thought the post was a good one). If mod "resources" are so strained that certain topics are banned, then say so up front and save us some trouble. The fact that three Dolezal FPPs have been deleted is a sign that MeFites think this a topic worthy of discussion; if the mods cannot handle that discussion, then let's have a notice upfront -- perhaps a list of mod trigger topics or whatever you want to call it.
posted by CCBC at 12:18 AM on June 16, 2015 [10 favorites]
How are you under siege here? You're not in any physical danger.
I'm trans, so yes I am. Not directly from the shit people say on the site, but it forms part of a contiuum of abuse and is an expression of the same prejudicide and discrimination that does put me in physical danger.
What you really want a site that features commiseration about how everyone unlike you is a Philistine. Congrats! You got it!
No it isn't, and no I don't. You seem to be riding that particular hobby horse hard, though - too bad you can't have the site where everyone unlike you is a Philistine, huh?
I'm not grumpy about it, though I'm a bit sad that we're deleting MeTa posts now.
...we are? What deleted MeTa posts are we talking about here?
posted by Dysk at 12:28 AM on June 16, 2015 [9 favorites]
I'm trans, so yes I am. Not directly from the shit people say on the site, but it forms part of a contiuum of abuse and is an expression of the same prejudicide and discrimination that does put me in physical danger.
What you really want a site that features commiseration about how everyone unlike you is a Philistine. Congrats! You got it!
No it isn't, and no I don't. You seem to be riding that particular hobby horse hard, though - too bad you can't have the site where everyone unlike you is a Philistine, huh?
I'm not grumpy about it, though I'm a bit sad that we're deleting MeTa posts now.
...we are? What deleted MeTa posts are we talking about here?
posted by Dysk at 12:28 AM on June 16, 2015 [9 favorites]
if the mods cannot handle that discussion, then let's have a notice upfront
It isn't the mods that cannot handle the discussion - it's the userbase. The mods have enough other stuff to do that they don't have time to clean up the mess the userbase would make trying to have the discussion.
posted by Dysk at 12:39 AM on June 16, 2015 [15 favorites]
It isn't the mods that cannot handle the discussion - it's the userbase. The mods have enough other stuff to do that they don't have time to clean up the mess the userbase would make trying to have the discussion.
posted by Dysk at 12:39 AM on June 16, 2015 [15 favorites]
Also, having the 'mefi sucks for white guys now!!1' discussion crop up literally every. single. time. there is a meta that in any way touches on trans issues is such a predictable, tedious pattern, and it does not generally encourage wider participation.
So I guess good job, transphobes, for continuing to drive us away?
posted by Dysk at 12:41 AM on June 16, 2015 [30 favorites]
So I guess good job, transphobes, for continuing to drive us away?
posted by Dysk at 12:41 AM on June 16, 2015 [30 favorites]
dysk: The mods have enough other stuff to do that they don't have time to clean up the mess the userbase would make trying to have the discussion.
Fine. The "userbase" also has limited time. Warn them up front about discussions that will be deleted.
posted by CCBC at 12:45 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Fine. The "userbase" also has limited time. Warn them up front about discussions that will be deleted.
posted by CCBC at 12:45 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
How? Some kind of Clippy extension?
posted by nom de poop at 12:46 AM on June 16, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by nom de poop at 12:46 AM on June 16, 2015 [7 favorites]
The userbase is participating at their own peril. The mods are not. Apples / coconuts.
And I think a list of non-suitable subjects is impossible to maintain. It would have to be updated in real time, pretty much.
posted by Too-Ticky at 12:49 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
And I think a list of non-suitable subjects is impossible to maintain. It would have to be updated in real time, pretty much.
posted by Too-Ticky at 12:49 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
A lot of the folks who wanted the thread on the blue left open sure seem bound and determined to prove by their participation here exactly why it was a good deletion.
posted by Proofs and Refutations at 12:52 AM on June 16, 2015 [37 favorites]
posted by Proofs and Refutations at 12:52 AM on June 16, 2015 [37 favorites]
I don't think a list would be impossible to maintain. If a discussion is deleted, say so up front. If a topic is deemed toxic, say so.
MeFites may participate at their own peril, but content supplied by users is what this site is all about. A warning that certain topics are banned would be useful.
posted by CCBC at 12:57 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
MeFites may participate at their own peril, but content supplied by users is what this site is all about. A warning that certain topics are banned would be useful.
posted by CCBC at 12:57 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
I think I'm the one who introduced the word 'bigot'. I'm on my sad old phone so I can't search. But i meant, explicitly, people who think their wilful ignorance or outright transphobia or racism deserves equal time because fairness. Not Republicans, particularly.
posted by gingerest at 12:58 AM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by gingerest at 12:58 AM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
Regarding a list of banned topics, it strikes me that it'd be a damn short list. This is such an edge case that I'm really not sure we need new tools or policies to deal with it.
posted by Dysk at 1:04 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 1:04 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
I'd like to note that despite how hard this thread became a shitposting grotto at the end, it's still significantly better than the longest thread which spawned this meta.
woo, i guess?
posted by emptythought at 1:06 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
woo, i guess?
posted by emptythought at 1:06 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
I don't think a list would be impossible to maintain. If a discussion is deleted, say so up front. If a topic is deemed toxic, say so.
You're still looking for hard-and-fast rules in a place which has been pretty consistent at saying there are few hard-and-fast rules. Maybe one particularly well-done FPP is good enough to beat the threshold. Maybe day N is the day when it feels like it'll work. Maybe the commenting user base that day is feeling particularly chill/reasonable.
I mean, the consistent list of "Sites not to link to" is basically "Stormfront". That leaves a pretty broad set of room for aware posting to work within. ('aware' being 'having read the room, established a baseline of social awareness, etc')
The mods have consistently said to err on the side of contacting them. I've run FPPs past them before, even. "Yeah, go ahead" "Hey, can you tweak X? I've seen that go bad before and I have a bad feeling about this" "I don't know that now's a good time for that. People are still pretty het up" They're willing to work with people. To an extent which continues to surprise me with its thoroughness each time I see it in action.
posted by CrystalDave at 1:08 AM on June 16, 2015 [16 favorites]
You're still looking for hard-and-fast rules in a place which has been pretty consistent at saying there are few hard-and-fast rules. Maybe one particularly well-done FPP is good enough to beat the threshold. Maybe day N is the day when it feels like it'll work. Maybe the commenting user base that day is feeling particularly chill/reasonable.
I mean, the consistent list of "Sites not to link to" is basically "Stormfront". That leaves a pretty broad set of room for aware posting to work within. ('aware' being 'having read the room, established a baseline of social awareness, etc')
The mods have consistently said to err on the side of contacting them. I've run FPPs past them before, even. "Yeah, go ahead" "Hey, can you tweak X? I've seen that go bad before and I have a bad feeling about this" "I don't know that now's a good time for that. People are still pretty het up" They're willing to work with people. To an extent which continues to surprise me with its thoroughness each time I see it in action.
posted by CrystalDave at 1:08 AM on June 16, 2015 [16 favorites]
I don't think a list would be impossible to maintain.
It's codeable to have "recently deleted threads" available on the New Page page, if we really need it. It wouldn't need to present the entireity of the threads, just the introductory posts.
I'm not requesting this particular pony myself.
posted by sebastienbailard at 1:08 AM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
It's codeable to have "recently deleted threads" available on the New Page page, if we really need it. It wouldn't need to present the entireity of the threads, just the introductory posts.
I'm not requesting this particular pony myself.
posted by sebastienbailard at 1:08 AM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
sebastienbailard: It's codeable to have "recently deleted threads" available on the New Page page
That would be good.
CrystalDave: I am not after "hard and fast rules". In fact, I like things loose. But several people wasted some time on a topic that has been banned by the mods. I think there is a certain courtesy that should be shown by this site. If users create content, then treat them right.
posted by CCBC at 1:15 AM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
That would be good.
CrystalDave: I am not after "hard and fast rules". In fact, I like things loose. But several people wasted some time on a topic that has been banned by the mods. I think there is a certain courtesy that should be shown by this site. If users create content, then treat them right.
posted by CCBC at 1:15 AM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
But it's not actually that certain subjects are banned. Specific posts have been censored (in the neutral sense of the word), for the reason that the threads get all fighty.
For example the framing of a post can help a lot with how productive the conversation goes.
I am interested that some people argue that fighty bad-behavior comments are necessary for exposure to diverse viewpoints, and in turn, are needed for change and growth of the community. That seems to be the fundamental concern when people worry why can't we ask or talk about X, Y, or Z. I can see the conceptual and theoretical importance of this kind of argument, but I can also see how it is profoundly unempathetic to those who are affected by X, Y, or Z.
posted by polymodus at 1:20 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
For example the framing of a post can help a lot with how productive the conversation goes.
I am interested that some people argue that fighty bad-behavior comments are necessary for exposure to diverse viewpoints, and in turn, are needed for change and growth of the community. That seems to be the fundamental concern when people worry why can't we ask or talk about X, Y, or Z. I can see the conceptual and theoretical importance of this kind of argument, but I can also see how it is profoundly unempathetic to those who are affected by X, Y, or Z.
posted by polymodus at 1:20 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
The topic is not 'banned' it is just going spectacularly badly at the moment. If you're that bothered, you can always read the deleted posts blog.
posted by Dysk at 1:20 AM on June 16, 2015 [11 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 1:20 AM on June 16, 2015 [11 favorites]
polymodus: Three FPPs on the same subject were shut down. A notice on the first one's closing might have prevented the wasted time posting the other two.
dysk: I was not aware of that resource. I will bookmark it.
posted by CCBC at 1:24 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
dysk: I was not aware of that resource. I will bookmark it.
posted by CCBC at 1:24 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
I am really just saying that people should not be discouraged from attempting to submit well-framed posts on difficult topics.
posted by polymodus at 1:27 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by polymodus at 1:27 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
polymodus: Okay, but is bad framing what happened here? I went to MetaFilter Deleted Posts and read LobsterMitten's reasons for deleting which I found persuasive. I think they could have been up front.
(Here's what he said:)
(Here's what he said:)
the Dolezal situation is a peculiar mix of news-of-the-weird/look at this nutty lady, plus "let's discuss in the abstract something that turns out to be painfully not abstract for certain members here", plus race, plus the connection to the whole idea of 'transracialism' which seems to be an idea made up to tease and mock transgender people -- and the whole package makes it impossible for a thread on this to go well here at this time.posted by CCBC at 1:34 AM on June 16, 2015
The dearth of information currently available makes it impossible to frame a post on the topic well at present.
posted by Dysk at 1:36 AM on June 16, 2015
posted by Dysk at 1:36 AM on June 16, 2015
So...the weird thing here is that we've got a post on race (which also brought in discussion of gender) closed down. Which makes a net decrease in the race/gender/sexuality discussion which there is more of now than there used to be. And yet the people who pine for the old days are upset that a social justicy thread was shut down, and the people who like the new social justice MetaFilter flavor are happy that it got shut down.
I'm not saying it's paradoxical or anything, I totally understand the reasons. It's just a really odd situation at first glance.
posted by Bugbread at 1:38 AM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
I'm not saying it's paradoxical or anything, I totally understand the reasons. It's just a really odd situation at first glance.
posted by Bugbread at 1:38 AM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
Dysk: The dearth of information currently available makes it impossible to frame a post on the topic well at present.
Then this is a topic that should be banned, right? Let MetaFilter say so.
posted by CCBC at 1:40 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Then this is a topic that should be banned, right? Let MetaFilter say so.
posted by CCBC at 1:40 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
No, because that may not hold true in future, and is at any rate already covered by the guideline to frame your posts well at any rate.
posted by Dysk at 1:49 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 1:49 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
No, because that may not hold true in future, and is at any rate already covered by the guideline to frame your posts well at any rate.
Exactly.
posted by polymodus at 1:53 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Exactly.
posted by polymodus at 1:53 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Then this is a topic that should be banned, right?
No.
"Can't be turned into a good post at present" does not logically give rise to "topic should officially be banned for all time."
posted by zarq at 1:53 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
No.
"Can't be turned into a good post at present" does not logically give rise to "topic should officially be banned for all time."
posted by zarq at 1:53 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
Bugbread: Yeah, it's odd. I came to MetaFilter looking for some discussion of this case and, when I couldn't find it, did a search that brought me here to MetaTalk. I wanted to see a discussion of this matter that might include concepts of what "race" really means and so on. I look to MetaFilter a lot for enlightened conversation, though I usually just lurk and read. I am sorry that this particular topic can no longer be discussed here.
Dysk: The FPPs that I looked at were well-framed. "Banned" doesn't mean forever. Certainly there are hot topics of the day that may be discussed as history next week.
posted by CCBC at 1:53 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Dysk: The FPPs that I looked at were well-framed. "Banned" doesn't mean forever. Certainly there are hot topics of the day that may be discussed as history next week.
posted by CCBC at 1:53 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
CCBC, we aren't going to have a list of banned topics because we don't have banned topics per se. There are topics that aren't going to go well at a given time, for either external or internal reasons, or both. There are topics that were previously deleted that were later posted because the poster did a particularly good job of sourcing and presenting the information. There are topics that were deleted when info was partially available that were later posted when the situation was clearer and there was more than speculation to discuss. There are topics that membership tells us are a particular problem on the site, and we need to be therefore much more particular about how these posts are made. There are topics that are breaking news-related that moderators are learning about as they happen and trying to evaluate in the moment. There are topics that are hoaxy or manufactured outrage / trolling that are deleted, but a later post examining and analyzing what exactly happened on the internet regarding the hoax or stunt isn't deleted.
Ban lists don't work with this paradigm, and as with everything on the site, it's as we've always said: decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, and anyone is welcome to drop us a line at any time to ask about the potential for a new post on any topic they might have doubts about.
I totally understand that this can be frustrating. It would be easier for us, too, to just have some BIG BOOK OF "NO" that wouldn't require some of the tough decisions we need to work through and a lot of angry criticism to answer to, whatever we decide – but we don't think that's best for the site.
posted by taz (staff) at 2:03 AM on June 16, 2015 [19 favorites]
Ban lists don't work with this paradigm, and as with everything on the site, it's as we've always said: decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, and anyone is welcome to drop us a line at any time to ask about the potential for a new post on any topic they might have doubts about.
I totally understand that this can be frustrating. It would be easier for us, too, to just have some BIG BOOK OF "NO" that wouldn't require some of the tough decisions we need to work through and a lot of angry criticism to answer to, whatever we decide – but we don't think that's best for the site.
posted by taz (staff) at 2:03 AM on June 16, 2015 [19 favorites]
taz: How about a notation when an FPP is deleted?
posted by CCBC at 2:07 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by CCBC at 2:07 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
There's probably something more recent (that I might find later with a little more searching), but here's a comment from cortex about this. I'm sort of agnostic on the idea, but wouldn't want to see it on the front page. Compiled similar to the deleted posts blog on a separate page maybe, but that's my own sort of "eh, maybe?" opinion, not an admin answer.
posted by taz (staff) at 2:19 AM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by taz (staff) at 2:19 AM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
CCBC: Can't link because phone posting (though I think it's easily googlable), but I use a Deleted Posts Greasemonkey script that does exactly that, if that helps.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 2:22 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 2:22 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Hmm. I'll think about that. ("Trivially easy"?) Anyway, I've had my say on this topic and greater minds than mine will decide. Good night all.
posted by CCBC at 2:23 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by CCBC at 2:23 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
So please stop reading this situation as an example of how the biased mods are actively working to turn this place into a squishy touchy feely leftist safe space. Instead, see it as an example of the mods making a sensible cost/benefit analysis and deciding that the likely costs (to both their own mental health and the continuing survival of the spirit of lovingkindness in our community) to hosting such a conversation here exceed the potential benefit (which in the best case scenario would be that we have a somewhat enlightening conversation about a really weird edge case).
For all that I've been grumbling a little I do agree with this. But I think the grumbling is important. The day is made of the yeas and the nays, after all.
posted by Sebmojo at 2:34 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
For all that I've been grumbling a little I do agree with this. But I think the grumbling is important. The day is made of the yeas and the nays, after all.
posted by Sebmojo at 2:34 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Man, Major Curley, for someone whining about "fragility," you sure do seem to be super easily hurt about the idea that voices other than yours might be welcome in the discussion.
Wait... What? That's the complete opposite of what I'm saying, and you're sophisticated enough to know that. You just got a handful of applause for "I know you are but what am I?" That passes for discourse here. You must be proud
posted by Mayor Curley at 3:41 AM on June 16, 2015 [12 favorites]
Wait... What? That's the complete opposite of what I'm saying, and you're sophisticated enough to know that. You just got a handful of applause for "I know you are but what am I?" That passes for discourse here. You must be proud
posted by Mayor Curley at 3:41 AM on June 16, 2015 [12 favorites]
Mayor Curley, I'm not understanding why this needs to be about you, but you began with a blanket insult, and now are getting into personal bickering because that wasn't terribly well received, basically inviting more comments about you, redirecting the discussion in a way that makes it less useful and more angry. I will officially note here that you disagree with the deletion, and think the site used to be better, and say we officially recognize this as your statement, and ask that you not continue with one-on-one (or blanket) insults or squabbling, and ask that other folks also let this drop.
posted by taz (staff) at 3:55 AM on June 16, 2015 [32 favorites]
posted by taz (staff) at 3:55 AM on June 16, 2015 [32 favorites]
Riiiiight. So you saw that literally nobody else in this long and rocky conversation mentioned republicans or conservatism at all, and you decided to use your copious spare straw to build a nice big ol'man, did you? I'm sure that will help immensely, thank you.
Obtuse much? Yes please fixate on my one poorly chosen word and use it to bludgeon me into consensus. My point still stands: bigots exist on metafilter and limiting discussion is not a strategy that will cure that ill. My secondary point is that bigotry is just as likely to be found in social justice circles as any other. Humans being humans and all.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 4:13 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
Obtuse much? Yes please fixate on my one poorly chosen word and use it to bludgeon me into consensus. My point still stands: bigots exist on metafilter and limiting discussion is not a strategy that will cure that ill. My secondary point is that bigotry is just as likely to be found in social justice circles as any other. Humans being humans and all.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 4:13 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
I see how this story is not a good fit for MetaFilter. The deletions make sense. While the story is interesting, and there are interesting conversations to be had on the topic, the real world results are bad, angry arguments that hurt people.
However, I also disagree that it this story is merely newsfilter about a weird lady, that there are no attached substantive issues, that the posts were poorly framed, or even that the basic facts of the story are any more confusing or dubious than those of any other story.
I am not saying that the deletions are wrong. Rather, I am saying that I believe the deletions flow mainly from 1) making value judgments about what conversations are worth having, 2) making value judgments about when it is acceptable or unacceptable to expose people to words that may cause them pain, and 3) making a cost-benefit analysis with regard to the mods' time and resources.
And that's all...fine. I don't think any of that is wrong at all. These kinds of decisions are a huge part of how life functions.
I guess I just find it somewhat strange that a few comments - mostly not from mods - appear to elide or obfuscate those reasonable concerns, in favor of excuses which try to pretend that MeFi moderation does not make these kinds of judgments. Of course MeFi as a community has its own ideas of right and wrong, true and false - not in the sense that everybody thinks alike, but in the sense of quorum, gestalt, mod strategy, etc. Of course MetaFilter has such notions - what's wrong about that?
Like, if there were posts that advocated Holocaust denialism or Stalinist apologism or explicit MRA shite or whatever, then the mods would be perfectly correct to delete those posts, because they would be bad, angrymaking posts about issues where we, as a community, have already made our value judgments on the topics. And there's nothing wrong with that.
posted by Sticherbeast at 4:14 AM on June 16, 2015 [11 favorites]
However, I also disagree that it this story is merely newsfilter about a weird lady, that there are no attached substantive issues, that the posts were poorly framed, or even that the basic facts of the story are any more confusing or dubious than those of any other story.
I am not saying that the deletions are wrong. Rather, I am saying that I believe the deletions flow mainly from 1) making value judgments about what conversations are worth having, 2) making value judgments about when it is acceptable or unacceptable to expose people to words that may cause them pain, and 3) making a cost-benefit analysis with regard to the mods' time and resources.
And that's all...fine. I don't think any of that is wrong at all. These kinds of decisions are a huge part of how life functions.
I guess I just find it somewhat strange that a few comments - mostly not from mods - appear to elide or obfuscate those reasonable concerns, in favor of excuses which try to pretend that MeFi moderation does not make these kinds of judgments. Of course MeFi as a community has its own ideas of right and wrong, true and false - not in the sense that everybody thinks alike, but in the sense of quorum, gestalt, mod strategy, etc. Of course MetaFilter has such notions - what's wrong about that?
Like, if there were posts that advocated Holocaust denialism or Stalinist apologism or explicit MRA shite or whatever, then the mods would be perfectly correct to delete those posts, because they would be bad, angrymaking posts about issues where we, as a community, have already made our value judgments on the topics. And there's nothing wrong with that.
posted by Sticherbeast at 4:14 AM on June 16, 2015 [11 favorites]
I look to MetaFilter a lot for enlightened conversation, though I usually just lurk and read. I am sorry that this particular topic can no longer be discussed here.
It's extremely frustrating to see this idea constantly reiterated by people coming into the thread, requiring yet more reiteration of response. (This goes back to my goal of always reading the whole thread before commenting).
But: no one is saying "this particular topic can no longer be discussed here." I am absolutely sure that race, gender, sexuality, etc can and will be discussed on MetaFilter, sometimes well and often badly (but maybe getting better) well into the future. The specific case that prompted the FPPs whose deletions sparked this MeTa isn't a good subject for discussion currently because: a) it's a weird edge case that doesn't cast much light on the central issues, b) it's still breaking news (usually bad for FPPs outside of obits), so there are huge lacunae in the information available through which entire trucks of unfounded speculation are being driven, and c) it's been framed in national discourse in a really nasty way. After a time, it might be possible to create an FPP that addresses the specific events that generates something other than ignorant armchair pontificating, nasty talking points, and weary/outraged defense, but that's not going to be until well after the full facts (such as they are) of the specific situation are known.
So the sad "I guess we can't talk about this" is untrue, unhelpful, and unoriginal (even in this MeTa). I wish people would stop it specifically here but generally as a rhetorical device in MetaTalk.
posted by GenjiandProust at 4:14 AM on June 16, 2015 [16 favorites]
It's extremely frustrating to see this idea constantly reiterated by people coming into the thread, requiring yet more reiteration of response. (This goes back to my goal of always reading the whole thread before commenting).
But: no one is saying "this particular topic can no longer be discussed here." I am absolutely sure that race, gender, sexuality, etc can and will be discussed on MetaFilter, sometimes well and often badly (but maybe getting better) well into the future. The specific case that prompted the FPPs whose deletions sparked this MeTa isn't a good subject for discussion currently because: a) it's a weird edge case that doesn't cast much light on the central issues, b) it's still breaking news (usually bad for FPPs outside of obits), so there are huge lacunae in the information available through which entire trucks of unfounded speculation are being driven, and c) it's been framed in national discourse in a really nasty way. After a time, it might be possible to create an FPP that addresses the specific events that generates something other than ignorant armchair pontificating, nasty talking points, and weary/outraged defense, but that's not going to be until well after the full facts (such as they are) of the specific situation are known.
So the sad "I guess we can't talk about this" is untrue, unhelpful, and unoriginal (even in this MeTa). I wish people would stop it specifically here but generally as a rhetorical device in MetaTalk.
posted by GenjiandProust at 4:14 AM on June 16, 2015 [16 favorites]
GenjiandProust: "But: no one is saying "this particular topic can no longer be discussed here."...So the sad "I guess we can't talk about this" is untrue, unhelpful, and unoriginal (even in this MeTa). I wish people would stop it specifically here but generally as a rhetorical device in MetaTalk."
I can't really imagine any other way this topic could come up that wouldn't just end up following the same trajectory and also getting nuked. And I think that's fine. I mean, I'd like it if we could discuss this topic, but evidently we really suck at that and do more collateral harm than good, so I'm in favor of deleting threads on the topic. So I guess there's at least one person here saying "this particular topic cannot be discussed here".
Though I don't know about "no longer be discussed". Has this topic ever been discussed in the past? Did it go any better, or did it suck just as bad?
posted by Bugbread at 4:33 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
I can't really imagine any other way this topic could come up that wouldn't just end up following the same trajectory and also getting nuked. And I think that's fine. I mean, I'd like it if we could discuss this topic, but evidently we really suck at that and do more collateral harm than good, so I'm in favor of deleting threads on the topic. So I guess there's at least one person here saying "this particular topic cannot be discussed here".
Though I don't know about "no longer be discussed". Has this topic ever been discussed in the past? Did it go any better, or did it suck just as bad?
posted by Bugbread at 4:33 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
a) it's a weird edge case that doesn't cast much light on the central issues
That's part of the rub, though. I disagree pretty strongly with this, and it is what it is, but this is supposedly not the thread to discuss the case, so I'm not going to go into it.
And yet - if we're not discussing the case here, then why do so many comments express the above sentiment? That's just another way of discussing the case in this thread, which we're supposedly not doing. In practice, in this thread, it apparently is okay to talk about the case, so long as we say affirmatively that this case does not shed any light on, or raise any questions about, interesting issues. This preemptively says that people who think otherwise are wrong, even before they speak. It becomes the controlling value judgment.
Because of others' transphobic horseshit, it is provably not a good idea to actually have that non-MeTa conversation on this site. But, that's a different argument! "Conversations about Doležal are a bad fit for MetaFilter, because of both bigots and tensions about bigotry" does not lead to "therefore, the Doležal story is inherently minor and uninteresting".
Well, I think it's actually very interesting, and you may disagree, and obviously that's fine. It's just a shame that that conversation doesn't work well on this site.
NB: It's hard to write a MeTa comment without sounding harsh, so I just want to say that I don't really have any hard or dramatic feelings about not having posts about this, nor do I have anything against people who don't want to hear about this woman ever again for the rest of their lives.
posted by Sticherbeast at 4:39 AM on June 16, 2015 [12 favorites]
That's part of the rub, though. I disagree pretty strongly with this, and it is what it is, but this is supposedly not the thread to discuss the case, so I'm not going to go into it.
And yet - if we're not discussing the case here, then why do so many comments express the above sentiment? That's just another way of discussing the case in this thread, which we're supposedly not doing. In practice, in this thread, it apparently is okay to talk about the case, so long as we say affirmatively that this case does not shed any light on, or raise any questions about, interesting issues. This preemptively says that people who think otherwise are wrong, even before they speak. It becomes the controlling value judgment.
Because of others' transphobic horseshit, it is provably not a good idea to actually have that non-MeTa conversation on this site. But, that's a different argument! "Conversations about Doležal are a bad fit for MetaFilter, because of both bigots and tensions about bigotry" does not lead to "therefore, the Doležal story is inherently minor and uninteresting".
Well, I think it's actually very interesting, and you may disagree, and obviously that's fine. It's just a shame that that conversation doesn't work well on this site.
NB: It's hard to write a MeTa comment without sounding harsh, so I just want to say that I don't really have any hard or dramatic feelings about not having posts about this, nor do I have anything against people who don't want to hear about this woman ever again for the rest of their lives.
posted by Sticherbeast at 4:39 AM on June 16, 2015 [12 favorites]
you began with a blanket insult, and now are getting into personal bickering because that wasn't terribly well received
It wasn't an insult, it was a characterization. I've been at least as civil as my detractors-- there's not any need for a moderator to step in-- especially one who's going to be sarcastic and not even attempt to appear impartial.
At what point did it become a source of pride for you that a 12-year contributor would feel that this site has been moderated to the consistency of thin porridge?
posted by Mayor Curley at 4:59 AM on June 16, 2015 [8 favorites]
It wasn't an insult, it was a characterization. I've been at least as civil as my detractors-- there's not any need for a moderator to step in-- especially one who's going to be sarcastic and not even attempt to appear impartial.
At what point did it become a source of pride for you that a 12-year contributor would feel that this site has been moderated to the consistency of thin porridge?
posted by Mayor Curley at 4:59 AM on June 16, 2015 [8 favorites]
I can't really imagine any other way this topic could come up that wouldn't just end up following the same trajectory and also getting nuked.
An FPP on the specific case, maybe not; it seems pretty polluted, but who knows what might get written about it in the fyure that could be actually useful? However, I can imagine, without too much difficulty, someone making an FPP about the idea of the social construction of race and different opinions about that, where this specific event, fleshed out with actual information, was one of a variety of takes. It might not go well; race is a tricky subject that our society "doesn't do well," but it wouldn't necessarily rehash the particular "point and gawk" aspects of the current "national discussion" that helped the FPPs go so badly.
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:06 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
An FPP on the specific case, maybe not; it seems pretty polluted, but who knows what might get written about it in the fyure that could be actually useful? However, I can imagine, without too much difficulty, someone making an FPP about the idea of the social construction of race and different opinions about that, where this specific event, fleshed out with actual information, was one of a variety of takes. It might not go well; race is a tricky subject that our society "doesn't do well," but it wouldn't necessarily rehash the particular "point and gawk" aspects of the current "national discussion" that helped the FPPs go so badly.
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:06 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
This is a discussion board for very fragile people now.
Even supposing this to be an accurate characterization, what is the thinking? That people who need extra consideration are fragile, therefore contemptible, and therefore don't deserve extra consideration?
posted by stebulus at 5:09 AM on June 16, 2015 [8 favorites]
Even supposing this to be an accurate characterization, what is the thinking? That people who need extra consideration are fragile, therefore contemptible, and therefore don't deserve extra consideration?
posted by stebulus at 5:09 AM on June 16, 2015 [8 favorites]
And yet - if we're not discussing the case here, then why do so many comments express the above sentiment? That's just another way of discussing the case in this thread, which we're supposedly not doing. In practice, in this thread, it apparently is okay to talk about the case, so long as we say affirmatively that this case does not shed any light on, or raise any questions about, interesting issues. This preemptively says that people who think otherwise are wrong, even before they speak. It becomes the controlling value judgment.
Well, as I say immediately above, I think a lot of what went wrong with the long FPP was a combination of rubbernecking at a slightly outre story and repetition (unwittingly or otherwise) of talking points that had a huge elements of "Gotcha SJW!" along with racism and transphobia, none of which make for good discussion. The breaking news aspects of the story compounded it -- there seem to be a lot of details missing, and those gaps, plus the rush by certain groups to seize control of the framing of the story, make this a less-than-useful example to discuss any kind of wider issues, at which point we get something that's more like "Here's a weird thing that a person with some unspecified baggage did; discuss," which is the sort of thing that gets deleted as OutrageFilter all the time, usually with a request to wait for more information before trying to make an FPP.
Now, I guess you could say that I am discussing the case in the above paragraph, but only in as far as discussing what went wrong with the FPP and why the deletion was good for the site, which I'm not sure we can do without discussing it to that extent. (If I'm wrong, I expect this'll get deleted; so be it.)
Furthermore, I'm not saying that the incident couldn't be woven into a productive FPP, but, for the reasons I outline above, I don't think it can be done now, nor do I think that this incident is strong enough, detailed enough, and typical enough to stand at the center of an FPP. I suppose someone could prove me wrong there, too, but I'm dubious.
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:20 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
Well, as I say immediately above, I think a lot of what went wrong with the long FPP was a combination of rubbernecking at a slightly outre story and repetition (unwittingly or otherwise) of talking points that had a huge elements of "Gotcha SJW!" along with racism and transphobia, none of which make for good discussion. The breaking news aspects of the story compounded it -- there seem to be a lot of details missing, and those gaps, plus the rush by certain groups to seize control of the framing of the story, make this a less-than-useful example to discuss any kind of wider issues, at which point we get something that's more like "Here's a weird thing that a person with some unspecified baggage did; discuss," which is the sort of thing that gets deleted as OutrageFilter all the time, usually with a request to wait for more information before trying to make an FPP.
Now, I guess you could say that I am discussing the case in the above paragraph, but only in as far as discussing what went wrong with the FPP and why the deletion was good for the site, which I'm not sure we can do without discussing it to that extent. (If I'm wrong, I expect this'll get deleted; so be it.)
Furthermore, I'm not saying that the incident couldn't be woven into a productive FPP, but, for the reasons I outline above, I don't think it can be done now, nor do I think that this incident is strong enough, detailed enough, and typical enough to stand at the center of an FPP. I suppose someone could prove me wrong there, too, but I'm dubious.
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:20 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
what is the thinking? That people who need extra consideration are fragile, therefore contemptible, and therefore don't deserve extra consideration?
This is an excellent point of discussion. Seriously. My belief is that there's a place between excluding virulently hateful talk (which does not expand discourse), and discussion that includes ideas that will make some people uncomfortable. I wish we could move closer to that balance. I need to stop commenting so heavily, so can other people explore this? This thread might amount to something.
posted by Mayor Curley at 5:25 AM on June 16, 2015 [9 favorites]
This is an excellent point of discussion. Seriously. My belief is that there's a place between excluding virulently hateful talk (which does not expand discourse), and discussion that includes ideas that will make some people uncomfortable. I wish we could move closer to that balance. I need to stop commenting so heavily, so can other people explore this? This thread might amount to something.
posted by Mayor Curley at 5:25 AM on June 16, 2015 [9 favorites]
I would also like to thank the mods for closing the related threads up, and Lobster Mitten for their first comment here. I noped out early, and did not intend to comment, but after reading through the whole thing, paying attention, there are just two points I'd like to make.
1. Posters who so much want an 'objective' discussion of fascinating hypotheticals never couch their hypotheticals in terms where the majority position can be read as anomalous, a fascinating oddity, a curio; they never predicate the minority as normative depending on the context in which it occurs. It is obvious from their language, which excludes anything other than exceptionally binary understandings, that such a thought has never in their life crossed their minds. So even for the sake of argument, in which they are so happy to use other people's realities, they can't comprehend shifting from their fixed position.
2. These posters frequently make weird, masked appeals to authority in the form of the word 'we'. 'We' are given to understand. It would be useful to 'us'. 'We' are informed that. Again, my inference is it has never crossed their minds, not that there are people in the world for whom these truths are not self-evident, but that those people...don't matter? Aren't part of the debate? Should be discounted out of hand? AREN'T PART OF METAFILTER?
Whatever, that royal we is really jarring, and to me at least, a sign I'm not going to give myself a migraine by trying to engage with the person.
My family contains edge-case intersections of race and culture which contain wonderful, fruitful, stimulating (as well as highly sensitive) mental headspaces for me. A discussion on the Dolezal case could have been so interesting. As it is, Kathryn T and hal_c_yon summed it up well half way up this thread.*
*apologies if I'd got names wrong, afraid to search with reply window open!
posted by glasseyes at 5:25 AM on June 16, 2015 [13 favorites]
1. Posters who so much want an 'objective' discussion of fascinating hypotheticals never couch their hypotheticals in terms where the majority position can be read as anomalous, a fascinating oddity, a curio; they never predicate the minority as normative depending on the context in which it occurs. It is obvious from their language, which excludes anything other than exceptionally binary understandings, that such a thought has never in their life crossed their minds. So even for the sake of argument, in which they are so happy to use other people's realities, they can't comprehend shifting from their fixed position.
2. These posters frequently make weird, masked appeals to authority in the form of the word 'we'. 'We' are given to understand. It would be useful to 'us'. 'We' are informed that. Again, my inference is it has never crossed their minds, not that there are people in the world for whom these truths are not self-evident, but that those people...don't matter? Aren't part of the debate? Should be discounted out of hand? AREN'T PART OF METAFILTER?
Whatever, that royal we is really jarring, and to me at least, a sign I'm not going to give myself a migraine by trying to engage with the person.
My family contains edge-case intersections of race and culture which contain wonderful, fruitful, stimulating (as well as highly sensitive) mental headspaces for me. A discussion on the Dolezal case could have been so interesting. As it is, Kathryn T and hal_c_yon summed it up well half way up this thread.*
*apologies if I'd got names wrong, afraid to search with reply window open!
posted by glasseyes at 5:25 AM on June 16, 2015 [13 favorites]
Add me to the list of the people disappointed not so much in the deletion reason itself, but that these types of conversations can't be had here anymore. Thanks to the participants in this thread I know why, but that doesn't soothe the disappointment much. MeFi members are my trusted voices and frankly this is the place I go to hear smart people talk about sticky things. I am finding great insights on Twitter and Tumblr though, so there is that.
posted by kimberussell at 5:25 AM on June 16, 2015 [11 favorites]
posted by kimberussell at 5:25 AM on June 16, 2015 [11 favorites]
Again, my inference is it has never crossed their minds, not that there are people in the world for whom these truths are not self-evident, but that those people...don't matter?
Missed the edit window - apologise for bad grammar - I think my meaning is clear tho. It has never crossed their minds that people who don't agree with them matter etc.
posted by glasseyes at 5:36 AM on June 16, 2015
Missed the edit window - apologise for bad grammar - I think my meaning is clear tho. It has never crossed their minds that people who don't agree with them matter etc.
posted by glasseyes at 5:36 AM on June 16, 2015
At what point did it become a source of pride for you that a 12-year contributor would feel that this site has been moderated to the consistency of thin porridge?
Around 2011-2012. When dozens of women started saying that Metafilter was now beginning to feel more welcoming for them.
It's not pride. This has nothing to do with you personally, man. But I sure as hell don't miss the worst of the "good ol' days."
posted by zarq at 5:38 AM on June 16, 2015 [33 favorites]
Around 2011-2012. When dozens of women started saying that Metafilter was now beginning to feel more welcoming for them.
It's not pride. This has nothing to do with you personally, man. But I sure as hell don't miss the worst of the "good ol' days."
posted by zarq at 5:38 AM on June 16, 2015 [33 favorites]
It wasn't an insult, it was a characterization.
I know you've bowed out now, but let me offer for the benefit of others that these two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. And in my opinion anyway, arriving to scold the community at large (again) for being thin skinned and fragile was insulting. Just because you do not use actual cuss words doesn't mean you were at all civil. By any fucking stretch.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 5:39 AM on June 16, 2015 [8 favorites]
I know you've bowed out now, but let me offer for the benefit of others that these two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. And in my opinion anyway, arriving to scold the community at large (again) for being thin skinned and fragile was insulting. Just because you do not use actual cuss words doesn't mean you were at all civil. By any fucking stretch.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 5:39 AM on June 16, 2015 [8 favorites]
> Though I don't know about "no longer be discussed". Has this topic ever been discussed in the past? Did it go any better, or did it suck just as bad?
Which subject? Passing as another race? There was a post in March that seemed to go fine, though it was about passing as white and that's something that people don't seem to think is all that strange in and of itself. Here are all the tags that show up when I did a (lazy) site search for race/racism/passing.
I'm betting we can absolutely have an interesting, difficult but not completely horribly discussion about racial passing; I'm not sure that discussing this one woman, right at this moment, would be that. If it's a good and interesting subject, that subject will still be around and interesting in a few months.
posted by rtha at 5:49 AM on June 16, 2015 [8 favorites]
Which subject? Passing as another race? There was a post in March that seemed to go fine, though it was about passing as white and that's something that people don't seem to think is all that strange in and of itself. Here are all the tags that show up when I did a (lazy) site search for race/racism/passing.
I'm betting we can absolutely have an interesting, difficult but not completely horribly discussion about racial passing; I'm not sure that discussing this one woman, right at this moment, would be that. If it's a good and interesting subject, that subject will still be around and interesting in a few months.
posted by rtha at 5:49 AM on June 16, 2015 [8 favorites]
I guess I just find it somewhat strange that a few comments - mostly not from mods - appear to elide or obfuscate those reasonable concerns, in favor of excuses which try to pretend that MeFi moderation does not make these kinds of judgments. Of course MeFi as a community has its own ideas of right and wrong, true and false - not in the sense that everybody thinks alike, but in the sense of quorum, gestalt, mod strategy, etc. Of course MetaFilter has such notions - what's wrong about that?
Wow, I agree with this whole comment so hard, Sticherbeast. I feel like there is a recurrent problem with mods appearing to throw everything at the wall and see what sticks in their official deletion notes. The deletion often turns out to be a good one, as in this case, but there is a frequent pattern of contentious thread getting deleted, discursive clusterfuck, and then somewhere in the mix the moderation is like "oh yeah btw this was all totes about protecting members from microaggressions". Even in the opening post to this thread, which has rightfully been described as a good step in the right direction, LobsterMitten calls the topic "news of the weird", which, just why muddy the waters like that?
I think the mods ultimately made a good decision here, and I'm not trying to give them a hard time; I think a little more actual ownership of deletion reasons from the get-go would go a fair way to solve a recurrent MeTa problem.
posted by threeants at 5:54 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Wow, I agree with this whole comment so hard, Sticherbeast. I feel like there is a recurrent problem with mods appearing to throw everything at the wall and see what sticks in their official deletion notes. The deletion often turns out to be a good one, as in this case, but there is a frequent pattern of contentious thread getting deleted, discursive clusterfuck, and then somewhere in the mix the moderation is like "oh yeah btw this was all totes about protecting members from microaggressions". Even in the opening post to this thread, which has rightfully been described as a good step in the right direction, LobsterMitten calls the topic "news of the weird", which, just why muddy the waters like that?
I think the mods ultimately made a good decision here, and I'm not trying to give them a hard time; I think a little more actual ownership of deletion reasons from the get-go would go a fair way to solve a recurrent MeTa problem.
posted by threeants at 5:54 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
the decline
One person's ceiling is another person's floor.
posted by Too-Ticky at 5:54 AM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
One person's ceiling is another person's floor.
posted by Too-Ticky at 5:54 AM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
Once again, I wonder what happened to simply not going into threads you don't like.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:54 AM on June 16, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by five fresh fish at 5:54 AM on June 16, 2015 [9 favorites]
Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane: "Just because you do not use actual cuss words doesn't mean you were at all civil. By any fucking stretch."
I kinda thought that, and I also thought "Man, Mayor Curley has always thought that Metafilter is moderated to the consistency of thin porridge. What 'good old days' could he be pining for?" So I looked through the MetaTalk archives. Two discoveries:
1) Mayor Curley has found MetaFilter to be overmoderated and milquetoast for at least 8 years now.
2) Mayor Curley has become WAY more civil. Not just "removing cuss words", but seriously way more civil.
posted by Bugbread at 5:55 AM on June 16, 2015 [19 favorites]
I kinda thought that, and I also thought "Man, Mayor Curley has always thought that Metafilter is moderated to the consistency of thin porridge. What 'good old days' could he be pining for?" So I looked through the MetaTalk archives. Two discoveries:
1) Mayor Curley has found MetaFilter to be overmoderated and milquetoast for at least 8 years now.
2) Mayor Curley has become WAY more civil. Not just "removing cuss words", but seriously way more civil.
posted by Bugbread at 5:55 AM on June 16, 2015 [19 favorites]
My belief is that there's a place between excluding virulently hateful talk (which does not expand discourse), and discussion that includes ideas that will make some people uncomfortable.
This is a pretty egregious mischaracterization of how sexist and transphobic comments affect women and trans members of this community. Many women and trans members have explained many times over many years that this goes beyond mere "uncomfortable." But it's pretty typical for someone longing for the good old free-for-all boyzone days to minimize all those discussions. This place is now better for women. It's hopefully on its way to becoming better for trans members. Some people don't like that. I think that's too bad. Literally, I think it's really too bad that people can lament for the "I'd hit it" days. It's too bad that people can look at women and trans members standing up for themselves and call them "fragile" and metafilter a "thin gruel" without as much of the sexist and transphobic garbage that used to litter the place.
watching MetaFilter become less brave
Oh, the courage of the transphobes and misogynists, whatever will we do without them. If you want bravery, you could look to the trans members who speak up despite vigorous pushback and lots of ignorance. Or what about the women who told deeply personal stories of rape and sexual assault and harassment in the Schodinger's Rapist thread(s) and the ensuing boyzone discussions. Are they less brave than ye Metafilter of olde?
I mostly lurk, and I loved Metafilter back when I first started reading 10 years ago, but I love it more now. It's better now. It can't be all things to all people, and I think the choices the mods and community have made are the right ones.
posted by Mavri at 6:07 AM on June 16, 2015 [54 favorites]
This is a pretty egregious mischaracterization of how sexist and transphobic comments affect women and trans members of this community. Many women and trans members have explained many times over many years that this goes beyond mere "uncomfortable." But it's pretty typical for someone longing for the good old free-for-all boyzone days to minimize all those discussions. This place is now better for women. It's hopefully on its way to becoming better for trans members. Some people don't like that. I think that's too bad. Literally, I think it's really too bad that people can lament for the "I'd hit it" days. It's too bad that people can look at women and trans members standing up for themselves and call them "fragile" and metafilter a "thin gruel" without as much of the sexist and transphobic garbage that used to litter the place.
watching MetaFilter become less brave
Oh, the courage of the transphobes and misogynists, whatever will we do without them. If you want bravery, you could look to the trans members who speak up despite vigorous pushback and lots of ignorance. Or what about the women who told deeply personal stories of rape and sexual assault and harassment in the Schodinger's Rapist thread(s) and the ensuing boyzone discussions. Are they less brave than ye Metafilter of olde?
I mostly lurk, and I loved Metafilter back when I first started reading 10 years ago, but I love it more now. It's better now. It can't be all things to all people, and I think the choices the mods and community have made are the right ones.
posted by Mavri at 6:07 AM on June 16, 2015 [54 favorites]
So he's more civil. Well, yay progress then?
I've been posting here for 7 years, give or take, and I find the characterization that there is an actual sociopolitical orthodoxy of increasing force to be hyperbolic at best. We have users who hail from a myriad of sociopolitical perspectives. The only thing I've seen change is that there is a lower level of patience for being dickish with socially marginized people. If other people lack the imagination to discuss these things without engaging in tedious silencing tactics then oh well, there's a whole internet out there for them to smear banana all over.
There is no sociopolitical orthodoxy; you need only afford your fellow members more respect and kindness. If that's the "decline", well, hand me an inner tube so I can ride this baby all the way down.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 6:08 AM on June 16, 2015 [19 favorites]
I've been posting here for 7 years, give or take, and I find the characterization that there is an actual sociopolitical orthodoxy of increasing force to be hyperbolic at best. We have users who hail from a myriad of sociopolitical perspectives. The only thing I've seen change is that there is a lower level of patience for being dickish with socially marginized people. If other people lack the imagination to discuss these things without engaging in tedious silencing tactics then oh well, there's a whole internet out there for them to smear banana all over.
There is no sociopolitical orthodoxy; you need only afford your fellow members more respect and kindness. If that's the "decline", well, hand me an inner tube so I can ride this baby all the way down.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 6:08 AM on June 16, 2015 [19 favorites]
Why can't it be the case that Metafilter just doesn't do some things well? Like why can't this be a great place for almost everything, but discussions of X are off-limits because we tend to fuck them up?
X can be anything: Israel-Palestine, cat declawing, Mac v PC, etc.
Isn't the community still worth it, so long as X is a relatively small group of things?
I'll just add that I've seen a lot of really talented philosophers and social scientists of race and gender fuck up their initial discussions of this particular case, just because of framing issues. It's a tough thing to think through FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE THE RELEVANT IDENTITIES AND EXPERTISE. Trans scholars are fucking it up, Black scholars are fucking it up, famous feminists and critical race theorists are fucking it up, and all of them came back and revised their views because they made their misstatements in social media where every day is a brand new day and their friends and colleagues are actually a lot more patient and forgiving than the average Metafilter thread.
Basically, the first day this story hit was a cluster fuck. Worse, there are a lot of facts not yet in evidence. So why not just let it go, and discuss something else? We don't need more Hot Takes! Why does it have to be about Metafilter's decline or some such nonsense?
posted by anotherpanacea at 6:09 AM on June 16, 2015 [13 favorites]
X can be anything: Israel-Palestine, cat declawing, Mac v PC, etc.
Isn't the community still worth it, so long as X is a relatively small group of things?
I'll just add that I've seen a lot of really talented philosophers and social scientists of race and gender fuck up their initial discussions of this particular case, just because of framing issues. It's a tough thing to think through FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE THE RELEVANT IDENTITIES AND EXPERTISE. Trans scholars are fucking it up, Black scholars are fucking it up, famous feminists and critical race theorists are fucking it up, and all of them came back and revised their views because they made their misstatements in social media where every day is a brand new day and their friends and colleagues are actually a lot more patient and forgiving than the average Metafilter thread.
Basically, the first day this story hit was a cluster fuck. Worse, there are a lot of facts not yet in evidence. So why not just let it go, and discuss something else? We don't need more Hot Takes! Why does it have to be about Metafilter's decline or some such nonsense?
posted by anotherpanacea at 6:09 AM on June 16, 2015 [13 favorites]
I think Potomac Avenue's post, which was the most recent one, centered around a link by a black writer.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at
Just as a note that article was by an anti-racist activist who has written extensively about racism in the feminist community, and who nevertheless is a white woman. 2015!
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:09 AM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at
Just as a note that article was by an anti-racist activist who has written extensively about racism in the feminist community, and who nevertheless is a white woman. 2015!
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:09 AM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
I've only been here since 2010, so make of that what you will.
But my impression is that there have been two big changes to MeFi moderation over the years:
1) A move toward zero-tolerance of shitty comments that are actively hurtful to users.
2) A widening of the diversity of identities/groups/etc whose needs are being considered.
In other words, not only are the mods clamping down on "straightforward" racism and sexism, they're also thinking more actively about things like transphobia and heterosexism.
From where I'm sitting, a huge point of stress seems to be that some users disagree very strongly with the latter part -- the expanding idea of which groups we're specifically trying to carve out a safer* space for. As in, they disagree with either the legitimacy of those groups, or that such groups deserve "special treatment." Or else, they want certain related questions to be up for debate -- we all agree we can't argue here that women are inherently inferior to men, but can we talk about the legitimacy of trans identities? And those users see the mods' answer -- "No, we're not going to argue about that" -- to be silencing and shitty, instead of just another part of making MetaFilter a place where as many people as possible feel welcome to participate.
That's my impression. But I'm not really sure what to DO about it.
*The "er" is important there -- I understand that MeFi isn't ever going to be a completely "safe" space and I agree that it shouldn't have to be.
posted by Narrative Priorities at 6:09 AM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
But my impression is that there have been two big changes to MeFi moderation over the years:
1) A move toward zero-tolerance of shitty comments that are actively hurtful to users.
2) A widening of the diversity of identities/groups/etc whose needs are being considered.
In other words, not only are the mods clamping down on "straightforward" racism and sexism, they're also thinking more actively about things like transphobia and heterosexism.
From where I'm sitting, a huge point of stress seems to be that some users disagree very strongly with the latter part -- the expanding idea of which groups we're specifically trying to carve out a safer* space for. As in, they disagree with either the legitimacy of those groups, or that such groups deserve "special treatment." Or else, they want certain related questions to be up for debate -- we all agree we can't argue here that women are inherently inferior to men, but can we talk about the legitimacy of trans identities? And those users see the mods' answer -- "No, we're not going to argue about that" -- to be silencing and shitty, instead of just another part of making MetaFilter a place where as many people as possible feel welcome to participate.
That's my impression. But I'm not really sure what to DO about it.
*The "er" is important there -- I understand that MeFi isn't ever going to be a completely "safe" space and I agree that it shouldn't have to be.
posted by Narrative Priorities at 6:09 AM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane: "We have users who hail from a myriad of sociopolitical perspectives."
"We have all kinds of music, country and western"
I'm left-wing and, as far as I can recall, I've been in favor of every single deletion on this site, so from these members' positions I'm totes part of the problem, but it's kinda silly to say we have users from "a myriad of sociopolitical perspectives". I mean, yeah, sure, technically, we've got a handful of token members from this group and that group. The Republican party, likewise, has people from a myriad of racial, gender, sexual, and spiritual backgrounds. But, c'mon, MeFi is overwhelmingly a left-wing site. Which I think is just fine, but pretending it isn't true is silly.
posted by Bugbread at 6:18 AM on June 16, 2015 [9 favorites]
"We have all kinds of music, country and western"
I'm left-wing and, as far as I can recall, I've been in favor of every single deletion on this site, so from these members' positions I'm totes part of the problem, but it's kinda silly to say we have users from "a myriad of sociopolitical perspectives". I mean, yeah, sure, technically, we've got a handful of token members from this group and that group. The Republican party, likewise, has people from a myriad of racial, gender, sexual, and spiritual backgrounds. But, c'mon, MeFi is overwhelmingly a left-wing site. Which I think is just fine, but pretending it isn't true is silly.
posted by Bugbread at 6:18 AM on June 16, 2015 [9 favorites]
A couple of comments deleted. Please don't drag in members who are not a part of the discussion here. It's fine to go ahead and say what you think in your own words, rather than copy/pasting and repurposing someone else's comment from a different discussion.
posted by taz (staff) at 6:19 AM on June 16, 2015
posted by taz (staff) at 6:19 AM on June 16, 2015
I'm not going to express an opinion on the deletion other than I generally support them when they happen. Perhaps it was a bad delete, perhaps not. Sometimes maybe mods get it wrong, but they get more right than not, so I am willing to not mourn the demise of any particular thread.
Now, as to the topic, I think there is enough there there for there to be a post. Perhaps there wasn't at the time, but the facts on the ground have changed. She's resigned. The police have dropped their harassment investigations. A lot of people have gone on the record as to what this all means and how people should feel about it. I could go on.
Point is, we can either be part of these sensitive discourses or we can discuss them only in a historical context. I am empathic to the sensibilities of others and realize this might be a difficult topic, but so far the consensus isn't that it's a banned discussion, but that it needs punted down the field. That's the part that I'm having a bit of a problem with. Is this topic going to be less painful in two weeks? Are the opinions going to be more enlightened?
Either there's enough substance and meat to sustain a discussion or there's not.
There's some problematic elements to nixing a thread based on the sentiments of a portion of the user base. All the time it's said that metafilter is not a single entity, and there doesn't seem to be a consensus amongst the portion of users this thread was deleted to protect. Add to this, deletion to protect from discomfort hasn't been a value previously espoused by this site. One of the precepts has always been, if you don't like it you are welcome to move on (both from the thread and the site), no one forces you to read a thread, etc.
I'm also a bit unclear how we as a community (in general) and the moderation staff (in particular) make these determinations in an ethical manner. There's something discomfiting to me when the predominant demographic in both these groups are the ones getting to decide which racial/gender/political issues are allowed for discussion.
Seems to me, the standard should be whether there's enough content to make a good post. How people react to said post (whether through being unable to move on without being hurt by its existence, or by being an uneducated asshole in thread) needs to be on the table, but it really shouldn't be the overriding factor of survivability.
There's also a difference in discussion these issues in the abstract and discussion them concretely. We do both here. We discuss events as they unfold. We discus events in a historical manner. Requiring a time out on this precludes the real time discussion some obviously want to have. Requiring a cooling off period can be detrimental to discourse. It's a rhetoric we see with gun control discussions after a mass shooting, "too soon" becomes "only bring it up when no one really cares." This happens with all kinds of contentious issues.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:22 AM on June 16, 2015 [13 favorites]
Now, as to the topic, I think there is enough there there for there to be a post. Perhaps there wasn't at the time, but the facts on the ground have changed. She's resigned. The police have dropped their harassment investigations. A lot of people have gone on the record as to what this all means and how people should feel about it. I could go on.
Point is, we can either be part of these sensitive discourses or we can discuss them only in a historical context. I am empathic to the sensibilities of others and realize this might be a difficult topic, but so far the consensus isn't that it's a banned discussion, but that it needs punted down the field. That's the part that I'm having a bit of a problem with. Is this topic going to be less painful in two weeks? Are the opinions going to be more enlightened?
Either there's enough substance and meat to sustain a discussion or there's not.
There's some problematic elements to nixing a thread based on the sentiments of a portion of the user base. All the time it's said that metafilter is not a single entity, and there doesn't seem to be a consensus amongst the portion of users this thread was deleted to protect. Add to this, deletion to protect from discomfort hasn't been a value previously espoused by this site. One of the precepts has always been, if you don't like it you are welcome to move on (both from the thread and the site), no one forces you to read a thread, etc.
I'm also a bit unclear how we as a community (in general) and the moderation staff (in particular) make these determinations in an ethical manner. There's something discomfiting to me when the predominant demographic in both these groups are the ones getting to decide which racial/gender/political issues are allowed for discussion.
Seems to me, the standard should be whether there's enough content to make a good post. How people react to said post (whether through being unable to move on without being hurt by its existence, or by being an uneducated asshole in thread) needs to be on the table, but it really shouldn't be the overriding factor of survivability.
There's also a difference in discussion these issues in the abstract and discussion them concretely. We do both here. We discuss events as they unfold. We discus events in a historical manner. Requiring a time out on this precludes the real time discussion some obviously want to have. Requiring a cooling off period can be detrimental to discourse. It's a rhetoric we see with gun control discussions after a mass shooting, "too soon" becomes "only bring it up when no one really cares." This happens with all kinds of contentious issues.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:22 AM on June 16, 2015 [13 favorites]
Not how I meant it, Bugbread, but I can see how you'd read my comment that way. The site is overwhelmingly center-left to left, def, but what I mean by "orthodoxy" is that this is not something enforced by moderators. In fact, I see them often go out of their way to stop insult-hurling and dickish behavior directed at our conservative users. It could very well be that affording more respect to the socially marginized is a leftist idea (a whoke other topic for debate) but I think, from a mod perspective, it's more about reducing toxicity and increasing inclusion.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 6:29 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 6:29 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Also, thank you, Sony Xperia for that amazing parsing.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 6:33 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 6:33 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
BBuBugBugbBugbtBugbteBugbread
This is your new honorific, Mr Bread of Bug. I think it's fair to consider that you've arrived.
Unfortunately, it can only go downhill from here, so enjoy the view.
No disrespect, Mr Aya, but it was a little bit glorious.
posted by Wolof at 6:33 AM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
This is your new honorific, Mr Bread of Bug. I think it's fair to consider that you've arrived.
Unfortunately, it can only go downhill from here, so enjoy the view.
No disrespect, Mr Aya, but it was a little bit glorious.
posted by Wolof at 6:33 AM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
It seems like NortonDC could easily link to the comment, and should.
But yeah, I don't see why it was deleted. NortonDC has a particular reason for having noticed the plethora of female users who no longer participate in the site because they don't like what they perceive to be the change in tone. After all, his wife is among them.
I think there ought to be a way to accommodate those objections in Metatalk when they are relevant.
posted by anotherpanacea at 6:42 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
But yeah, I don't see why it was deleted. NortonDC has a particular reason for having noticed the plethora of female users who no longer participate in the site because they don't like what they perceive to be the change in tone. After all, his wife is among them.
I think there ought to be a way to accommodate those objections in Metatalk when they are relevant.
posted by anotherpanacea at 6:42 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
I think this whole conversation is a little bit weird, since I remember back in the "glory" days of Metafilter we used to have exactly this kind of Metatalk conversation. Only back then the conversation was about whether something was "newsfilter" and that term seems to have fallen out of favor. But we would have these same exact discussions about controversial, hot-news topics being made into threads. Weirdly back then most of the sort of old-time users were against "newsfilter" and seemed to view it as something brought into the site by new people who didn't understand the "Best of the Web". But now I guess we're stifling discussion? I dunno. Probably not the same set of people.
The one thing that seems really novel is Metatalk comments being deleted, but if you go back and read any Metatalk thread from that era it's just full of people behaving like nasty children, so... whatever?
posted by selfnoise at 6:43 AM on June 16, 2015 [9 favorites]
The one thing that seems really novel is Metatalk comments being deleted, but if you go back and read any Metatalk thread from that era it's just full of people behaving like nasty children, so... whatever?
posted by selfnoise at 6:43 AM on June 16, 2015 [9 favorites]
there are still not enough facts on the ground to do this topic justice. there are still many things changing shape. the conversation some were clamoring to have on day one is looking very silly in the light of newer information. i wager that a thread started right now would look immediately outdated by the end of the week. sometimes we can jump into the middle of breaking news stuff and just sort of roll with the punches of new info as it comes out and sometimes it's better to wait. this is a case where i think it's better to wait.
this does not mean we can't discuss this sort of stuff on metafilter "anymore" or that there's some gigantic sea change. the sky is not falling.
posted by nadawi at 6:44 AM on June 16, 2015 [8 favorites]
this does not mean we can't discuss this sort of stuff on metafilter "anymore" or that there's some gigantic sea change. the sky is not falling.
posted by nadawi at 6:44 AM on June 16, 2015 [8 favorites]
Wow. So tell me, please, is it verboten to disagree with the deletion of a comment in this thread, or was due to mentioning the name of that user? I want to understand how this works.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:46 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by five fresh fish at 6:46 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Mayor Curley: This is an excellent point of discussion. Seriously. My belief is that there's a place between excluding virulently hateful talk (which does not expand discourse), and discussion that includes ideas that will make some people uncomfortable. I wish we could move closer to that balance. I need to stop commenting so heavily, so can other people explore this? This thread might amount to something.
I'm among those leery of deleting to protect from discomfort. If I read things right, in this case the same opinions which have been called out here as garbage and bigotry and that go beyond making people merely uncomfortable are the same opinions on a front page editorial on CNN by a black academic.
A place where opinions suitable for the front page of a major, moderate, news organization are too bigoted to be allowed to stand on without deletion on metafilter is an uncomfortable one to me. Metafilter has always been closed off to opinions from the right, but closing off opinions from the center represents a further narrowing of the acceptable discourse. Some people prefer that and want that narrower discourse. Which does have its virtues, you can have different amd sometimes better conversations. Not everyone does, and it is a reasonable debate to have, with what are to me defensible arguments on both sides.
posted by pseudonick at 6:51 AM on June 16, 2015 [28 favorites]
I'm among those leery of deleting to protect from discomfort. If I read things right, in this case the same opinions which have been called out here as garbage and bigotry and that go beyond making people merely uncomfortable are the same opinions on a front page editorial on CNN by a black academic.
A place where opinions suitable for the front page of a major, moderate, news organization are too bigoted to be allowed to stand on without deletion on metafilter is an uncomfortable one to me. Metafilter has always been closed off to opinions from the right, but closing off opinions from the center represents a further narrowing of the acceptable discourse. Some people prefer that and want that narrower discourse. Which does have its virtues, you can have different amd sometimes better conversations. Not everyone does, and it is a reasonable debate to have, with what are to me defensible arguments on both sides.
posted by pseudonick at 6:51 AM on June 16, 2015 [28 favorites]
> Point is, we can either be part of these sensitive discourses or we can discuss them only in a historical context. I am empathic to the sensibilities of others and realize this might be a difficult topic, but so far the consensus isn't that it's a banned discussion, but that it needs punted down the field. That's the part that I'm having a bit of a problem with. Is this topic going to be less painful in two weeks? Are the opinions going to be more enlightened?
[...]
There's also a difference in discussion these issues in the abstract and discussion them concretely. We do both here. We discuss events as they unfold. We discus events in a historical manner. Requiring a time out on this precludes the real time discussion some obviously want to have. Requiring a cooling off period can be detrimental to discourse. It's a rhetoric we see with gun control discussions after a mass shooting, "too soon" becomes "only bring it up when no one really cares." This happens with all kinds of contentious issues.
Do we need to be part of these discourses right now? I speak as someone who was looking forward to the MeFi discussion on this topic because I value the type of discussion the site can have, but who after reading this MeTa thread and also the way the longer FPP went is now firmly on the side of "good job deleting this, mods." There's two benefits that I can think of for delaying this discussion. One is on behalf of people like me who primarily stand to learn from what directly-affected people have to say, and one is on behalf of those groups who feel unwelcome as a result of the current tone of discussion.
I think there's a lot of value to, as SpacemanStix said eloquently upthread, taking a step back to think and mull over what you should say about a complicated event like this before you blurt something out. I don't think that I have as fully formed an opinion about this as I would like to have, because I don't have enough information to be able to make up my mind and I have not had time to listen and think about what other people are saying. Judging from the tone of the thread we nearly had, I think this is also true for most of the rest of the site. Furthermore, new information and reactions are happening everywhere lightning fast--for example, it is now obvious that the transracial derail is deeply harmful to the trans community, but that doesn't seem to have been the case for many people on the day the story broke. Taking a couple of weeks to have a step back and then centering FPPs around, say, nuanced reactions to the story once directly affected people have had a chance to write them will, I think, produce a much more interesting and thought-provoking discussion.
And then there's the minority groups who are directly affected. I'm not one of them, like I said, but I think I have a little bit of semi-relevant experience, which is this: when your entire world is storming around this issue, and everyone you know is shouting about it with varying levels of sensitivity, tact, and bigotry while kicking you in some pretty sore spots, it gets overwhelming. It's hard to deal. That background maelstrom is disproportionately affecting the very people who would be able to provide nuanced and thoughtful perspectives informed by lived experience to the primary discussion. So frankly, I do not expect the people whose perspectives I most expect to be interesting and valuable to this discussion to have the energy to spend a lot of time talking about it on metafilter right now. I think that giving the whole topic a pause--somewhere from a week to a month, to let new information surface and to let people pause and think, will result in a discussion that is a whole lot better and more thought-provoking than getting in on the ground floor to talk it over immediately. Sort of how Last Week Tonight is infinitely more nuanced and thorough on the topics it covers than the Daily Show, because the former has more time to sit and research and plan than the latter does.
posted by sciatrix at 6:54 AM on June 16, 2015 [13 favorites]
[...]
There's also a difference in discussion these issues in the abstract and discussion them concretely. We do both here. We discuss events as they unfold. We discus events in a historical manner. Requiring a time out on this precludes the real time discussion some obviously want to have. Requiring a cooling off period can be detrimental to discourse. It's a rhetoric we see with gun control discussions after a mass shooting, "too soon" becomes "only bring it up when no one really cares." This happens with all kinds of contentious issues.
Do we need to be part of these discourses right now? I speak as someone who was looking forward to the MeFi discussion on this topic because I value the type of discussion the site can have, but who after reading this MeTa thread and also the way the longer FPP went is now firmly on the side of "good job deleting this, mods." There's two benefits that I can think of for delaying this discussion. One is on behalf of people like me who primarily stand to learn from what directly-affected people have to say, and one is on behalf of those groups who feel unwelcome as a result of the current tone of discussion.
I think there's a lot of value to, as SpacemanStix said eloquently upthread, taking a step back to think and mull over what you should say about a complicated event like this before you blurt something out. I don't think that I have as fully formed an opinion about this as I would like to have, because I don't have enough information to be able to make up my mind and I have not had time to listen and think about what other people are saying. Judging from the tone of the thread we nearly had, I think this is also true for most of the rest of the site. Furthermore, new information and reactions are happening everywhere lightning fast--for example, it is now obvious that the transracial derail is deeply harmful to the trans community, but that doesn't seem to have been the case for many people on the day the story broke. Taking a couple of weeks to have a step back and then centering FPPs around, say, nuanced reactions to the story once directly affected people have had a chance to write them will, I think, produce a much more interesting and thought-provoking discussion.
And then there's the minority groups who are directly affected. I'm not one of them, like I said, but I think I have a little bit of semi-relevant experience, which is this: when your entire world is storming around this issue, and everyone you know is shouting about it with varying levels of sensitivity, tact, and bigotry while kicking you in some pretty sore spots, it gets overwhelming. It's hard to deal. That background maelstrom is disproportionately affecting the very people who would be able to provide nuanced and thoughtful perspectives informed by lived experience to the primary discussion. So frankly, I do not expect the people whose perspectives I most expect to be interesting and valuable to this discussion to have the energy to spend a lot of time talking about it on metafilter right now. I think that giving the whole topic a pause--somewhere from a week to a month, to let new information surface and to let people pause and think, will result in a discussion that is a whole lot better and more thought-provoking than getting in on the ground floor to talk it over immediately. Sort of how Last Week Tonight is infinitely more nuanced and thorough on the topics it covers than the Daily Show, because the former has more time to sit and research and plan than the latter does.
posted by sciatrix at 6:54 AM on June 16, 2015 [13 favorites]
five fresh fish, I asked not to pull in someone who was not involved in the discussion here, which isn't a new standard. Obviously you can disagree with anything, but this has been a regular policy for years and years. Pasting someone's full, long comment from another thread on a different topic, and then having a lot of people talk about that person here when they aren't even participating isn't a good thing.
posted by taz (staff) at 6:55 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by taz (staff) at 6:55 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
I have to agree with Mayor Curley; this place has become over-moderated. When it comes to a range of issues including, but not limited to, I/P, obesity, race, sexuality or gender, actual discussion is almost impossible. There is very much a prevailing orthodoxy on these issues, and if you deviate you will get shouted down or abused if you're lucky, or moderated if not. I understand what the mods are trying to do, but a blanket ban on anything which could possibly be found offensive by anybody is just stifling debate.
This place is not Fark or Reddit, and nobody is suggesting that we want to go down that road. I just feel there's a middle ground to be struck. I should be able to express opinions which some others may not agree with, even find uncomfortable or offensive. I should be able to read opinions from others which make me uncomfortable or offended. As long as those opinions are sincerely held and can be defended, all is good.
posted by salmacis at 6:56 AM on June 16, 2015 [29 favorites]
This place is not Fark or Reddit, and nobody is suggesting that we want to go down that road. I just feel there's a middle ground to be struck. I should be able to express opinions which some others may not agree with, even find uncomfortable or offensive. I should be able to read opinions from others which make me uncomfortable or offended. As long as those opinions are sincerely held and can be defended, all is good.
posted by salmacis at 6:56 AM on June 16, 2015 [29 favorites]
nothing is closed off. this one specific newsfilter story is still happening and there's not a compelling reason to discuss it right this second. honestly, before this meta became such a clusterfuck i was confident a good post could be made in a month or two, but i'm getting less sure about that - and it's not because of people who being "protect[ed] from discomfort" (which is a bs reading, but whatever) but rather the people who have turned this into some sort of evidence of how metafilter is doomed. you guys are really just proving the point of the deletion even if you think you're arguing against it.
posted by nadawi at 6:58 AM on June 16, 2015 [12 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 6:58 AM on June 16, 2015 [12 favorites]
There is very much a prevailing orthodoxy on these issues,
Which is??? As far as I can tell, the orthodoxy on all of them is 'dont be a jerk'.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:02 AM on June 16, 2015 [14 favorites]
Which is??? As far as I can tell, the orthodoxy on all of them is 'dont be a jerk'.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:02 AM on June 16, 2015 [14 favorites]
You deleted my post, taz, which did not pull quote that user. My post was the one saying that what she wrote was eloquent and topical, and beefing that you deleted the post from the user who did quote her.
I did mention her name — I'd like to say it here, but fear you'll just nuke this post as well — but it did not link to or quote her.
Are there any other users whose names must never be mentioned? I think it'd be right handy to know this ahead of time, so as to avoid further deletions.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:04 AM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
I did mention her name — I'd like to say it here, but fear you'll just nuke this post as well — but it did not link to or quote her.
Are there any other users whose names must never be mentioned? I think it'd be right handy to know this ahead of time, so as to avoid further deletions.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:04 AM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
Metafilter has always been closed off to opinions from the right, but closing off opinions from the center represents a further narrowing of the acceptable discourse. Some people prefer that and want that narrower discourse. Which does have its virtues, you can have different amd sometimes better conversations. Not everyone does, and it is a reasonable debate to have, with what are to me defensible arguments on both sides.
To me, it's closing off contributions and questions from people who can't say they've necessarily lived these experiences. It's one thing to admit you haven't lived something but to be told you can't even talk or ask about it seems unproductive for what's supposed to be a discussion board.
On this site I see a lot of lumping together of women, LGBTQ and people of color that I personally don't like (that's billions of people you're talking about here). Sometimes it's good distinction to make but not always, in all situations. Also people saying "we" are hurt by so much in the world that "we" don't want to deal with that on this site, again, I wish people would speak for themselves more instead of these generalities.
posted by girlmightlive at 7:04 AM on June 16, 2015 [18 favorites]
To me, it's closing off contributions and questions from people who can't say they've necessarily lived these experiences. It's one thing to admit you haven't lived something but to be told you can't even talk or ask about it seems unproductive for what's supposed to be a discussion board.
On this site I see a lot of lumping together of women, LGBTQ and people of color that I personally don't like (that's billions of people you're talking about here). Sometimes it's good distinction to make but not always, in all situations. Also people saying "we" are hurt by so much in the world that "we" don't want to deal with that on this site, again, I wish people would speak for themselves more instead of these generalities.
posted by girlmightlive at 7:04 AM on June 16, 2015 [18 favorites]
Now, as to the topic, I think there is enough there there for there to be a post. Perhaps there wasn't at the time, but the facts on the ground have changed. She's resigned. The police have dropped their harassment investigations. A lot of people have gone on the record as to what this all means and how people should feel about it. I could go on.
This morning, Rachel Dolezal went on the Today Show and announced that she has been self-identifying as Black since age 5. She's using language which have previously been used by LGBT folks to talk about their gender identities, and she is co-opting them to assert that one's biological race is as fluid as their sexuality. It's all very batshit insane. But inevitably, some Conservatives who believe that being queer and/or trans is a lifestyle choice rather than biology, will pick up on what she's saying and make offensive comparisons. Derailing the conversation into anti-trans fanaticism.
The Conservative denialist rhetoric and hatred isn't abstract for many people here. Or elsewhere. A number of trans folks have been on the receiving end of nasty attacks regarding their identities on Twitter and other social media channels, thanks to anti-trans shitstirring.
There may be enough news to make a post. But as Dysk said earlier, "At least at the moment, the way the story is being talked about everywhere is thoroughly transphobic, and I don't think it's realistic to expect Mefi to be an oasis of sanity like that."
This post and topic are not essential to Metafilter. We've had three versions of it already, one of which went on for 100 comments and was a shitshow. And considering how the national conversation is progressing, it seems naively optimistic to think that a fourth post would somehow be free of the worst of it.
posted by zarq at 7:06 AM on June 16, 2015 [13 favorites]
This morning, Rachel Dolezal went on the Today Show and announced that she has been self-identifying as Black since age 5. She's using language which have previously been used by LGBT folks to talk about their gender identities, and she is co-opting them to assert that one's biological race is as fluid as their sexuality. It's all very batshit insane. But inevitably, some Conservatives who believe that being queer and/or trans is a lifestyle choice rather than biology, will pick up on what she's saying and make offensive comparisons. Derailing the conversation into anti-trans fanaticism.
The Conservative denialist rhetoric and hatred isn't abstract for many people here. Or elsewhere. A number of trans folks have been on the receiving end of nasty attacks regarding their identities on Twitter and other social media channels, thanks to anti-trans shitstirring.
There may be enough news to make a post. But as Dysk said earlier, "At least at the moment, the way the story is being talked about everywhere is thoroughly transphobic, and I don't think it's realistic to expect Mefi to be an oasis of sanity like that."
This post and topic are not essential to Metafilter. We've had three versions of it already, one of which went on for 100 comments and was a shitshow. And considering how the national conversation is progressing, it seems naively optimistic to think that a fourth post would somehow be free of the worst of it.
posted by zarq at 7:06 AM on June 16, 2015 [13 favorites]
Which is??? As far as I can tell, the orthodoxy on all of them is 'dont be a jerk'.
Which is "stick to the script". There is a fairly limited range of acceptable comments on certain issues, any deviation from the script falls into "being a jerk". I imagine this comment will probably be considered "being a jerk"
posted by MikeMc at 7:07 AM on June 16, 2015 [19 favorites]
Which is "stick to the script". There is a fairly limited range of acceptable comments on certain issues, any deviation from the script falls into "being a jerk". I imagine this comment will probably be considered "being a jerk"
posted by MikeMc at 7:07 AM on June 16, 2015 [19 favorites]
But the thing is - that statement is not about trans gendered indidividuals any more than the situation itself is about trans gendered individuals, which is part of what my frustration over this topic is.
The issue is that comparing race and gender in this way is a well worn dog whistle. That's why people may find it harder to read it as just about race even if it comes from someone who usually posts with respect and good faith.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:08 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
The issue is that comparing race and gender in this way is a well worn dog whistle. That's why people may find it harder to read it as just about race even if it comes from someone who usually posts with respect and good faith.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:08 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Which is "stick to the script".
It's more like, "Don't be a dick to people in your own community."
posted by zarq at 7:08 AM on June 16, 2015 [16 favorites]
It's more like, "Don't be a dick to people in your own community."
posted by zarq at 7:08 AM on June 16, 2015 [16 favorites]
the people who have turned this into some sort of evidence of how metafilter is doomed.
No one is saying that. It would appear that Metafilter has found a reasonably stable economic model of being user-supported by a group of people who do not wish to see their views contradicted. However, that sort of ensures that the discourse will never open up-- the mostly loyal users are paying for an environment that's been hermetically sealed from other opinions.
posted by Mayor Curley at 7:10 AM on June 16, 2015 [7 favorites]
No one is saying that. It would appear that Metafilter has found a reasonably stable economic model of being user-supported by a group of people who do not wish to see their views contradicted. However, that sort of ensures that the discourse will never open up-- the mostly loyal users are paying for an environment that's been hermetically sealed from other opinions.
posted by Mayor Curley at 7:10 AM on June 16, 2015 [7 favorites]
Which is "stick to the script".
What's the script? Care to articulate it?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:10 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
What's the script? Care to articulate it?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:10 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
Personally, I'm totally paying for an environment that is relatively free of people being a dick to me on topics like my sexuality or my gender. If I wasn't so broke right now, I'd toss some more cash in the kitty, but as it is I'm working on recruiting other people to get accounts.
posted by sciatrix at 7:14 AM on June 16, 2015 [22 favorites]
posted by sciatrix at 7:14 AM on June 16, 2015 [22 favorites]
A few comments deleted. Sorry, shift change, I am catching up. We're not going to go down the road of having the fight in here that we were trying to prevent in the original thread.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:16 AM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:16 AM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
I'm among those leery of deleting to protect from discomfort.
A place where opinions suitable for the front page of a major, moderate, news organization are too bigoted to be allowed to stand on without deletion on metafilter is an uncomfortable one to me.
To be clear here, you're conflating your discomfort at being expected to give the same basic consideration of other people that you do in real life (don't say things that obviously upset the person you're talking to) to people online, with the reaction of people who are reading arguments here that are similar to those that are used to justify all sorts of horrible behavior towards them in real life, including physical violence and rape.
Please stop minimizing the effects of transphobic rhetoric.
posted by Gygesringtone at 7:19 AM on June 16, 2015 [22 favorites]
A place where opinions suitable for the front page of a major, moderate, news organization are too bigoted to be allowed to stand on without deletion on metafilter is an uncomfortable one to me.
To be clear here, you're conflating your discomfort at being expected to give the same basic consideration of other people that you do in real life (don't say things that obviously upset the person you're talking to) to people online, with the reaction of people who are reading arguments here that are similar to those that are used to justify all sorts of horrible behavior towards them in real life, including physical violence and rape.
Please stop minimizing the effects of transphobic rhetoric.
posted by Gygesringtone at 7:19 AM on June 16, 2015 [22 favorites]
What's the script? Care to articulate it?
"The topic at hand is a horrible practice. I am very against it. The presented narrative is absolutely correct and anyone who would say otherwise is an oppressor. Do not question my position as the vanguard of progressive thinking or you will be shamed or flagged into silence."
Personally, I'm totally paying for an environment that is relatively free of people being a dick to me on topics like my sexuality or my gender.
That's great, unless "being a dick" is a euphemism for "disagreeing with me." I'm not making any accusations towards your personal attitudes- "unless" means "unless."
posted by Mayor Curley at 7:20 AM on June 16, 2015 [16 favorites]
"The topic at hand is a horrible practice. I am very against it. The presented narrative is absolutely correct and anyone who would say otherwise is an oppressor. Do not question my position as the vanguard of progressive thinking or you will be shamed or flagged into silence."
Personally, I'm totally paying for an environment that is relatively free of people being a dick to me on topics like my sexuality or my gender.
That's great, unless "being a dick" is a euphemism for "disagreeing with me." I'm not making any accusations towards your personal attitudes- "unless" means "unless."
posted by Mayor Curley at 7:20 AM on June 16, 2015 [16 favorites]
So no, you aren't actually articulating it, because that is, as I suspect, an intentionally vague caricature.
So, what views are not acceptable on metafilter that should be acceptable?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:23 AM on June 16, 2015 [9 favorites]
So, what views are not acceptable on metafilter that should be acceptable?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:23 AM on June 16, 2015 [9 favorites]
a group of people who do not wish to see their views contradicted
See this is the sort of thing that drives me crazy.
What views specifically are you talking about? Because that kind of matters!
My view that certain television programs are garbage gets contradicted on MetaFilter all the time, and I'm fine with that. It may make me angry to see someone talk about those television shows as if they're genius works of art, but then I take a step back and let it go, because they have as much of a right to an opinion about a television show as I do. I regularly load up MeFi to find people saying all kinds of shit I don't agree with, about things I care very deeply about, and that can suck on a given day but I wouldn't want the mods to enforce my personal taste or outlook.
But you know....My view that people deserve to be addressed by their chosen pronouns also gets contradicted on MetaFilter, and I don't see the value in arguing about that. Because while it's annoying to see someone say they love a television show I hate, or say they think New York is a festering hole, or say they think radio journalism is a waste of time or whatever, it's actively harmful to the basic well being of my friends and loved ones to see their personhood and autonomy debated as abstract concepts on the internet.
Like what point is there in allowing people to debate the validity of each others' humanity? Why should I participate in a site that doesn't respect my right, or the right of people close to me, to exist? Like seriously, what is the value-add?
posted by Narrative Priorities at 7:23 AM on June 16, 2015 [27 favorites]
See this is the sort of thing that drives me crazy.
What views specifically are you talking about? Because that kind of matters!
My view that certain television programs are garbage gets contradicted on MetaFilter all the time, and I'm fine with that. It may make me angry to see someone talk about those television shows as if they're genius works of art, but then I take a step back and let it go, because they have as much of a right to an opinion about a television show as I do. I regularly load up MeFi to find people saying all kinds of shit I don't agree with, about things I care very deeply about, and that can suck on a given day but I wouldn't want the mods to enforce my personal taste or outlook.
But you know....My view that people deserve to be addressed by their chosen pronouns also gets contradicted on MetaFilter, and I don't see the value in arguing about that. Because while it's annoying to see someone say they love a television show I hate, or say they think New York is a festering hole, or say they think radio journalism is a waste of time or whatever, it's actively harmful to the basic well being of my friends and loved ones to see their personhood and autonomy debated as abstract concepts on the internet.
Like what point is there in allowing people to debate the validity of each others' humanity? Why should I participate in a site that doesn't respect my right, or the right of people close to me, to exist? Like seriously, what is the value-add?
posted by Narrative Priorities at 7:23 AM on June 16, 2015 [27 favorites]
Please let's not go down the road of trying to list views that people will find offensive?
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:24 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:24 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Why? There is a pretty vocal contingent of people who are saying that moderation is too heavy handed here and certain views cannot be expressed, and that these views do not include quotidian right-wing bigotry. I think we should be able to discuss what those views are, rather than deal in vague allusions.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:26 AM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:26 AM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
Because this is already a free-wheeling fight and adding a bunch of other topics people will find offensive and then arguing about whether they're right to find them offensive is going to make it a lot worse?
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:28 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:28 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
That's great, unless "being a dick" is a euphemism for "disagreeing with me." I'm not making any accusations towards your personal attitudes- "unless" means "unless."
In this very thread we have someone who has previously lectured trans mefites about their genders, self-identities and bathroom privileges, that is now lecturing them on whether they have a right to speak up when people attack them.
"Being a dick" means "being a dick."
posted by zarq at 7:31 AM on June 16, 2015 [19 favorites]
In this very thread we have someone who has previously lectured trans mefites about their genders, self-identities and bathroom privileges, that is now lecturing them on whether they have a right to speak up when people attack them.
"Being a dick" means "being a dick."
posted by zarq at 7:31 AM on June 16, 2015 [19 favorites]
Also people saying "we" are hurt by so much in the world that "we" don't want to deal with that on this site, again, I wish people would speak for themselves more instead of these generalities.
There are a bunch of people who have done exactly what you are asking for (with various degrees of specificity) upthread (and in the linked, deleted thread).
posted by GenjiandProust at 7:31 AM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
There are a bunch of people who have done exactly what you are asking for (with various degrees of specificity) upthread (and in the linked, deleted thread).
posted by GenjiandProust at 7:31 AM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
Narrative Priorities: "My view that certain television programs are garbage gets contradicted on MetaFilter all the time"
What the fuck is wrong with certain television shows? Certain television shows are some of the best television shows on air!
LobsterMitten: "Because this is already a free-wheeling fight and adding a bunch of other topics people will find offensive and then arguing about whether they're right to find them offensive is going to make it a lot worse?"
Oh, so, what, you're opposed to certain television shows too?!
posted by Bugbread at 7:34 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
What the fuck is wrong with certain television shows? Certain television shows are some of the best television shows on air!
LobsterMitten: "Because this is already a free-wheeling fight and adding a bunch of other topics people will find offensive and then arguing about whether they're right to find them offensive is going to make it a lot worse?"
Oh, so, what, you're opposed to certain television shows too?!
posted by Bugbread at 7:34 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
I'd love to have the abstract interesting conversation too, but not at the cost of the real non-abstract human beings who are hurt by it and whose presence I so value here. The deletion, and more so the clear statement starting this thread, are greatly appreciated.
I'm gonna go chuck a little extra money at the site in gratitude, and I think I will chuck a few bucks in on sciatrix's behalf while I'm at it.
posted by Stacey at 7:37 AM on June 16, 2015 [9 favorites]
I'm gonna go chuck a little extra money at the site in gratitude, and I think I will chuck a few bucks in on sciatrix's behalf while I'm at it.
posted by Stacey at 7:37 AM on June 16, 2015 [9 favorites]
"Being a dick" means "being a dick."
Everything is so much clearer now, thanks for bringing that into laser sharp focus and helping us to calibrate our Dick-O-Meters™.
posted by MikeMc at 7:39 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
Everything is so much clearer now, thanks for bringing that into laser sharp focus and helping us to calibrate our Dick-O-Meters™.
posted by MikeMc at 7:39 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
Early in the thread, the mods had to straight-up tell some members not to tell their fellow members that they don't care if they're hurt, and they've had to say more or less the same thing several times now. Does that help?
posted by zombieflanders at 7:42 AM on June 16, 2015 [17 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 7:42 AM on June 16, 2015 [17 favorites]
From what I can tell, the people demanding debate on all issues are just looking for the following exchange to go in their favor more often:
Contextually Marginalized Person: "This thing mentioned in the FPP is something I personally have to deal with and it is difficult and really a constant pain in the ass and I wish people could understand that."
Internet Contrarian: "I haven't noticed that thing being a pain in the ass and I'm particularly observant. I don't think it is as much a problem as you say it is."
Ten More People: "No, seriously, that thing is a problem. Assholes are doing it all the time"
Internet Contrarian: "I think you're just misinterpreting the situation as a problem. I mean I personally don't do the thing and I don't know anyone who does."
Two Hundred More People: "It's a problem, here's some more articles and personal accounts and so on"
Internet Contrarian: "Do you have any science studies that say the thing is a problem?"
Mod: [Please stop arguing over whether the thing is a problem or not.]
Internet Contrarian: THOUGHT POLICE! METAFILTER IS AN ECHO CHAMBER! WON'T ANYONE HELP THE WIDOW'S SON?!!
posted by griphus at 7:44 AM on June 16, 2015 [101 favorites]
Contextually Marginalized Person: "This thing mentioned in the FPP is something I personally have to deal with and it is difficult and really a constant pain in the ass and I wish people could understand that."
Internet Contrarian: "I haven't noticed that thing being a pain in the ass and I'm particularly observant. I don't think it is as much a problem as you say it is."
Ten More People: "No, seriously, that thing is a problem. Assholes are doing it all the time"
Internet Contrarian: "I think you're just misinterpreting the situation as a problem. I mean I personally don't do the thing and I don't know anyone who does."
Two Hundred More People: "It's a problem, here's some more articles and personal accounts and so on"
Internet Contrarian: "Do you have any science studies that say the thing is a problem?"
Mod: [Please stop arguing over whether the thing is a problem or not.]
Internet Contrarian: THOUGHT POLICE! METAFILTER IS AN ECHO CHAMBER! WON'T ANYONE HELP THE WIDOW'S SON?!!
posted by griphus at 7:44 AM on June 16, 2015 [101 favorites]
Everything is so much clearer now, thanks for bringing that into laser sharp focus and helping us to calibrate our Dick-O-Meters™.
A bunch of people have taken the time to respond with actual points that can be addressed. Ball's in your court.
posted by zarq at 7:47 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
A bunch of people have taken the time to respond with actual points that can be addressed. Ball's in your court.
posted by zarq at 7:47 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
I am really concerned that a comment I wrote pointing out that it seems like white liberal concerns are being centered over POC concerns seems to have been deleted.
posted by corb at 7:49 AM on June 16, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by corb at 7:49 AM on June 16, 2015 [7 favorites]
WON'T ANYONE HELP THE WIDOW'S SON?!!
Now you've done it.
posted by GenjiandProust at 7:52 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
Now you've done it.
posted by GenjiandProust at 7:52 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
I thought the whole point of deleting the threads on the blue* was to keep the mods from having to do the same extensive work they are now doing in this thread. If we're looking for the perfect balance of community freedom vs. moderation that will ultimately be edifying to the community, in the view of another long-time user, I don't think this thread is it. I don't like how often the mods are popping in to redirect and delete comments. I personally would prefer mods close threads of this nature over letting them drag on like this. If we don't want a fight, clear the ring and turn off the lights.
*I am now convinced the deletions were justified; as others pointed out, there's no rush and we could always revisit once the hubbub dies down.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:54 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
*I am now convinced the deletions were justified; as others pointed out, there's no rush and we could always revisit once the hubbub dies down.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:54 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
I am really concerned that a comment I wrote pointing out that it seems like white liberal concerns are being centered over POC concerns seems to have been deleted.
I am pretty sure your comment was deleted for rehashing the argument from the deleted thread which we have been asked repeatedly not to do in this thread and that the mods have been policing pretty closely.
I'm really interested in the points you raised, but this is not the MeTa where they belong.
posted by GenjiandProust at 7:55 AM on June 16, 2015
I am pretty sure your comment was deleted for rehashing the argument from the deleted thread which we have been asked repeatedly not to do in this thread and that the mods have been policing pretty closely.
I'm really interested in the points you raised, but this is not the MeTa where they belong.
posted by GenjiandProust at 7:55 AM on June 16, 2015
Seymour Zamboni, partly because it was shift change and I was trying to catch up, and partly because it's a comment about how the rhetorical situation in the real world is inevitably going to bleed over to a discussion here.
corb, just don't open a discussion about whether "transracialism" is a good or bad frame for this whole thing. The point isn't (AT ALL) that we should ignore what POC are saying, in fact POC in the thread were objecting, the point is that the rhetorical miasma surrounding this case is polluted enough that we can't have a thread about it here right now without it being a horrible fight.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:55 AM on June 16, 2015
corb, just don't open a discussion about whether "transracialism" is a good or bad frame for this whole thing. The point isn't (AT ALL) that we should ignore what POC are saying, in fact POC in the thread were objecting, the point is that the rhetorical miasma surrounding this case is polluted enough that we can't have a thread about it here right now without it being a horrible fight.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:55 AM on June 16, 2015
FFF: You deleted my post, taz, which did not pull quote that user. My post was the one saying that what she wrote was eloquent and topical, and beefing that you deleted the post from the user who did quote her.
If I have to guess, it was most likely deleted because it was spawned by a now-deleted comment. Just to keep things somewhat understandable. Not because any forbidden names were being named, or anything like that.
Of course, I may be wrong, but that was my interpretation.
posted by Too-Ticky at 7:57 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
If I have to guess, it was most likely deleted because it was spawned by a now-deleted comment. Just to keep things somewhat understandable. Not because any forbidden names were being named, or anything like that.
Of course, I may be wrong, but that was my interpretation.
posted by Too-Ticky at 7:57 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
> I am really concerned that a comment I wrote pointing out that it seems like white liberal concerns are being centered over POC concerns seems to have been deleted.
Whose white liberal concerns? Which POC concerns? Plenty of both are in this thread saying can we not have this discussion now, here are reasons. I saw your deleted comment, by the way, and was going to respond since it seemed to be doing exactly what mods have asked people to not do in this thread, but I realized I was sitting in my car about to leave for work and I should just hit "play" on the audiobook I'm listening to and drive already.
posted by rtha at 8:06 AM on June 16, 2015 [12 favorites]
Whose white liberal concerns? Which POC concerns? Plenty of both are in this thread saying can we not have this discussion now, here are reasons. I saw your deleted comment, by the way, and was going to respond since it seemed to be doing exactly what mods have asked people to not do in this thread, but I realized I was sitting in my car about to leave for work and I should just hit "play" on the audiobook I'm listening to and drive already.
posted by rtha at 8:06 AM on June 16, 2015 [12 favorites]
If I have to guess, it was most likely deleted because it was spawned by a now-deleted comment.
Now now, let's not go ascribing a deletion to a longstanding and well-enforced moderation guideline when there's a perfectly good conspiracy theory that could explain it.
posted by tocts at 8:07 AM on June 16, 2015 [14 favorites]
Now now, let's not go ascribing a deletion to a longstanding and well-enforced moderation guideline when there's a perfectly good conspiracy theory that could explain it.
posted by tocts at 8:07 AM on June 16, 2015 [14 favorites]
I am now convinced the deletions were justified; as others pointed out, there's no rush and we could always revisit once the hubbub dies down.
That topic cannot be discussed in the current site environment-- it's going to draw comparisons to transgender, a couple people will be more cavalier about it than is locally or even generally appropriate, and the thread will have to be deleted to preserve the mods' sanity.
We can't discuss it. The topic's never mellowing to that point and the site never getting back to that level of free discussion. The reality of that just struck me-- given the current economics, the discourse really can't open up. This is not something I can affect, and I've been Cuchulain fighting the tide this whole thread. I'm done.
posted by Mayor Curley at 8:11 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
That topic cannot be discussed in the current site environment-- it's going to draw comparisons to transgender, a couple people will be more cavalier about it than is locally or even generally appropriate, and the thread will have to be deleted to preserve the mods' sanity.
We can't discuss it. The topic's never mellowing to that point and the site never getting back to that level of free discussion. The reality of that just struck me-- given the current economics, the discourse really can't open up. This is not something I can affect, and I've been Cuchulain fighting the tide this whole thread. I'm done.
posted by Mayor Curley at 8:11 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
> So, what views are not acceptable on metafilter that should be acceptable?
Unanswerable question. Compare "What's the name of He-who-must-not-be-named?"
posted by jfuller at 8:12 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Unanswerable question. Compare "What's the name of He-who-must-not-be-named?"
posted by jfuller at 8:12 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm just going to go ahead and favorite that comment so I can revisit it when we do discuss the topic, probably in just a few days.
posted by maxsparber at 8:13 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by maxsparber at 8:13 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
It wasn't spawned by the deleted comment, it was spawned by the deletion itself. I know I've seen other MeTa comments disagreeing with comment deletions in MeTa. I find it curious that mine was verboten, but it looks unlikely that I'll learn why.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:13 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by five fresh fish at 8:13 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
The topic's never mellowing to that point and the site never getting back to that level of free discussion.
'Tis truly a dark day when one can no longer be openly transphobic. It was bad enough when one could no longer idly muse about the terrors lurking in our bathrooms or whether or not they were actually women. But this? This is madness!
posted by zombieflanders at 8:16 AM on June 16, 2015 [19 favorites]
'Tis truly a dark day when one can no longer be openly transphobic. It was bad enough when one could no longer idly muse about the terrors lurking in our bathrooms or whether or not they were actually women. But this? This is madness!
posted by zombieflanders at 8:16 AM on June 16, 2015 [19 favorites]
Ok so if anyone has any viewpoints that they feel can't be discussed, memail me.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:18 AM on June 16, 2015
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:18 AM on June 16, 2015
I dunno, I thought Cuchulainn was totally known for his mindless screaming battle rage and like, sucking his eyes into his skull as he shrieked in fury at every living thing that caught his attention. Sounds like a legit comparison.
posted by sciatrix at 8:19 AM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by sciatrix at 8:19 AM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
MisantropicPainforest, I find your comment... really alarming. "Tell me everything you disagree with the prevailing view about, right here, where you're not allowed to defend it."
Plus, it comes with the bonus implication that if your interlocutors don't do this, that they've admitted their contrarian views are "quotidian right-wing bigotry." After all, if the views in question weren't bigoted, why wouldn't they just post them?
posted by 4th number at 8:20 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Plus, it comes with the bonus implication that if your interlocutors don't do this, that they've admitted their contrarian views are "quotidian right-wing bigotry." After all, if the views in question weren't bigoted, why wouldn't they just post them?
posted by 4th number at 8:20 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
I dunno, I thought Cuchulainn was totally known for his mindless screaming battle rage and like
Oh, now the anti-Irish bigotry comes out.
(Screams, sucks eyes into skull)
posted by maxsparber at 8:21 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
Oh, now the anti-Irish bigotry comes out.
(Screams, sucks eyes into skull)
posted by maxsparber at 8:21 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
I dunno, I thought Cuchulainn was totally known for his mindless screaming battle rage and like, sucking his eyes into his skull as he shrieked in fury at every living thing that caught his attention.
$20 to any Mefites that show up like this to a meetup.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:22 AM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
$20 to any Mefites that show up like this to a meetup.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:22 AM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
Mayor Curley: “That topic cannot be discussed in the current site environment-- it's going to draw comparisons to transgender, a couple people will be more cavalier about it than is locally or even generally appropriate, and the thread will have to be deleted to preserve the mods' sanity. We can't discuss it. The topic's never mellowing to that point and the site never getting back to that level of free discussion. The reality of that just struck me-- given the current economics, the discourse really can't open up. This is not something I can affect, and I've been Cuchulain fighting the tide this whole thread. I'm done.”
It's nice that you've decided this, I guess, but nobody else has.
Meanwhile, if you really remembered those early heady days of Metafilter, you'd know what we would have done back then: we would have begged Matt to delete these posts because by our objective standards of the time they're just newsfilter posts about a thing that happened, thin veils on a wish to discuss things, rather than sharing something cool that someone found on the web. Metafilter is not for discussion! That is not the point of Metafilter! Metafilter is for sharing the best of the web! That's what we would have said back then.
I hate to say it, but there is some logic to that.
posted by koeselitz at 8:22 AM on June 16, 2015 [9 favorites]
It's nice that you've decided this, I guess, but nobody else has.
Meanwhile, if you really remembered those early heady days of Metafilter, you'd know what we would have done back then: we would have begged Matt to delete these posts because by our objective standards of the time they're just newsfilter posts about a thing that happened, thin veils on a wish to discuss things, rather than sharing something cool that someone found on the web. Metafilter is not for discussion! That is not the point of Metafilter! Metafilter is for sharing the best of the web! That's what we would have said back then.
I hate to say it, but there is some logic to that.
posted by koeselitz at 8:22 AM on June 16, 2015 [9 favorites]
Now we're (I'm?) forbidden from quoting MetaFilter's own history. At least when that history is inconvenient for the (current) mods.
Well, I'm sure it'll be much more palatable to the mods when it's just my words and a link:
posted by NortonDC at 8:24 AM on June 16, 2015 [18 favorites]
Well, I'm sure it'll be much more palatable to the mods when it's just my words and a link:
It's during times like this, watching MetaFilter become less brave, more insular, and less willing or able to test its ideals, that I am reminded of what was just about the last MetaFilter comment ever by *person I'm not allowed to name*:I hope that version is sufficiently diminished to fit into the small box of what is now allowed on MetaFilter.
link to the thoughtful and expressive comment with more than 150 favorites that I'm not allowed to quote
That was pretty much her exit message, so she's moved on, as have other valued members. Some of us, who loved what MetaFilter was, haven't managed to look away from the decline.
posted by NortonDC at 8:24 AM on June 16, 2015 [18 favorites]
You know, there is actually a longstanding policy against digging through past comments to quote something said by somebody else as a gotcha to people in the thread. I've had comments deleted for doing so, which, as succulent as the gotcha might have been, I understood, and didn't behave as though I were somehow being oppressed or the site was now a shell of its former glory.
posted by maxsparber at 8:27 AM on June 16, 2015 [19 favorites]
posted by maxsparber at 8:27 AM on June 16, 2015 [19 favorites]
I think we're now in MetaMetaMetaMetaTalk.
posted by Etrigan at 8:27 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Etrigan at 8:27 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
Oh, now the anti-Irish bigotry comes out.
excuse you i am literally named Erin and have been forced to hold my hand to my heart and contemplate the majesty of Danny Boy at family events
what I am basically saying is that look, here is a tasty dog meat casserole in apology, you should have some as my guest
posted by sciatrix at 8:28 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
excuse you i am literally named Erin and have been forced to hold my hand to my heart and contemplate the majesty of Danny Boy at family events
what I am basically saying is that look, here is a tasty dog meat casserole in apology, you should have some as my guest
posted by sciatrix at 8:28 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
Almost every day I wish select parts of that comment were true. Certainly every contentious MeTa.
posted by griphus at 8:29 AM on June 16, 2015
posted by griphus at 8:29 AM on June 16, 2015
NortonDC, I think onlyconnect is great, and I hope she feels like she can come back. But in this case we're discussing here, this Dolezal situation, what does that quote mean -- do you disagree that this Dolezal thing would have been a huge hurtful fight, or do you just think we should allow threads like that to happen regardless?
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 8:30 AM on June 16, 2015
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 8:30 AM on June 16, 2015
Wait a second. Did I just accidentally eat part of the Hound of Ulster?
posted by maxsparber at 8:30 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by maxsparber at 8:30 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
:D surprise
posted by sciatrix at 8:32 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by sciatrix at 8:32 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
That was pretty much her exit message
There are a lot more complications to that user's story than what she wrote in that message. She's not a terrific example of I think what you are trying to make her an example of.
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 8:36 AM on June 16, 2015 [26 favorites]
There are a lot more complications to that user's story than what she wrote in that message. She's not a terrific example of I think what you are trying to make her an example of.
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 8:36 AM on June 16, 2015 [26 favorites]
Ha, nope I guess not onlyconnect! Sorry, this is my morning brain.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 8:38 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 8:38 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
There are a lot more complications to that user's story than what she wrote in that message. She's not a terrific example of I think what you are trying to make her an example of.
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 8:36 AM on June 16 [+] [!]
Vague allusions to "other problems" someone had, based on one's "inside information," can be considered libelous.
posted by jayder at 8:38 AM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 8:36 AM on June 16 [+] [!]
Vague allusions to "other problems" someone had, based on one's "inside information," can be considered libelous.
posted by jayder at 8:38 AM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
You don't need to have had inside information, though, to know that was true. Some of us were here, and we remember (like I said before in my comment that got deleted).
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:40 AM on June 16, 2015 [10 favorites]
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:40 AM on June 16, 2015 [10 favorites]
And I say that not to suggest you are actually committing libel, since that user's real name is not known, but just to say it's profoundly tacky in this context.
posted by jayder at 8:40 AM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by jayder at 8:40 AM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
Oh cool have we reached the "order" part of Law & Order: MFU?
posted by griphus at 8:41 AM on June 16, 2015 [13 favorites]
posted by griphus at 8:41 AM on June 16, 2015 [13 favorites]
Everybody knows it's been all over the media, cribcage, and nobody has disputed that. That's neither here nor there in terms of the reasoning for the deletions...
This thread hasn't been solely about the deletions. It has been, in large part, about how a conversation about Rachel Dolezal should be conducted on MetaFilter. If Justinian's comment was deleted because it wasn't narrowly relevant to why specific threads were deleted...I think that's still tough to defend, and you'd have to nuke two-thirds of this discussion—including, most pointedly, the comment just defended as being "about how the rhetorical situation in the real world is inevitably going to bleed over to a discussion here."
You don't want to discuss certain aspects of this story. Fine. Say that. You have made a decision already, and therefore you deleted a comment because it stokes fire for no constructive purpose. Otherwise we're talking about how a thread would be conducted, and quite a few people have argued that X or Y or Z shouldn't be part of that thread for various reasons, and yes, it is relevant for someone to point out how those aspects continue to be part of the story that we either are or aren't going to have a thread about.
It is disingenuous to claim otherwise. It is also disingenuous to revise the objection to say that, okay, maybe Justinian's comment was relevant, but it was redundant because we already knew it. Many comments in this thread are redundant. You aren't actually deleting based on redundancy, or relevance. You are applying different standards, and therefore the effect, intended or not, is that you're deleting—and chastising for snark and civility in some instances but not others—based on orthodoxy.
Yes, MetaFilter used to be much worse in a lot of ways. The cruelest MeTa threads from ten years ago would never happen today, and that's awesome. But it's delusion and revisionism to pretend that was achieved solely through edification. It's also due to the site progressively, pun intended, narrowing its range of allowable dissent. And increasingly, that has become what's moderated.
posted by cribcage at 8:41 AM on June 16, 2015 [20 favorites]
This thread hasn't been solely about the deletions. It has been, in large part, about how a conversation about Rachel Dolezal should be conducted on MetaFilter. If Justinian's comment was deleted because it wasn't narrowly relevant to why specific threads were deleted...I think that's still tough to defend, and you'd have to nuke two-thirds of this discussion—including, most pointedly, the comment just defended as being "about how the rhetorical situation in the real world is inevitably going to bleed over to a discussion here."
You don't want to discuss certain aspects of this story. Fine. Say that. You have made a decision already, and therefore you deleted a comment because it stokes fire for no constructive purpose. Otherwise we're talking about how a thread would be conducted, and quite a few people have argued that X or Y or Z shouldn't be part of that thread for various reasons, and yes, it is relevant for someone to point out how those aspects continue to be part of the story that we either are or aren't going to have a thread about.
It is disingenuous to claim otherwise. It is also disingenuous to revise the objection to say that, okay, maybe Justinian's comment was relevant, but it was redundant because we already knew it. Many comments in this thread are redundant. You aren't actually deleting based on redundancy, or relevance. You are applying different standards, and therefore the effect, intended or not, is that you're deleting—and chastising for snark and civility in some instances but not others—based on orthodoxy.
Yes, MetaFilter used to be much worse in a lot of ways. The cruelest MeTa threads from ten years ago would never happen today, and that's awesome. But it's delusion and revisionism to pretend that was achieved solely through edification. It's also due to the site progressively, pun intended, narrowing its range of allowable dissent. And increasingly, that has become what's moderated.
posted by cribcage at 8:41 AM on June 16, 2015 [20 favorites]
NortonDC: “I hope that version is sufficiently diminished to fit into the small box of what is now allowed on MetaFilter.”
It's nice that you think you can speak for someone who isn't likely to speak up for themselves, and use their comments as weapons, making the rest of us look like assholes if we disagree. That's stupendous. Just like jayder's jaded reference to some previous members who left, which presumes to speak for them and offer their departure up as definitive evidence that jayder is correct. This stuff is utterly unfair as rhetorical playacting, and you should know it.
If you believe something, have the force of will to actually argue for it, rather than using people who aren't here as smokescreens for your ideas.
jayder: “Vague allusions to ‘other problems’ someone had, based on one's ‘inside information,’ can be considered libelous.”
As can an attempt to force someone who isn't here to speak for your side of things.
posted by koeselitz at 8:41 AM on June 16, 2015 [18 favorites]
It's nice that you think you can speak for someone who isn't likely to speak up for themselves, and use their comments as weapons, making the rest of us look like assholes if we disagree. That's stupendous. Just like jayder's jaded reference to some previous members who left, which presumes to speak for them and offer their departure up as definitive evidence that jayder is correct. This stuff is utterly unfair as rhetorical playacting, and you should know it.
If you believe something, have the force of will to actually argue for it, rather than using people who aren't here as smokescreens for your ideas.
jayder: “Vague allusions to ‘other problems’ someone had, based on one's ‘inside information,’ can be considered libelous.”
As can an attempt to force someone who isn't here to speak for your side of things.
posted by koeselitz at 8:41 AM on June 16, 2015 [18 favorites]
why do you think jessamyn was referring to inside information? cairdeas's interaction with the site is in our searchable history - no insider information needed.
posted by nadawi at 8:42 AM on June 16, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 8:42 AM on June 16, 2015 [8 favorites]
I'm sorry for not deleting that comment earlier, due to misidentifying the person he was quoting. Maybe let's leave it at this point? This isn't about cairdeas and let's not make it be about her.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 8:42 AM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 8:42 AM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
To be clear, it has never been site practice to delete things in Metatalk mentioning users who are not participating. If you think about it, it can't be: Metatalk is where you go to complain about behavior on the rest of the site! The mods would have to delete every callout!
So I still think that was a weird deletion.
posted by anotherpanacea at 8:42 AM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
So I still think that was a weird deletion.
posted by anotherpanacea at 8:42 AM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
jayder: “And I say that not to suggest you are actually committing libel, since that user's real name is not known, but just to say it's profoundly tacky in this context.”
'When I bring up departed members who aren't going to speak for themselves in the conversation, and use them as a cast of puppets who agree with my point of view, it's profoundly tacky for you to protest that they weren't necessarily saying what I want them to be saying. Profoundly tacky!'
posted by koeselitz at 8:45 AM on June 16, 2015 [22 favorites]
'When I bring up departed members who aren't going to speak for themselves in the conversation, and use them as a cast of puppets who agree with my point of view, it's profoundly tacky for you to protest that they weren't necessarily saying what I want them to be saying. Profoundly tacky!'
posted by koeselitz at 8:45 AM on June 16, 2015 [22 favorites]
it has long been site practice to discourage, up to and including deletion, trawling through user histories, especially users who no longer participate on the site, to post comments as gotchas.
posted by nadawi at 8:45 AM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 8:45 AM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
For those of you insisting that the Dolezal story isn't just a weird-edge-case-turned-media-shitstorm-of-the-now and that it actually raises a bunch of substantive issues worth discussing, why can't you just make a new post about those issues *without* referencing Dolezal? Then you can have the discussion you want to have without it being pre-poisoned by all the extra crap specific to the Dolezal story.
posted by Jacqueline at 8:46 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by Jacqueline at 8:46 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
just to say it's profoundly tacky in this context.
I don't know anything about that user's real life identity. Dropping the derail per LM's request.
it has never been site practice to delete things in Metatalk mentioning users who are not participating
Not exactly. Bringing up banned/buttoned users is often one of those "Lets not do this here" situations sometimes including comment deletions. Similarly what nadawi said, dossier-assembling is usually not okay.
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 8:47 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
I don't know anything about that user's real life identity. Dropping the derail per LM's request.
it has never been site practice to delete things in Metatalk mentioning users who are not participating
Not exactly. Bringing up banned/buttoned users is often one of those "Lets not do this here" situations sometimes including comment deletions. Similarly what nadawi said, dossier-assembling is usually not okay.
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 8:47 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm sorry, jessamyn, but I'm confused. I mean, I could go through YOUR history and find you doing exactly that! You and I have both participated in such discussions in the last year, even after you stepped down as mod.
That said, I don't think we need to fight over it, but the things you're saying seem false to me and kind of confusing to boot. Perhaps this is a part of the new policy changes we discussed recently that I didn't catch?
posted by anotherpanacea at 8:52 AM on June 16, 2015
That said, I don't think we need to fight over it, but the things you're saying seem false to me and kind of confusing to boot. Perhaps this is a part of the new policy changes we discussed recently that I didn't catch?
posted by anotherpanacea at 8:52 AM on June 16, 2015
I dunno, I thought Cuchulainn was totally known for his mindless screaming battle rage and like, sucking his eyes into his skull as he shrieked in fury at every living thing that caught his attention.
$20 to any Mefites that show up like this to a meetup.
Have a meetup at my place thirty seconds after I wake up.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:53 AM on June 16, 2015 [10 favorites]
$20 to any Mefites that show up like this to a meetup.
Have a meetup at my place thirty seconds after I wake up.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:53 AM on June 16, 2015 [10 favorites]
To be clear, it has never been site practice to delete things in Metatalk mentioning users who are not participating.
Mentioning, no, but AFAIK quoting or linking threads that aren't under discussion has never been allowed.
why do you think jessamyn was referring to inside information? cairdeas's interaction with the site is in our searchable history - no insider information needed.
Exactly. And it's kind of odd that that thread keeps on getting brought up, because that's where another member lied to the mods in order to create a sockpuppet and break site rules just to be hostile towards trans members. A bunch of other posters thought it would be a great idea to jump on board with that bit of horror, and as a result a good chunk of MeFi's trans members left the site.
Which, I feel inclined to note, should answer the question posed upthread about "How are [certain users] under siege here?" That was a prime example.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:54 AM on June 16, 2015 [20 favorites]
Mentioning, no, but AFAIK quoting or linking threads that aren't under discussion has never been allowed.
why do you think jessamyn was referring to inside information? cairdeas's interaction with the site is in our searchable history - no insider information needed.
Exactly. And it's kind of odd that that thread keeps on getting brought up, because that's where another member lied to the mods in order to create a sockpuppet and break site rules just to be hostile towards trans members. A bunch of other posters thought it would be a great idea to jump on board with that bit of horror, and as a result a good chunk of MeFi's trans members left the site.
Which, I feel inclined to note, should answer the question posed upthread about "How are [certain users] under siege here?" That was a prime example.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:54 AM on June 16, 2015 [20 favorites]
just because you might find some evidence of something being done doesn't mean the practice isn't discouraged. lots of discouraged things can slip through due to the nature of fuzzy moderation.
posted by nadawi at 8:54 AM on June 16, 2015
posted by nadawi at 8:54 AM on June 16, 2015
Yeah, it's been the case for a long time that we don't want people to get into digging through user histories or invoking people who aren't here anymore, because it just takes threads in a needlessly personal direction. It's not enforced with perfect consistency and what's a problem varies a lot depending the exact circumstances.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 8:55 AM on June 16, 2015
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 8:55 AM on June 16, 2015
I'm glad to see that she-who-must-not-be-named is now quotable without deletion. Because I think what she wrote is cogent and relevant to the issue at hand. I don't think there's anything to be gained by insisting that people rewrite her words to serve the same purpose, when her words are already available.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:57 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by five fresh fish at 8:57 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Okay. Like I said, I don't want to fight about it with you excellent folks.
That said, it does raise difficulties in thinking about how to discuss site history. Right now we 're talking about losing trans members to insufficient moderation. Yet we can't link to the relevant threads or mention names? Our recent discussion (I won't link) of quicker response by the moderators really inspired me when I discovered that four very troublesome posters had been banned around the time that Matt left. I hadn't known that but it was awesome. And of course when we are discussing a user's potentially troublesome relationship to the site it seems like only comment history could be relevant!
In any case, I'm not sure what this really means. Increased deletions in Metatalk put users in the weird position of having no public recourse on some kinds of issues. But perhaps that's for the best.
posted by anotherpanacea at 9:03 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
That said, it does raise difficulties in thinking about how to discuss site history. Right now we 're talking about losing trans members to insufficient moderation. Yet we can't link to the relevant threads or mention names? Our recent discussion (I won't link) of quicker response by the moderators really inspired me when I discovered that four very troublesome posters had been banned around the time that Matt left. I hadn't known that but it was awesome. And of course when we are discussing a user's potentially troublesome relationship to the site it seems like only comment history could be relevant!
In any case, I'm not sure what this really means. Increased deletions in Metatalk put users in the weird position of having no public recourse on some kinds of issues. But perhaps that's for the best.
posted by anotherpanacea at 9:03 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
If your takeaway from this is that "controversial" or "unorthodox" topics cannot be discussed any longer, or that the deletion stems from a preemptive desire to "protect" the "fragile" from "discomfort," I think you really need to look harder at the discussions in question, at older MeFi threads and at the thoughts you're sanitizing as "unorthodox" or feelings you're misinterpreting as "discomfort." There absolutely are some positions which are not reasonable or okay to discuss, and that's fine--nothing of value is lost in taking them off the table.
I think the best way to frame a future hypothetical Dolezal post would be to focus exclusively on essays written by black and other people of color and allies and activists there, excise the trans angle entirely and include links about other cases of racial appropriation, colorism, mixed race families, social constructions around race, whatever else that's actually relevant. Even then, though, it will probably be difficult to steer the discussion away from, "look at this freak," "so this is just like transness for blackness right," and "as a white dude, let me tell you how this makes me feel" types of comments that are more -101 than 101. Given more recent developments and the way that media have utterly failed to not make this into a freakshow, it may actually not be possible to have a civil discussion about Dolezal on the site, ever. That sucks, but whatever. Somehow we will find a way to carry on.
Also this isn't really polite or germane or relevant to the original topic and I would like to see it just dropped but if people are going to keep holding her up as a brave iconclastic example of the good old days, I have to say we're better off without cairdeas, frankly.
posted by byanyothername at 9:04 AM on June 16, 2015 [13 favorites]
I think the best way to frame a future hypothetical Dolezal post would be to focus exclusively on essays written by black and other people of color and allies and activists there, excise the trans angle entirely and include links about other cases of racial appropriation, colorism, mixed race families, social constructions around race, whatever else that's actually relevant. Even then, though, it will probably be difficult to steer the discussion away from, "look at this freak," "so this is just like transness for blackness right," and "as a white dude, let me tell you how this makes me feel" types of comments that are more -101 than 101. Given more recent developments and the way that media have utterly failed to not make this into a freakshow, it may actually not be possible to have a civil discussion about Dolezal on the site, ever. That sucks, but whatever. Somehow we will find a way to carry on.
Also this isn't really polite or germane or relevant to the original topic and I would like to see it just dropped but if people are going to keep holding her up as a brave iconclastic example of the good old days, I have to say we're better off without cairdeas, frankly.
posted by byanyothername at 9:04 AM on June 16, 2015 [13 favorites]
People can have their opinions on cairdeas but again really this isn't about her, and the way to make it not about her is to not make it about her.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:06 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:06 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
Gygesringtone: To be clear here, you're conflating your discomfort at being expected to give the same basic consideration of other people that you do in real life (don't say things that obviously upset the person you're talking to) to people online, with the reaction of people who are reading arguments here that are similar to those that are used to justify all sorts of horrible behavior towards them in real life, including physical violence and rape.
This strikes me as the heart of the matter, and a reasonable topic for discussion. Is the standard for deletion or acceptable discourse on metafilter that if you wouldn't have the conversation with a member of the most vulnerable population in real life you shouldn't have it on metafilter, or should it be?
Metafilter has thousands of active users. It is a discussion with a small town. It is not a conversation with a friend or small group of friends.
Everyone here has a circle of friends and acquaintances. There is some diversity in that circle, there are things you would say differently to some than to others. Topics you would broach with some and not others to avoid upsetting them. This might be because of your views on the topic, or the topic itself. With some friends you could talk about suicide, with others you wouldn't perhaps because they had a recent painful experience. By limiting the discussion on metafilter to a discussion you'd be happy to have with your entire circle together, you narrow the scope of discussion significantly.
That narrowing is not necessarily good or bad, and I think is a reasonable thing to discuss. There is no magic place where everyone is going to be happy, but I don't think people on either side of trying to push metafilter's line one way or the other are out of line.
posted by pseudonick at 9:08 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
This strikes me as the heart of the matter, and a reasonable topic for discussion. Is the standard for deletion or acceptable discourse on metafilter that if you wouldn't have the conversation with a member of the most vulnerable population in real life you shouldn't have it on metafilter, or should it be?
Metafilter has thousands of active users. It is a discussion with a small town. It is not a conversation with a friend or small group of friends.
Everyone here has a circle of friends and acquaintances. There is some diversity in that circle, there are things you would say differently to some than to others. Topics you would broach with some and not others to avoid upsetting them. This might be because of your views on the topic, or the topic itself. With some friends you could talk about suicide, with others you wouldn't perhaps because they had a recent painful experience. By limiting the discussion on metafilter to a discussion you'd be happy to have with your entire circle together, you narrow the scope of discussion significantly.
That narrowing is not necessarily good or bad, and I think is a reasonable thing to discuss. There is no magic place where everyone is going to be happy, but I don't think people on either side of trying to push metafilter's line one way or the other are out of line.
posted by pseudonick at 9:08 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
People can have their opinions on cairdeas but again really this isn't about her, and the way to make it not about her is to not make it about her.
Yeah, and it seems really odd to have a specific discussion about a specific deletion and then come in and say, hey, this one person said something general one time and we should all ponder that.
I mean, if you want to open a thread about how MetaFilter has changed in general, sure, it might be valuable. But here it comes off as people hijacking this specific thread to turn it into their hobbyhorse about how this site is less free.
posted by maxsparber at 9:09 AM on June 16, 2015 [8 favorites]
Yeah, and it seems really odd to have a specific discussion about a specific deletion and then come in and say, hey, this one person said something general one time and we should all ponder that.
I mean, if you want to open a thread about how MetaFilter has changed in general, sure, it might be valuable. But here it comes off as people hijacking this specific thread to turn it into their hobbyhorse about how this site is less free.
posted by maxsparber at 9:09 AM on June 16, 2015 [8 favorites]
Just to be clear, LM, you and byanothername are violating the policy of mentioning users who are no longer members. Which would be fine, except that when everyone else did it you deleted their comments.
posted by anotherpanacea at 9:11 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by anotherpanacea at 9:11 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
I fucked up by not deleting that comment earlier and this whole derail is a consequence, and I'm trying not to delete comments that people are posting as a consequence of my fuckup. That is what you're seeing. I am asking people to drop the cairdeas thing please.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:12 AM on June 16, 2015 [12 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:12 AM on June 16, 2015 [12 favorites]
This might be because of your views on the topic, or the topic itself. With some friends you could talk about suicide, with others you wouldn't perhaps because they had a recent painful experience. By limiting the discussion on metafilter to a discussion you'd be happy to have with your entire circle together, you narrow the scope of discussion significantly.
Except, on metafilter we can have topics on suicide. We can't, or I suspect we can't, have people be assholes about suicide. If you don't know what Im talking about, read any other comment section on the internet about suicide.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:15 AM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
Except, on metafilter we can have topics on suicide. We can't, or I suspect we can't, have people be assholes about suicide. If you don't know what Im talking about, read any other comment section on the internet about suicide.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:15 AM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
Just to be clear, LM, you and byanothername are violating the policy of mentioning users who are no longer members. Which would be fine, except that when everyone else did it you deleted their comments.
ברוך אתה ה ' אלוהינו , מלך העולם , שלא עשני לימנחה אינטרנט
posted by zarq at 9:23 AM on June 16, 2015 [11 favorites]
ברוך אתה ה ' אלוהינו , מלך העולם , שלא עשני לימנחה אינטרנט
posted by zarq at 9:23 AM on June 16, 2015 [11 favorites]
Just as a quick clarification, comments have been rolling in fast and furious and when the shift changes, the new person has to try to catch up on what's been posted for however many hours they've been off-duty (in this case, around 8 hours; which is barely time to wind down at all and sleep, much less have a caffeined beverage and read all of the hundreds of comments that have been posted in the meantime), and while we usually try to give each other a pretty good picture of the status at hand-off, it's hard to do with a ton of comments and flags rushing in, so LM didn't so much "fuck up" as just wasn't 100% superhuman.
posted by taz (staff) at 9:24 AM on June 16, 2015 [36 favorites]
posted by taz (staff) at 9:24 AM on June 16, 2015 [36 favorites]
max: Or to see both sides, hijacking this specific thread to turn it into their hobbyhorse about how this site should be less free.
posted by biffa at 9:24 AM on June 16, 2015
posted by biffa at 9:24 AM on June 16, 2015
Sure zarq, of course LM can do it. But she also left byanyothername's shitty "We're better off without X, frankly."
Which was a kind of shitty parting shot to have left with all the other stuff deleted.
posted by anotherpanacea at 9:25 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
Which was a kind of shitty parting shot to have left with all the other stuff deleted.
posted by anotherpanacea at 9:25 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
We've had some pretty terrible threads on suicide that resulted in me personally closing the Internet and going for a long rage-run.
Some viewpoints which have been expressed in those threads got several threads deleted, so it's a good example, just not for the pint you wanted to make.
Also I don't think people realize how insulting it is to our trans members to talk about how they want to have discussions about their issues here rather than elsewhere. It prioritizes your comfort and convenience for consuming data over their safety and emotional wellbeing and turns them into unpaid teachers, which is crappy. The Internet is vast and contains multitudes of educational resources that aren't the equivalent of demanding free labor from people who get insulted and sneered at for the generous amount of education they're already doing here unpaid.
posted by winna at 9:28 AM on June 16, 2015 [13 favorites]
Some viewpoints which have been expressed in those threads got several threads deleted, so it's a good example, just not for the pint you wanted to make.
Also I don't think people realize how insulting it is to our trans members to talk about how they want to have discussions about their issues here rather than elsewhere. It prioritizes your comfort and convenience for consuming data over their safety and emotional wellbeing and turns them into unpaid teachers, which is crappy. The Internet is vast and contains multitudes of educational resources that aren't the equivalent of demanding free labor from people who get insulted and sneered at for the generous amount of education they're already doing here unpaid.
posted by winna at 9:28 AM on June 16, 2015 [13 favorites]
I don't know if it's useful to point this out, but if language/rhetoric issues are on the table (I didn't know some things could be explored until LobsterMitten explained why zarq's comment survived), I feel like there is a language/rhetoric available for talking about some claims in this case that at least has the merit of not having ticked too many people off yet.
I'm thinking of phrases like "ethnic/racial mobility," "race as an achieved rather than an ascribed status," and "achieved ethnic/racial identity," which actually are things in the world. "Racial passing" also seems relevant, but the more general terms have been used elsewhere in the past to describe non-passing circumstances like buying a license to be white or taking on a new ethnic identity by really committing yourself to it. Neologisms based on particular ethnicities / racial statuses also occur in the ethnographic literature, e.g. that second study offers "Fulbeization" and this one about becoming ladino by virtue of being rejected by other indigenous groups offers "ladinoization."
Please understand that I'm not encouraging any line of argument. The "false analogy barrier" seems very high even in these terms, and I think it would be especially problematic to tell members of any historically oppressed group you don't belong to that they should accept any of the foregoing terms as analogues to the realities they cope with or want to cope with in the future. "Race in the US" is obviously its own thing. There just happens to be a language and a literature for the alternatives that I think hasn't been too controversial previously (personally, I'm cribbing it from a popular anthropology 101 textbook that's been in widespread use for almost 30 years, and poking around in the current edition's table of contents, it seems to still be there).
Also, at the end, I'm still not sure if I've crossed a line the mods are trying to hold in this thread, and if deleting it is helpful to keeping this thread on track, I'm all for it.
posted by Monsieur Caution at 9:29 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
I'm thinking of phrases like "ethnic/racial mobility," "race as an achieved rather than an ascribed status," and "achieved ethnic/racial identity," which actually are things in the world. "Racial passing" also seems relevant, but the more general terms have been used elsewhere in the past to describe non-passing circumstances like buying a license to be white or taking on a new ethnic identity by really committing yourself to it. Neologisms based on particular ethnicities / racial statuses also occur in the ethnographic literature, e.g. that second study offers "Fulbeization" and this one about becoming ladino by virtue of being rejected by other indigenous groups offers "ladinoization."
Please understand that I'm not encouraging any line of argument. The "false analogy barrier" seems very high even in these terms, and I think it would be especially problematic to tell members of any historically oppressed group you don't belong to that they should accept any of the foregoing terms as analogues to the realities they cope with or want to cope with in the future. "Race in the US" is obviously its own thing. There just happens to be a language and a literature for the alternatives that I think hasn't been too controversial previously (personally, I'm cribbing it from a popular anthropology 101 textbook that's been in widespread use for almost 30 years, and poking around in the current edition's table of contents, it seems to still be there).
Also, at the end, I'm still not sure if I've crossed a line the mods are trying to hold in this thread, and if deleting it is helpful to keeping this thread on track, I'm all for it.
posted by Monsieur Caution at 9:29 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
anotherpanacea: “Right now we 're talking about losing trans members to insufficient moderation. Yet we can't link to the relevant threads or mention names?”
Well – this thread (and discussion) isn't really about "losing trans members to insufficient moderation." It's about whether moderation is too heavy-handed. In an ancillary way, I guess, the response to that is that less moderation would be insufficient and would lead to the departure of trans members – or perhaps that some trans members have left because the moderation here isn't strong enough – but these are sort of side-issues. And unless I'm mistaken, no departed trans members have been quoted or named in this discussion. Thus far, departed members have been named and quoted exclusively by those arguing that moderation here is too heavy-handed.
Aside from that – I agree that it's generally a bad idea to be naming names and quoting comments from departed members. And I don't really care whose side they're on. Take the example you mention, of a trans member who left because they said that there's insufficient moderation here: the thing about people leaving Metafilter is that they aren't part of the conversation anymore, they aren't necessarily keeping up with developments, and so it's unfair to quote them as though their words apply directly to a given situation when they don't necessarily. If User X thought a year ago that moderation here was insufficient, would they feel the same way now? Or would they feel differently? A lot has changed on Metafilter over the past year – probably more than ever before. We really don't know what this person or that person thinks now, and it's a point of courtesy to let them be and just have a discussion among the people who are actually present.
Besides that, I don't think it serves any purpose. No one departed member speaks for all. The most they can ever be in a conversation they aren't present for is a data point – and if we really wanted to tally up data points, we'd have to do things like headcounts. I don't think that's even really feasible, largely because of the variation in departures and departure reasons.
posted by koeselitz at 9:30 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Well – this thread (and discussion) isn't really about "losing trans members to insufficient moderation." It's about whether moderation is too heavy-handed. In an ancillary way, I guess, the response to that is that less moderation would be insufficient and would lead to the departure of trans members – or perhaps that some trans members have left because the moderation here isn't strong enough – but these are sort of side-issues. And unless I'm mistaken, no departed trans members have been quoted or named in this discussion. Thus far, departed members have been named and quoted exclusively by those arguing that moderation here is too heavy-handed.
Aside from that – I agree that it's generally a bad idea to be naming names and quoting comments from departed members. And I don't really care whose side they're on. Take the example you mention, of a trans member who left because they said that there's insufficient moderation here: the thing about people leaving Metafilter is that they aren't part of the conversation anymore, they aren't necessarily keeping up with developments, and so it's unfair to quote them as though their words apply directly to a given situation when they don't necessarily. If User X thought a year ago that moderation here was insufficient, would they feel the same way now? Or would they feel differently? A lot has changed on Metafilter over the past year – probably more than ever before. We really don't know what this person or that person thinks now, and it's a point of courtesy to let them be and just have a discussion among the people who are actually present.
Besides that, I don't think it serves any purpose. No one departed member speaks for all. The most they can ever be in a conversation they aren't present for is a data point – and if we really wanted to tally up data points, we'd have to do things like headcounts. I don't think that's even really feasible, largely because of the variation in departures and departure reasons.
posted by koeselitz at 9:30 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
anotherpanacea, To clarify, the comment I made is a bastardization of a Jewish prayer. It's the closest approximation I could come up with to "Blessed art thou, Oh Lord our G-d, for not making me a moderator on the internet."
It's an admittedly obscure comment about what LM must be going through this morning, having to moderate this thread. Not meant to be an actual serious response to your comment.
posted by zarq at 9:32 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
It's an admittedly obscure comment about what LM must be going through this morning, having to moderate this thread. Not meant to be an actual serious response to your comment.
posted by zarq at 9:32 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Or to see both sides, hijacking this specific thread to turn it into their hobbyhorse about how this site should be less free.
There shouldn't be an argument as to who has the more valid viewpoints between "Internet Contrarians" or "Trans People."
posted by zombieflanders at 9:35 AM on June 16, 2015 [19 favorites]
There shouldn't be an argument as to who has the more valid viewpoints between "Internet Contrarians" or "Trans People."
posted by zombieflanders at 9:35 AM on June 16, 2015 [19 favorites]
Or to see both sides, hijacking this specific thread to turn it into their hobbyhorse about how this site should be less free.
...less free to spew out rampant bigotry, you mean. This is the very definition of false equivalency.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:38 AM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
...less free to spew out rampant bigotry, you mean. This is the very definition of false equivalency.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:38 AM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
And, to be clear, the argument really seems to be "Remember 15 years ago, when we weren't allowed to be antisemitic or racist without getting deleted! How the world has changed -- now we can't be sexist or transphobic either! This site now sucks!"
I mean, really, all that has happened is that longstanding moderation policies have expanded based on the needs of an increasingly diverse user base. But, good lord, you shrink someone's privilege down the width of a hair and they will holler.
posted by maxsparber at 9:38 AM on June 16, 2015 [30 favorites]
I mean, really, all that has happened is that longstanding moderation policies have expanded based on the needs of an increasingly diverse user base. But, good lord, you shrink someone's privilege down the width of a hair and they will holler.
posted by maxsparber at 9:38 AM on June 16, 2015 [30 favorites]
Just as a quick clarification, comments have been rolling in fast and furious and when the shift changes, the new person has to try to catch up on what's been posted for however many hours they've been off-duty (in this case, around 8 hours; which is barely time to wind down at all and sleep, much less have a caffeined beverage and read all of the hundreds of comments that have been posted in the meantime), and while we usually try to give each other a pretty good picture of the status at hand-off, it's hard to do with a ton of comments and flags rushing in, so LM didn't so much "fuck up" as just wasn't 100% superhuman.
This is a derail and probably deserves its own meta, but this seems to be a pretty strong argument against the recent increase of moderation in meta.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:41 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
This is a derail and probably deserves its own meta, but this seems to be a pretty strong argument against the recent increase of moderation in meta.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:41 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Or to see both sides, hijacking this specific thread to turn it into their hobbyhorse about how this site should be less free.
Oh noes, people are being intolerant of your intolerance! Don't they understand that logically that makes them as bad as you are?!?
posted by tocts at 9:42 AM on June 16, 2015 [9 favorites]
Oh noes, people are being intolerant of your intolerance! Don't they understand that logically that makes them as bad as you are?!?
posted by tocts at 9:42 AM on June 16, 2015 [9 favorites]
It BLOWS MY MIND that anyone can look at the official pushback against hostility towards members who are women, who are trans, who are gay, who are people of color -- hostility which is severe and pervasive enough to chase those members away, causing us to lose their voices and perspectives -- and label that a "narrowing."
posted by KathrynT at 9:42 AM on June 16, 2015 [35 favorites]
posted by KathrynT at 9:42 AM on June 16, 2015 [35 favorites]
this seems to be a pretty strong argument against the recent increase of moderation in meta.
Sure. Just as every fumble ever is an argument against doing anything anywhere.
posted by maxsparber at 9:42 AM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
Sure. Just as every fumble ever is an argument against doing anything anywhere.
posted by maxsparber at 9:42 AM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
This is a derail and probably deserves its own meta, but this seems to be a pretty strong argument against the recent increase of moderation in meta.
No, it doesn't.
posted by jaguar at 9:44 AM on June 16, 2015 [14 favorites]
No, it doesn't.
posted by jaguar at 9:44 AM on June 16, 2015 [14 favorites]
Is the standard for deletion or acceptable discourse on metafilter that if you wouldn't have the conversation with a member of the most vulnerable population in real life you shouldn't have it on metafilter, or should it be?
That'd be a horrible standard, for one thing people are just as likely to be bigots in person as they are to be bigots on the internet. Hell, my whole point was that transphobic rhetoric is used by people who are so horribly bigoted they actually think violence (physical and verbal) is o.k. towards trans people just because they're trans people.
I get what you're saying, but I don't think it's that big of a shades of grey area to say "you shouldn't be allowed to parrot ideas that are widely used to hurt and discriminate against people".
posted by Gygesringtone at 9:44 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
That'd be a horrible standard, for one thing people are just as likely to be bigots in person as they are to be bigots on the internet. Hell, my whole point was that transphobic rhetoric is used by people who are so horribly bigoted they actually think violence (physical and verbal) is o.k. towards trans people just because they're trans people.
I get what you're saying, but I don't think it's that big of a shades of grey area to say "you shouldn't be allowed to parrot ideas that are widely used to hurt and discriminate against people".
posted by Gygesringtone at 9:44 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Just to clarify, it seems like the mods are robbing Peter to pay Paul so to speak. Historically meta has been a release valve which took pressure off the moderation duties on the blue. Now it seems that too much mod time is being spent here on the grey at the expense(?) of the blue. Anyways, I guess someone just needs to make a meta specifically about this topic if we want to discuss it. *drops derail
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:45 AM on June 16, 2015
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:45 AM on June 16, 2015
I got the joke, zarq. :-)
Besides that, I don't think it serves any purpose. No one departed member speaks for all.
koeslitz, I'm just reporting my own experience here, but the revelations around those trans members departures mattered a lot to me, in aggregate if not individually. One thing I've seen NortonDC pointing to a lot is a list of female members, feminists all, who don't feel comfortable with some of the changes in tone. I don't want to put words in their mouth and I suspect neither does he, which is why he doesn't paraphrase but rather quotes. But if there's a group of women who don't feel comfortable here, it might be because they are older-school feminists (sometimes called TERFs), or because they don't like the emphasis on women's victimhood when the internet is a relatively safe space when it comes to embodied harms, or because their other subject positions make them relatively immune to attacks on women (professional women are often quite good at resisting sexism, because they have had to be, and they impute that toughness to others) or other things like that.
It's certainly happened a bit lately, and I think it represents a part of the internet making their way onto Metafilter that is new and interesting: the Twitter/Tumblr folks who work on race, gender, sex, and sexuality. The callout culture: there are broad critiques and attacks coming to Metatalk from relatively new members, and lots of snark. I call it interesting, but of course it frustrates others.
We need never really discuss those developments. I find myself pretty frustrated by the way the discussion is often reduced to sides that almost self-identify as these broad caricatures of "free speech warriors" and "social justice warriors." But perhaps we could find a way to discuss how Metafilter is changing (and it is, and I personally like that) someday without those stereotypes.
posted by anotherpanacea at 9:46 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
Besides that, I don't think it serves any purpose. No one departed member speaks for all.
koeslitz, I'm just reporting my own experience here, but the revelations around those trans members departures mattered a lot to me, in aggregate if not individually. One thing I've seen NortonDC pointing to a lot is a list of female members, feminists all, who don't feel comfortable with some of the changes in tone. I don't want to put words in their mouth and I suspect neither does he, which is why he doesn't paraphrase but rather quotes. But if there's a group of women who don't feel comfortable here, it might be because they are older-school feminists (sometimes called TERFs), or because they don't like the emphasis on women's victimhood when the internet is a relatively safe space when it comes to embodied harms, or because their other subject positions make them relatively immune to attacks on women (professional women are often quite good at resisting sexism, because they have had to be, and they impute that toughness to others) or other things like that.
It's certainly happened a bit lately, and I think it represents a part of the internet making their way onto Metafilter that is new and interesting: the Twitter/Tumblr folks who work on race, gender, sex, and sexuality. The callout culture: there are broad critiques and attacks coming to Metatalk from relatively new members, and lots of snark. I call it interesting, but of course it frustrates others.
We need never really discuss those developments. I find myself pretty frustrated by the way the discussion is often reduced to sides that almost self-identify as these broad caricatures of "free speech warriors" and "social justice warriors." But perhaps we could find a way to discuss how Metafilter is changing (and it is, and I personally like that) someday without those stereotypes.
posted by anotherpanacea at 9:46 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
TERFs feeling uncomfortable because they can't spew their TERF-turds is about as okay as any other transphobe feeling uncomfortable, I feel.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:48 AM on June 16, 2015 [22 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:48 AM on June 16, 2015 [22 favorites]
Historically meta has been a release valve which took pressure off the moderation duties on the blue. Now it seems that too much mod time is being spent here on the grey at the expense(?) of the blue.
That's a perfectly good reason to find a way to either increase mod resources or not worry about the users who are angsting over the good ol' days of free-wheelin' debate over "hitting that" and "ladyboys," rather than the opposite.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:49 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
That's a perfectly good reason to find a way to either increase mod resources or not worry about the users who are angsting over the good ol' days of free-wheelin' debate over "hitting that" and "ladyboys," rather than the opposite.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:49 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
> older-school feminists (sometimes called TERFs)
These are really not the same thing. Conflating them is not helpful. It's unhelpful in that way that the NYT framing the discussion around Caitlyn Jenner as "feminists vs transgender women."
posted by rtha at 9:51 AM on June 16, 2015 [48 favorites]
These are really not the same thing. Conflating them is not helpful. It's unhelpful in that way that the NYT framing the discussion around Caitlyn Jenner as "feminists vs transgender women."
posted by rtha at 9:51 AM on June 16, 2015 [48 favorites]
That's a perfectly good reason to find a way to either increase mod resources
That would be optimal, but I seem to remember the mods clearly stating that this is off the table for the near future barring some massive influx of cash which would allow the hiring of more mods.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:57 AM on June 16, 2015
That would be optimal, but I seem to remember the mods clearly stating that this is off the table for the near future barring some massive influx of cash which would allow the hiring of more mods.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:57 AM on June 16, 2015
Really? I see that equation quite commonly. Lots of unrepentant 2nd wave "essentialist" feminists get called TERFs on the internet. (A colleague of mine often rails against the number of contemporary feminist scholars who are real-live TERFs in their scholarship and never get called on it.) It seems like a pretty common problem, sadly.
Or is your point that TERF is itself an offensive term?
posted by anotherpanacea at 9:58 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Or is your point that TERF is itself an offensive term?
posted by anotherpanacea at 9:58 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
So then the logical solution is to give zero fucks about whiny entitled babies whining that they can't be bigots as much as they used to be.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:58 AM on June 16, 2015
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:58 AM on June 16, 2015
That would be optimal, but I seem to remember the mods clearly stating that this is off the table for the near future barring some massive influx of cash which would allow the hiring of more mods.
How about we let the mods worry about site finances and scheduling, instead of attempting to use that as a cudgel to argue that we just can't afford a site where we treat marginalized groups as human beings?
posted by tocts at 9:59 AM on June 16, 2015 [12 favorites]
How about we let the mods worry about site finances and scheduling, instead of attempting to use that as a cudgel to argue that we just can't afford a site where we treat marginalized groups as human beings?
posted by tocts at 9:59 AM on June 16, 2015 [12 favorites]
yes really - there are a lot of older feminists who aren't terfs and there are plenty of young feminists who are terfs. this isn't an age issue.
posted by nadawi at 10:00 AM on June 16, 2015 [31 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 10:00 AM on June 16, 2015 [31 favorites]
I do find the comment deletions here in MetaTalk a bit disturbing. My impression has always been that, since MetaTalk was where we hashed out site policy issues, different rules applied here. Personal insults would get deleted, but aside from that, I thought that MeTa moderation mainly consisted of stern warnings in-thread if people were doing inappropriate things (such as using a MeTa thread as a proxy for a MeFi thread that was deleted). Maybe those were followed by deletions (perhaps accompanied by a timeout) for individuals who repeatedly ignored the stern in-thread warnings, but I thought that deletion was generally not the first response. Did I misunderstand MeTa moderation policy, or has policy changed in that regard?
posted by klausness at 10:02 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by klausness at 10:02 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Nthing the fact that TERFs are not simply 'older-school' feminists.
posted by winna at 10:03 AM on June 16, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by winna at 10:03 AM on June 16, 2015 [8 favorites]
there are a lot of older feminists who aren't terfs and there are plenty of young feminists who are terfs. this isn't an age issue.
Okay, that's totally fair. I find the wave/generational story pretty useful but of course it's an imputed narrative of order and directionality that is trying to overlay a lot of people many of whom are not identifiably making theoretical progress in that way. It makes a lot of sense culturally, though!
posted by anotherpanacea at 10:03 AM on June 16, 2015
Okay, that's totally fair. I find the wave/generational story pretty useful but of course it's an imputed narrative of order and directionality that is trying to overlay a lot of people many of whom are not identifiably making theoretical progress in that way. It makes a lot of sense culturally, though!
posted by anotherpanacea at 10:03 AM on June 16, 2015
Or is your point that TERF is itself an offensive term?
I'm not rtha, but I think the point is that there are old-school feminists and second-wave feminists and even radical feminists who are not trans-exclusionary. TERFs are one discrete population among feminists, but they do not represent even close to the entirety of feminism, which is why framing a discussion in terms of "feminists vs. Caitlyn Jenner" is unhelpful.
On preview: what nadawi and winna said.
posted by bakerina at 10:04 AM on June 16, 2015 [14 favorites]
I'm not rtha, but I think the point is that there are old-school feminists and second-wave feminists and even radical feminists who are not trans-exclusionary. TERFs are one discrete population among feminists, but they do not represent even close to the entirety of feminism, which is why framing a discussion in terms of "feminists vs. Caitlyn Jenner" is unhelpful.
On preview: what nadawi and winna said.
posted by bakerina at 10:04 AM on June 16, 2015 [14 favorites]
this thread (and discussion) isn't really about "losing trans members to insufficient moderation." It's about whether moderation is too heavy-handed.
This thread ESPECIALLY shouldn't be about 'losing trans members to insufficient moderation' given that the Dolezal case has jack fucking all to do with transgender individuals. I am just enormously upset that this thread is being nuked from orbit because it might offend a group that isn't even involved in the situation.
posted by corb at 10:06 AM on June 16, 2015 [7 favorites]
This thread ESPECIALLY shouldn't be about 'losing trans members to insufficient moderation' given that the Dolezal case has jack fucking all to do with transgender individuals. I am just enormously upset that this thread is being nuked from orbit because it might offend a group that isn't even involved in the situation.
posted by corb at 10:06 AM on June 16, 2015 [7 favorites]
So then the logical solution is to give zero fucks about whiny entitled babies whining that they can't be bigots as much as they used to be.
How about we let the mods worry about site finances and scheduling, instead of attempting to use that as a cudgel to argue that we just can't afford a site where we treat marginalized groups as human beings?
Not what I am saying, but please continue to spew ignorant vitriol apparently being more interested in scoring points and showing street cred rather than having a substantive discussion. I am done with this as I have stated before it is a derail so I am now dropping it...for real this time. I agree with the recent changes in moderation style, but really loathe the ridiculous posturing and really childish behavior exhibited by my supposed allies. Responding to bigotry with more bigotry seems to be wrongheaded, but what do I know.
I do find the comment deletions here in MetaTalk a bit disturbing
Yes, me too, but I am now sorry I brought it up now. It is taking away from the actual topic of the meta. I request that everyone just ignore my comments on this topic, and when I get home tonight I will try and craft a meta that addresses this specific issue so that we don't take away from the very important discussion we are having here.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:07 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
How about we let the mods worry about site finances and scheduling, instead of attempting to use that as a cudgel to argue that we just can't afford a site where we treat marginalized groups as human beings?
Not what I am saying, but please continue to spew ignorant vitriol apparently being more interested in scoring points and showing street cred rather than having a substantive discussion. I am done with this as I have stated before it is a derail so I am now dropping it...for real this time. I agree with the recent changes in moderation style, but really loathe the ridiculous posturing and really childish behavior exhibited by my supposed allies. Responding to bigotry with more bigotry seems to be wrongheaded, but what do I know.
I do find the comment deletions here in MetaTalk a bit disturbing
Yes, me too, but I am now sorry I brought it up now. It is taking away from the actual topic of the meta. I request that everyone just ignore my comments on this topic, and when I get home tonight I will try and craft a meta that addresses this specific issue so that we don't take away from the very important discussion we are having here.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:07 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Even then, though, it will probably be difficult to steer the discussion away from, "look at this freak," "so this is just like transness for blackness right," and "as a white dude, let me tell you how this makes me feel" types of comments that are more -101 than 101. Given more recent developments and the way that media have utterly failed to not make this into a freakshow, it may actually not be possible to have a civil discussion about Dolezal on the site, ever.
I think this is key to the problem. If the expectation, commonly expressed in sentiments such as these, that a general under-grad university student level is not sufficient to handle these discussions, then then there's a pile of things that should be delete-on-sight. That's been the bar for practical participation on the site since its founding---a slice of interested, generalist folks who can talk at around that level.
In most cases, that's why most of us are here. There are norms for the level of detail, assumed education and ability to engage in conversation. When I write on technical issues here, I write at what I think of as the Scientific American level (or at least the SciAm level I remember prior to great dumbening in the 2000s), while on Reddit, for example, I have to write at a lower level of base knowledge and argument-following, a newspaper level, assuming only mid-HS.
If the bar has been pushed higher, and higher in social issues threads particularly, if the level of a tenured professors or a graduate student isn't good enough (though I think that's a bit hyperbolic), then such conversations cannot and should not happen here. There is not, nor will there ever be a critical mass of such folks visiting this site, and we will always end in strife.
It's fine to expect commenters to have a clue (see site norms above). I'm not talking about bad faith comments either. However I don't think it's productive to expect an elevated level of knowledge for metafilter commenters on topics relevant to race, gender or what have you. Multi-level and specialist discourse does happen in most threads on the site where we have members that have domain knowledge, however, not at the cost or exclusion of the general population of the site.
So complaining about "types of comments that are more -101 than 101" goes against the grain for me. The norm for what can be expected from the average mefite hasn't seem to have changed a lot in the last 15 years. If that is now a problem, if people being less than knowledgeable about a subject is problematic for discussion, then those discussions should be struck down, but I think that would be a loss to the site culture.
posted by bonehead at 10:07 AM on June 16, 2015 [10 favorites]
I think this is key to the problem. If the expectation, commonly expressed in sentiments such as these, that a general under-grad university student level is not sufficient to handle these discussions, then then there's a pile of things that should be delete-on-sight. That's been the bar for practical participation on the site since its founding---a slice of interested, generalist folks who can talk at around that level.
In most cases, that's why most of us are here. There are norms for the level of detail, assumed education and ability to engage in conversation. When I write on technical issues here, I write at what I think of as the Scientific American level (or at least the SciAm level I remember prior to great dumbening in the 2000s), while on Reddit, for example, I have to write at a lower level of base knowledge and argument-following, a newspaper level, assuming only mid-HS.
If the bar has been pushed higher, and higher in social issues threads particularly, if the level of a tenured professors or a graduate student isn't good enough (though I think that's a bit hyperbolic), then such conversations cannot and should not happen here. There is not, nor will there ever be a critical mass of such folks visiting this site, and we will always end in strife.
It's fine to expect commenters to have a clue (see site norms above). I'm not talking about bad faith comments either. However I don't think it's productive to expect an elevated level of knowledge for metafilter commenters on topics relevant to race, gender or what have you. Multi-level and specialist discourse does happen in most threads on the site where we have members that have domain knowledge, however, not at the cost or exclusion of the general population of the site.
So complaining about "types of comments that are more -101 than 101" goes against the grain for me. The norm for what can be expected from the average mefite hasn't seem to have changed a lot in the last 15 years. If that is now a problem, if people being less than knowledgeable about a subject is problematic for discussion, then those discussions should be struck down, but I think that would be a loss to the site culture.
posted by bonehead at 10:07 AM on June 16, 2015 [10 favorites]
The entire point of the term "TERF" is to distinguish "radical feminist" or "2nd-wave feminist" from "feminist who believes that trans women are not really women." That's literally what the acronym stands for--it was devised in order to be able to talk about radical feminists and trans exclusivity without tarring all radical feminists with the same brush, since radical feminists are a tradition of feminism which historically have had a lot of issues with transphobia and were being associated in the minds of many people with transphobia. TERF is intended to draw a distinction and make communication clearer.
posted by sciatrix at 10:07 AM on June 16, 2015 [27 favorites]
posted by sciatrix at 10:07 AM on June 16, 2015 [27 favorites]
Couple of comments deleted; "fee fees" is pretty much never a good way to engage with people, regardless of what side it's coming from.
When the layoffs first happened, Matt said we would be deleting things/timeouting more quickly. We've tried not to do that, as much as possible, but as taz says, if a thread is going to require 24/7 comment-by-comment modding to avoid turning into a terrible fight, that's a thread that's going to face a good chance of being deleted. Ditto for MetaTalk, more in the last year-six months, that we're trying to keep things more on track (less tolerance for personal stuff, less tolerance for rehashing the argument from the thread) in here and make it a little less anything-goes.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 10:08 AM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
When the layoffs first happened, Matt said we would be deleting things/timeouting more quickly. We've tried not to do that, as much as possible, but as taz says, if a thread is going to require 24/7 comment-by-comment modding to avoid turning into a terrible fight, that's a thread that's going to face a good chance of being deleted. Ditto for MetaTalk, more in the last year-six months, that we're trying to keep things more on track (less tolerance for personal stuff, less tolerance for rehashing the argument from the thread) in here and make it a little less anything-goes.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 10:08 AM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
corb: Have you missed all the discussion of the story elsewhere on the internet? Because even though it shouldn't have anything to do with trans people, a ton of anti-trans people are working very hard to make it about them.
posted by Jacqueline at 10:09 AM on June 16, 2015 [13 favorites]
posted by Jacqueline at 10:09 AM on June 16, 2015 [13 favorites]
Corb, the situation has jack-all to do with trans individuals, I agree. EXCEPT that a bunch of (cis) people REALLY, really, really wanted to make it about trans individuals here on Metafilter. The wider discussion of the case has absolutely tried to create some kind of gross parallel with trans individuals. So whether or not the case itself has any relevance to trans issues (which it does not), the discussion that ensued ended up being extremely transphobic and hostile.
posted by KathrynT at 10:09 AM on June 16, 2015 [19 favorites]
posted by KathrynT at 10:09 AM on June 16, 2015 [19 favorites]
I am just enormously upset that this thread is being nuked from orbit because it might offend a group that isn't even involved in the situation.
Yes, which is why it was so shitty that people wouldn't let go of that transphobic derail in the original thread, which is a large reason why the thread just wasn't going very well.
posted by maxsparber at 10:11 AM on June 16, 2015 [16 favorites]
Yes, which is why it was so shitty that people wouldn't let go of that transphobic derail in the original thread, which is a large reason why the thread just wasn't going very well.
posted by maxsparber at 10:11 AM on June 16, 2015 [16 favorites]
Right, but if people are trying to bring transgender individuals into a situation which is absolutely not fucking about them, we already have a solution for that. I mean, mods seem to be able to delete stuff from MeTa, it's not like their powers just evaporate on the blue. It'd be pretty easy to put a mod note in the thread and say "Hey, we're not talking about transgender individuals in here, if you mention transgender folk, your comment will be deleted, you will get a timeout if you do it repeatedly, now move on."
posted by corb at 10:13 AM on June 16, 2015 [13 favorites]
posted by corb at 10:13 AM on June 16, 2015 [13 favorites]
(Parenthetically: there are probably a higher proportion of older feminists who are TERFs than younger feminists, but there are significant older feminists (Judith Butler, for example) who have been very public with their criticism of TERFs. "TERF" itself is intended to be a term which covers all trans excluding radical feminists precisely to avoid generational problems of this nature. Also, at this point there are "older" feminists who were first active in the early seventies (Gloria Steinem, Susan Brownmiller, etc); "older" feminists who have been active since the eighties (bell hooks, Judith Butler, Cherrie Moraga, etc) and now even (alas) "older" feminists of my generation who are in their mid thirties to mid forties who started being active in the nineties (Naomi Woolf, Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha, etc). It's much easier to group women who share concerns than to go with generations, because the generations themselves are not very coherent.)
posted by Frowner at 10:13 AM on June 16, 2015 [13 favorites]
posted by Frowner at 10:13 AM on June 16, 2015 [13 favorites]
I'm not rtha, but I think the point is that there are old-school feminists and second-wave feminists and even radical feminists who are not trans-exclusionary.
My read is that there are no post-Judith Butler feminists doing scholarship on this issue who could be described as TERFs. (The two names that often come up in this context are Irigarary and Grosz.) I read articles in this area but don't publish scholarship on it myself, but this has been confirmed by a colleague who does. That's why I ascribe this to some "older-school" feminists. If you went to graduate school after Butler, it's basically impossible to succeed as a TERF. That's not to say that there aren't activists and ordinary folks who could still be labeled in this way, but it's just not an acceptable position among young scholars.
posted by anotherpanacea at 10:14 AM on June 16, 2015
My read is that there are no post-Judith Butler feminists doing scholarship on this issue who could be described as TERFs. (The two names that often come up in this context are Irigarary and Grosz.) I read articles in this area but don't publish scholarship on it myself, but this has been confirmed by a colleague who does. That's why I ascribe this to some "older-school" feminists. If you went to graduate school after Butler, it's basically impossible to succeed as a TERF. That's not to say that there aren't activists and ordinary folks who could still be labeled in this way, but it's just not an acceptable position among young scholars.
posted by anotherpanacea at 10:14 AM on June 16, 2015
Somebody pointed this out above, but I think it's worth saying again: there are interesting things to say and discuss about "passing" in the modern world, about people who (through necessity or vanity) pretend to be of another race. It wouldn't be impossible to make a post about that, and the moderators certainly haven't forbidden it from happening. It might even mention Rachel Dolezal. It just needs to not be about that one single person exclusively, for various practical reasons.
posted by koeselitz at 10:15 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by koeselitz at 10:15 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Right, but if people are trying to bring transgender individuals into a situation which is absolutely not fucking about them, we already have a solution for that
Sure, but that doesn't solve the larger issue with those threads, which was, at that moment, the timing of it made them just crass speculation. There were very little facts to work with, and so it wound up being a useless mix of outragefilter and newsfilter, which both have a long history of being deleted on this site.
posted by maxsparber at 10:16 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Sure, but that doesn't solve the larger issue with those threads, which was, at that moment, the timing of it made them just crass speculation. There were very little facts to work with, and so it wound up being a useless mix of outragefilter and newsfilter, which both have a long history of being deleted on this site.
posted by maxsparber at 10:16 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
TERF is pretty much one of those labels from opposition terms like SJW right? Do any groups self-identify that way primarily or is it just generally used as a smear?
posted by bonehead at 10:16 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by bonehead at 10:16 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
corb, it's the way the conversation is happening in the larger world. Take your complaint to them.
Any thread on this right now is going to go that way, because -- as I said in my first comment here -- people are primed to bring that in, from having spent 2 minutes with the nightly news or whatever. Person A who has no opinions at all about trans people is going to bring it in, and have no idea that it's offensive, or will ask why it can't be discussed, and then Person B will get upset understandably, and Person A will feel defensive and push back, and we're off to the races. It's not possible to discuss it on a generalist public site without this happening right now. It will require mods sitting in the thread deleting things every time a new person comes in, and then it will spawn a protest MetaTalk and then we'll be watching two angry threads. That is why we deleted it.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 10:16 AM on June 16, 2015 [18 favorites]
Any thread on this right now is going to go that way, because -- as I said in my first comment here -- people are primed to bring that in, from having spent 2 minutes with the nightly news or whatever. Person A who has no opinions at all about trans people is going to bring it in, and have no idea that it's offensive, or will ask why it can't be discussed, and then Person B will get upset understandably, and Person A will feel defensive and push back, and we're off to the races. It's not possible to discuss it on a generalist public site without this happening right now. It will require mods sitting in the thread deleting things every time a new person comes in, and then it will spawn a protest MetaTalk and then we'll be watching two angry threads. That is why we deleted it.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 10:16 AM on June 16, 2015 [18 favorites]
That said, my read from the internet is that there are informal traditions of TERFs in discourse outside of academia. Given that social justice in academia has been known to lift from internet discourse, and given that we need a term to describe feminists who may or may not be academics, I'm okay with reiterating that there are indeed young feminists whose tradition of feminism is trans-exclusionary and who are therefore TERFs.
posted by sciatrix at 10:17 AM on June 16, 2015
posted by sciatrix at 10:17 AM on June 16, 2015
My read is that there are no post-Judith Butler feminists doing scholarship on this issue who could be described as TERFs. (The two names that often come up in this context are Irigarary and Grosz.)
At the risk of getting into a derail, this is not true - I can think of at least a handful of feminist academics (not the big names, but published and tenured/tenure-track) who are late thirties/mid-forties and TERFs. They don't make a big deal out of it, but if you read their blogs, you can get some nasty surprises. I think it's difficult to succeed as a feminist academic by focusing your scholarship around trans exclusion, but that does not mean that the position itself is no longer held.
posted by Frowner at 10:17 AM on June 16, 2015 [10 favorites]
At the risk of getting into a derail, this is not true - I can think of at least a handful of feminist academics (not the big names, but published and tenured/tenure-track) who are late thirties/mid-forties and TERFs. They don't make a big deal out of it, but if you read their blogs, you can get some nasty surprises. I think it's difficult to succeed as a feminist academic by focusing your scholarship around trans exclusion, but that does not mean that the position itself is no longer held.
posted by Frowner at 10:17 AM on June 16, 2015 [10 favorites]
It'd be pretty easy to put a mod note in the thread and say "Hey, we're not talking about transgender individuals in here, if you mention transgender folk, your comment will be deleted, you will get a timeout if you do it repeatedly, now move on."
I definitely think that if the topic is ever going to be discussed well, this will sadly have to be a necessary inclusion. Whether it would have worked to save the thread in question given how firmly a handful of people wanted to derail the discussion in that direction, I'm doubtful.
posted by KathrynT at 10:18 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
I definitely think that if the topic is ever going to be discussed well, this will sadly have to be a necessary inclusion. Whether it would have worked to save the thread in question given how firmly a handful of people wanted to derail the discussion in that direction, I'm doubtful.
posted by KathrynT at 10:18 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Not what I am saying, but please continue to spew ignorant vitriol apparently being more interested in scoring points and showing street cred rather than having a substantive discussion.
Oh, such stinging barbs.
Look, this is pretty straightforward: increased moderation in all parts of the site has made the site a better place as a whole, and in particular for historically marginalized groups. It is not a perfect place, but it is vastly improved over what it was even 5 years ago.
Within that light, arguing that increased moderator attention in threads like these is somehow detrimental to the site on an economic basis is akin to arguing that increased policing in a high-crime area is detrimental to a city on an economic basis: truthy, in a narrow and abstract sense, but fundamentally a shitty argument. It's also an argument that has a very strong undertone of blaming the victim -- that it's their fault that all this precious moderator time is being used up, when it could be used on something more worthy.
If that's not what you're trying to say, maybe try harder in how you say it.
posted by tocts at 10:19 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
Oh, such stinging barbs.
Look, this is pretty straightforward: increased moderation in all parts of the site has made the site a better place as a whole, and in particular for historically marginalized groups. It is not a perfect place, but it is vastly improved over what it was even 5 years ago.
Within that light, arguing that increased moderator attention in threads like these is somehow detrimental to the site on an economic basis is akin to arguing that increased policing in a high-crime area is detrimental to a city on an economic basis: truthy, in a narrow and abstract sense, but fundamentally a shitty argument. It's also an argument that has a very strong undertone of blaming the victim -- that it's their fault that all this precious moderator time is being used up, when it could be used on something more worthy.
If that's not what you're trying to say, maybe try harder in how you say it.
posted by tocts at 10:19 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
TERF is pretty much one of those labels from opposition terms like SJW right? Do any groups self-identify that way primarily or is it just generally used as a smear?
It's not used as a smear and it was not developed as a smear; it was developed as a way to clearly differentiate between groups of radical feminists. But it was developed by trans-inclusive radical feminists, and trans-exclusionary radical feminists often do claim it's a smear (which is often a good way of identifying a TERF writer).
posted by jaguar at 10:19 AM on June 16, 2015 [21 favorites]
It's not used as a smear and it was not developed as a smear; it was developed as a way to clearly differentiate between groups of radical feminists. But it was developed by trans-inclusive radical feminists, and trans-exclusionary radical feminists often do claim it's a smear (which is often a good way of identifying a TERF writer).
posted by jaguar at 10:19 AM on June 16, 2015 [21 favorites]
TERF is pretty much one of those labels from opposition terms like SJW right? Do any groups self-identify that way primarily or is it just generally used as a smear?
I do not think the feminists we're talking about would object to having their politics characterized as "trans-exclusionary." Insofar as I have seen objections to the term, they're laced with a heavy dose of "but you're making it seem like that's a bad thing!" That said, no, it's not a term that originated within radical feminist traditions as far as I know. Frowner probably knows more than I do?
posted by sciatrix at 10:20 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
I do not think the feminists we're talking about would object to having their politics characterized as "trans-exclusionary." Insofar as I have seen objections to the term, they're laced with a heavy dose of "but you're making it seem like that's a bad thing!" That said, no, it's not a term that originated within radical feminist traditions as far as I know. Frowner probably knows more than I do?
posted by sciatrix at 10:20 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'm going to drop the TERF derail, though Frowner if you ever feel like shooting me a memail naming names, it'd at least help me win an argument with a colleague who knows more about this than me. (The best thing about being wrong is being able to change your mind and win future arguments.) :-)
posted by anotherpanacea at 10:20 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by anotherpanacea at 10:20 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Defining TERF: interviewing the feminist who popularized itposted by jaguar at 10:23 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
Cristan Williams: From what I can see, yours is the earliest use. The term has become fairly common in trans discourse.
TigTog: Lauredhel and I are pretty sure that we started using trans-exclusionary radfem (TERF) activists as a descriptive term in our own chats a while before I used it in that post.
C: TERFs have made some assertions about your lexical contribution to feminist discourse. For instance: “TERF is not meant to be explanatory, but insulting. These characterizations are hyperbolic, misleading, and ultimately defamatory.”
T: It was not meant to be insulting. It was meant to be a deliberately technically neutral description of an activist grouping. I notice that since TERF has gone out into the wild, many people seem to use trans-exclusive rather than trans-exclusionary or trans-excluding, and I think that leads to some exploitable ambiguity. It is possible to interpret trans-exclusive as “exclusively talks about trans* issues” (which could quite rightly be considered a slam on the rest of their feminism), while trans-exclusionary is more specific that their exclusion of trans* voices and bodies from being considered women/feminists is the point.
This thread ESPECIALLY shouldn't be about 'losing trans members to insufficient moderation' given that the Dolezal case has jack fucking all to do with transgender individuals.
Dolezal's self-identifying as "transracial" attempted to redefine that term (which has been in use for 45 years and does not mean what she claims it does,) into something that makes no logical sense. Once she did so, Conservatives seized upon her redefinition and used it to their ends: spreading transphobia. So yes, her actions and this case do indeed have "to do with transgender individuals." She's been a catalyst for shitty behavior towards them as a group, and to some individuals.
posted by zarq at 10:23 AM on June 16, 2015 [13 favorites]
Dolezal's self-identifying as "transracial" attempted to redefine that term (which has been in use for 45 years and does not mean what she claims it does,) into something that makes no logical sense. Once she did so, Conservatives seized upon her redefinition and used it to their ends: spreading transphobia. So yes, her actions and this case do indeed have "to do with transgender individuals." She's been a catalyst for shitty behavior towards them as a group, and to some individuals.
posted by zarq at 10:23 AM on June 16, 2015 [13 favorites]
it is impossible to discuss "transracial" without bringing in transgender since channers explicitly appropriated the term (more than a year ago fwiw) to create this sort of argument. it's a deliberate troll that's been waiting for a perfect storm.
posted by nadawi at 10:24 AM on June 16, 2015 [10 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 10:24 AM on June 16, 2015 [10 favorites]
KathrynT: “I definitely think that if the topic is ever going to be discussed well, this will sadly have to be a necessary inclusion. Whether it would have worked to save the thread in question given how firmly a handful of people wanted to derail the discussion in that direction, I'm doubtful.”
What is the topic, though? If the topic is Rachel Dolezal herself, then I submit again that it's a distraction. If the topic is race and the non-diaphanous conduit of passing in America, then there are a billion better ways to talk about it than by talking about Rachel Dolezal.
posted by koeselitz at 10:25 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
What is the topic, though? If the topic is Rachel Dolezal herself, then I submit again that it's a distraction. If the topic is race and the non-diaphanous conduit of passing in America, then there are a billion better ways to talk about it than by talking about Rachel Dolezal.
posted by koeselitz at 10:25 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
> Or is your point that TERF is itself an offensive term?
Not at all. It's an accurate description for some feminists - they want to exclude trans women from their spaces/organizations, and they are open about wanting to exclude them. But not all "old school" feminists are TERFS, is my point.
posted by rtha at 10:25 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
Not at all. It's an accurate description for some feminists - they want to exclude trans women from their spaces/organizations, and they are open about wanting to exclude them. But not all "old school" feminists are TERFS, is my point.
posted by rtha at 10:25 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
for whatever it's worth a fair number of terfs self identify as "gender critical" feminists. others object to any mention of their trans exclusionary views.
posted by nadawi at 10:29 AM on June 16, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 10:29 AM on June 16, 2015 [8 favorites]
nadawi, thanks for explaining about the channers. Didn't realize. I stand corrected.
posted by zarq at 10:32 AM on June 16, 2015
posted by zarq at 10:32 AM on June 16, 2015
Well, now that she's actually identifying as transracial (though to be fair, we didn't know that when this discussion opened), it's not the channers bringing it in - but you know, it's not like LOTS of stuff we talk about doesn't have shitty conversation about it in the real world, and we somehow manage just fine. Like, a lot of the stuff that we think of as mildly contentious here is actually hugely awful and offensive, and we've handled it pretty well with civility, grace, and yes, a lot of deletions.
We don't even autodelete every I/P thread - we just put up a higher bar. But I'm getting the feeling that people are saying no thread on Dolezal will ever, no matter how well written, be able to be posted, and that means that this conversation - which does have a lot of broader implications - will never happen.
posted by corb at 10:33 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
We don't even autodelete every I/P thread - we just put up a higher bar. But I'm getting the feeling that people are saying no thread on Dolezal will ever, no matter how well written, be able to be posted, and that means that this conversation - which does have a lot of broader implications - will never happen.
posted by corb at 10:33 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
But I'm getting the feeling that people are saying no thread on Dolezal will ever, no matter how well written, be able to be posted, and that means that this conversation - which does have a lot of broader implications - will never happen.
Literally no one is saying this.
posted by kagredon at 10:35 AM on June 16, 2015 [17 favorites]
Literally no one is saying this.
posted by kagredon at 10:35 AM on June 16, 2015 [17 favorites]
So, a lot of folks have argued that we can't think of transgender issues alongside race and specifically Dolezal. But here are some people who disagree, all of whom have at least one the right identities (non-white, non-cis, often non-het) and a lot of expertise.
But I'd also echo Disembodied Inquiry: "I have concerns that the Dolezal case raises issues too complex and fraught to be productively enough addressed...for the general audience...."
I just keep coming back to the idea that something can be important but hard, too hard, to discuss here.
posted by anotherpanacea at 10:35 AM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
But I'd also echo Disembodied Inquiry: "I have concerns that the Dolezal case raises issues too complex and fraught to be productively enough addressed...for the general audience...."
I just keep coming back to the idea that something can be important but hard, too hard, to discuss here.
posted by anotherpanacea at 10:35 AM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
I don't know how many times it can be said that it may be possible have the conversation without making Dolezal the focus or even part of it until it sinks in. By now it's starting to sound like pre-dooming those threads just because some people's pet ideas can't be brought into them for no good reason.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:36 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 10:36 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
corb: “We don't even autodelete every I/P thread - we just put up a higher bar. But I'm getting the feeling that people are saying no thread on Dolezal will ever, no matter how well written, be able to be posted, and that means that this conversation - which does have a lot of broader implications - will never happen.”
I am only one person in this conversation, granted, but my position is: (a) someday we can probably have a conversation specifically about Rachel Dolezal as a person; (b) she's totally not a necessary or even worthwhile part of the actually important discussion about race in America. She's certainly not the only person ever to have pretended to be a different race in this country. There are a whole lot of other ways to have that (much more important) conversation.
posted by koeselitz at 10:37 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
I am only one person in this conversation, granted, but my position is: (a) someday we can probably have a conversation specifically about Rachel Dolezal as a person; (b) she's totally not a necessary or even worthwhile part of the actually important discussion about race in America. She's certainly not the only person ever to have pretended to be a different race in this country. There are a whole lot of other ways to have that (much more important) conversation.
posted by koeselitz at 10:37 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
Once again I'm going to ask that we not take this in the direction of arguing over whether transracialism is a thing, or whether race and gender are similar, or any of that stuff.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 10:38 AM on June 16, 2015 [12 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 10:38 AM on June 16, 2015 [12 favorites]
Okay - so I guess my question is this - Rachel Dolezal is currently publicly declaring, on mainstream news, that she is transracial. Without getting into, on this MeTa, whether or not transracialism is a thing, that conversation is going to be an important part of any discussion on the blue about Dolezal. With a well crafted post, in some time, is there room on Metafilter for that conversation? Or are we saying that that conversation can never happen here?
posted by corb at 10:43 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by corb at 10:43 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Wonder if all the moderating and comment deletions being done in this thread is actually any easier on the mods than just handling the original threads.
posted by smackfu at 10:43 AM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by smackfu at 10:43 AM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
It can't happen here right now. We can't predict the future.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 10:44 AM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 10:44 AM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
Wonder if all the moderating and comment deletions being done in this thread is actually any easier on the mods than just handling the original threads.
I suspect they would have to mod the original thread and the inevitable meta thread it would produce.
posted by maxsparber at 10:45 AM on June 16, 2015 [9 favorites]
I suspect they would have to mod the original thread and the inevitable meta thread it would produce.
posted by maxsparber at 10:45 AM on June 16, 2015 [9 favorites]
If the topic is race and the non-diaphanous conduit of passing in America, then there are a billion better ways to talk about it than by talking about Rachel Dolezal.
posted by koeselitz at 10:25 AM on June 16 [+] [!]
FWIW if race and passing and the American context ever are the subject of a future FPP I don't see how the subject of Dolezal will be able to be avoided. It's going to be an important, and illuminating, example for all sorts of reasons. The problem with the deleted FPPs was noise pollution from a complicated array of hostile commentators, influencing the way the subject was framed and the way received opinions behind that framing were concealed. Which in turn influenced the responses the posts were eliciting.
posted by glasseyes at 10:45 AM on June 16, 2015
posted by koeselitz at 10:25 AM on June 16 [+] [!]
FWIW if race and passing and the American context ever are the subject of a future FPP I don't see how the subject of Dolezal will be able to be avoided. It's going to be an important, and illuminating, example for all sorts of reasons. The problem with the deleted FPPs was noise pollution from a complicated array of hostile commentators, influencing the way the subject was framed and the way received opinions behind that framing were concealed. Which in turn influenced the responses the posts were eliciting.
posted by glasseyes at 10:45 AM on June 16, 2015
corb: But I'm getting the feeling that people are saying no thread on Dolezal will ever, no matter how well written, be able to be posted, and that means that this conversation - which does have a lot of broader implications - will never happen.
Multiple people -- including a couple of mods -- have said this isn't the case.
There's pretty much only one bar that controversial posts have to clear on Metafilter: That they not spark flamewars which suck the proverbial soul out of the mod team and this site's users. Posts about controversial topics survive every day on the front page. They also get deleted. There is literally not one single topic which is completely banned. Believe me, I know. In my time here I've probably posted most of 'em to Mefi.
posted by zarq at 10:46 AM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
Multiple people -- including a couple of mods -- have said this isn't the case.
There's pretty much only one bar that controversial posts have to clear on Metafilter: That they not spark flamewars which suck the proverbial soul out of the mod team and this site's users. Posts about controversial topics survive every day on the front page. They also get deleted. There is literally not one single topic which is completely banned. Believe me, I know. In my time here I've probably posted most of 'em to Mefi.
posted by zarq at 10:46 AM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
It is apparent that one of the breakdowns is that many users would like to see these sort of discussions because they think that MeFites as a group are smart (2), thoughtful, well-informed, intelligent, etc.
As someone who was for a little while a bona fide expert in some subjects that come up on MetaFilter, the more outside information and experience I had in an area, the stupider and shittier 'conversations' here appeared. The only threads that were chock-full of interesting and informative commentary were ones where I had no basis of information.
This experience has repeated across subjects and from other users, and the obvious conclusion is that we as Mefites are not nearly as intelligent and thoughtful, across every subject, as we would like to think.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:46 AM on June 16, 2015 [21 favorites]
As someone who was for a little while a bona fide expert in some subjects that come up on MetaFilter, the more outside information and experience I had in an area, the stupider and shittier 'conversations' here appeared. The only threads that were chock-full of interesting and informative commentary were ones where I had no basis of information.
This experience has repeated across subjects and from other users, and the obvious conclusion is that we as Mefites are not nearly as intelligent and thoughtful, across every subject, as we would like to think.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:46 AM on June 16, 2015 [21 favorites]
There's also a lot of specifically anti-black context to the Dolezal incident, and it's steeped in a long history in the U.S. of white people appropriating black history, fashion, activism. People who aren't black, including non-black POC, need to be very careful not to frame this solely in more abstract (that word again!) terms about passing or subjective racial identity
posted by kagredon at 10:51 AM on June 16, 2015 [19 favorites]
posted by kagredon at 10:51 AM on June 16, 2015 [19 favorites]
This is one just one topic that they've decided to censor, and I agree with its removal after reading that longest FPP. I'm not sure if there's other recent FPPs which have been removed that people agree should not have been. I have no issue with treating the mods as imperfect people with limited time.
I honestly would appreciate if any complaints about comments being deleted from MetaTalk had its own topic instead of hijacking this one.
posted by halifix at 10:51 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
I honestly would appreciate if any complaints about comments being deleted from MetaTalk had its own topic instead of hijacking this one.
posted by halifix at 10:51 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
One comment deleted. Please don't bring this back to a tangential thing that I've already asked people to drop, just to say how you're dropping it but.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 10:52 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 10:52 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Q: When is it probably a good idea to just shut up and NOT throw into a complex Meta?
A: When it takes you an hour to catch up on what's gone down since you went to bed.
And yet, this is bugging me ...
As far as I can tell, the orthodoxy on all of them is 'dont be a jerk'.
Problem is, "Don't Be A Jerk" is not the only rule here. I wish it was, but it isn't. And this whole issue (the deletions, the overall HEAT of this current thread) broadcasts this loud and clear. There are any number of decent people who are not being jerks (certainly not in any remotely conscious way) who are nevertheless managing to make others uncomfortable, often just by opening their mouths and saying what they think.
This sucks and I'm personally fascinated to mostly just sit back and track how the community handles this, because the community is trying to handle it. My two cents (already offered) is that saying, "Just don't be a jerk" is weak sauce, and more to the point, it's provocative when directed at someone who hasn't been.
posted by philip-random at 10:59 AM on June 16, 2015 [17 favorites]
A: When it takes you an hour to catch up on what's gone down since you went to bed.
And yet, this is bugging me ...
As far as I can tell, the orthodoxy on all of them is 'dont be a jerk'.
Problem is, "Don't Be A Jerk" is not the only rule here. I wish it was, but it isn't. And this whole issue (the deletions, the overall HEAT of this current thread) broadcasts this loud and clear. There are any number of decent people who are not being jerks (certainly not in any remotely conscious way) who are nevertheless managing to make others uncomfortable, often just by opening their mouths and saying what they think.
This sucks and I'm personally fascinated to mostly just sit back and track how the community handles this, because the community is trying to handle it. My two cents (already offered) is that saying, "Just don't be a jerk" is weak sauce, and more to the point, it's provocative when directed at someone who hasn't been.
posted by philip-random at 10:59 AM on June 16, 2015 [17 favorites]
Comment deletions have reduced stretches of this thread almost to a state of inanition.
And I think mods are skating on some pretty thin ice with all this deleting, because if present trends continue, how long will it be before an offsite forum springs up where members can go to say the things they feel like they can no longer say here?
I think that would be disastrous for Metafilter, but I also think it's likely to happen without a re-commitment to the openness which used to characterize MetaTalk.
posted by jamjam at 11:14 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
And I think mods are skating on some pretty thin ice with all this deleting, because if present trends continue, how long will it be before an offsite forum springs up where members can go to say the things they feel like they can no longer say here?
I think that would be disastrous for Metafilter, but I also think it's likely to happen without a re-commitment to the openness which used to characterize MetaTalk.
posted by jamjam at 11:14 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
if present trends continue, how long will it be before an offsite forum springs up where members can go to say the things they feel like they can no longer say here?
MetaChat has been around for quite a few years, and hasn't caused any disasters that I'm aware of.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 11:16 AM on June 16, 2015 [20 favorites]
MetaChat has been around for quite a few years, and hasn't caused any disasters that I'm aware of.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 11:16 AM on June 16, 2015 [20 favorites]
And I think mods are skating on some pretty thin ice with all this deleting, because if present trends continue, how long will it be before an offsite forum springs up where members can go to say the things they feel like they can no longer say here?
wow
so scare
very take ball
much go home
posted by kagredon at 11:16 AM on June 16, 2015 [11 favorites]
wow
so scare
very take ball
much go home
posted by kagredon at 11:16 AM on June 16, 2015 [11 favorites]
there's already offsite places where people complain about metafilter. for a long standing moderated community this seems like something that is unavoidable. it's not really that big of a deal.
posted by nadawi at 11:17 AM on June 16, 2015 [13 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 11:17 AM on June 16, 2015 [13 favorites]
> how long will it be before an offsite forum springs up where members can go to say the things they feel like they can no longer say here?
Do those not already exist? Is the internet not full of places where there is less moderation than here?
Some mefites have quit here and probably gone there. Other people have joined mefi because they can say things here that they can't say elsewhere. So the internet turns.
posted by rtha at 11:17 AM on June 16, 2015 [15 favorites]
Do those not already exist? Is the internet not full of places where there is less moderation than here?
Some mefites have quit here and probably gone there. Other people have joined mefi because they can say things here that they can't say elsewhere. So the internet turns.
posted by rtha at 11:17 AM on June 16, 2015 [15 favorites]
MetaChat specifically bans complaints of any kind about Metafilter.
posted by jamjam at 11:17 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by jamjam at 11:17 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
wow
so scare
very take ball
much go home
So much for "Don't be a dick".
posted by MikeMc at 11:18 AM on June 16, 2015 [16 favorites]
so scare
very take ball
much go home
So much for "Don't be a dick".
posted by MikeMc at 11:18 AM on June 16, 2015 [16 favorites]
jamjam there are tons of complaints about MetaFilter being aired in here. The complaints about mods and MetaFilter policy aren't what's being deleted.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 11:20 AM on June 16, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 11:20 AM on June 16, 2015 [7 favorites]
So much for "Don't be a dick".
Ah, so you do understand what it means! Earlier you seemed confused.
posted by kagredon at 11:20 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
Ah, so you do understand what it means! Earlier you seemed confused.
posted by kagredon at 11:20 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
We do not expect Metafilter to be all things to all people, and if people are happier distributing their attention across multiple sites or communities, that's perfectly normal and healthy. And yeah, people can complain about Metafilter right here - that's not the issue.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 11:21 AM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 11:21 AM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
The fact that TERF was not originally meant to be insulting doesn't necessarily have any bearing on how it's used now. From what I've seen, the term "TERF" is now mainly used to insult people or dismiss their views. I've never seen anyone identify themselves as a TERF. As far as I can tell, even radical feminists who freely admit to being trans-exclusionary don't use the term "TERF" to refer to themselves, so I think bonehead is right in thinking that it's a term that's used only in opposition. And, unfortunately, I think it's sometimes tossed around all too freely. For example, in other forums, I've seen feminists called TERFs for saying that biological (i.e. designated at birth) sex is relevant to some traditional feminist issues (specifically, reproductive rights).
posted by klausness at 11:26 AM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by klausness at 11:26 AM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
So much for "Don't be a dick".
Ah, so you do understand what it means! Earlier you seemed confused.
Yes, yes I do understand! "Dick" = "doge speak", it's all so clear now. Thanks!
posted by MikeMc at 11:27 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Ah, so you do understand what it means! Earlier you seemed confused.
Yes, yes I do understand! "Dick" = "doge speak", it's all so clear now. Thanks!
posted by MikeMc at 11:27 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Yeesh, but this is getting ugly.
Those who are genuinely confused or concerned about "don't be a dick", or that more deletions and increased moderation means speech is being stifled, you might want to check out kagredon's excellent comment on how expressing a particular disagreement or asking a question regarding the socially marginalized can go really well. And that's but one great example.
There are of course numerous ways a person can express disagreement or ask genuine questions. Consider that just because you can't necessarily fire off your first-thought, kneejerk reaction doesn't mean you are being silenced. You really can still express yourself. In incredibly contentions topics, that'll just mean being a bit more careful, and of course it's no guarantee that someone won't be dickish to you despite your sincerity, or that your comment won't get deleted. But from what I've seen, being a dick is moderated against pretty evenly, and if a comment is deleted, well, that's not really the end of the world. Trying a little harder and better will go a long way to helping, certainly.
I think asking for hard-and-fast rules about how we're supposed to talk about X is a losing game. Social interaction is all nuance, and it's exactly that nuance that leaves so much room for expression. Having strict rules about not being able to discuss X would actually narrow that expression a great deal. I'm glad that we avoid heading in that direction as much as is humanly possible for this site.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 11:35 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Those who are genuinely confused or concerned about "don't be a dick", or that more deletions and increased moderation means speech is being stifled, you might want to check out kagredon's excellent comment on how expressing a particular disagreement or asking a question regarding the socially marginalized can go really well. And that's but one great example.
There are of course numerous ways a person can express disagreement or ask genuine questions. Consider that just because you can't necessarily fire off your first-thought, kneejerk reaction doesn't mean you are being silenced. You really can still express yourself. In incredibly contentions topics, that'll just mean being a bit more careful, and of course it's no guarantee that someone won't be dickish to you despite your sincerity, or that your comment won't get deleted. But from what I've seen, being a dick is moderated against pretty evenly, and if a comment is deleted, well, that's not really the end of the world. Trying a little harder and better will go a long way to helping, certainly.
I think asking for hard-and-fast rules about how we're supposed to talk about X is a losing game. Social interaction is all nuance, and it's exactly that nuance that leaves so much room for expression. Having strict rules about not being able to discuss X would actually narrow that expression a great deal. I'm glad that we avoid heading in that direction as much as is humanly possible for this site.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 11:35 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
I think asking for hard-and-fast rules about how we're supposed to talk about X is a losing game.
It's a winning game if you want to work the ref, box them in, and declare them hypocrites.
posted by maxsparber at 11:37 AM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
It's a winning game if you want to work the ref, box them in, and declare them hypocrites.
posted by maxsparber at 11:37 AM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
how long will it be before an offsite forum springs up where members can go to say the things they feel like they can no longer say here?
The true history of 4chan can finally be told.
posted by GuyZero at 11:37 AM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
The true history of 4chan can finally be told.
posted by GuyZero at 11:37 AM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
Let's set the "what's a TERF" thing aside, since it's kind of a sidebar here and we're not getting into debating views on gender.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 11:38 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 11:38 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
jamjam there are tons of complaints about MetaFilter being aired in here. The complaints about mods and MetaFilter policy aren't what's being deleted.
Nor did I say they were.
However, if someone went to MetaChat and said they were upset because a comment they thought was legitimate had been deleted here, that would be a complaint about Metafilter regardless of the content of the original comment.
posted by jamjam at 11:39 AM on June 16, 2015
Nor did I say they were.
However, if someone went to MetaChat and said they were upset because a comment they thought was legitimate had been deleted here, that would be a complaint about Metafilter regardless of the content of the original comment.
posted by jamjam at 11:39 AM on June 16, 2015
MetaChat specifically bans complaints of any kind about Metafilter.
MetaChat doesn't ban complaints about Metafilter. It's just that people might not take up the discussion, or might think you're boring, or an ass, or would rather talk about what food they're eating or how much their boss sucks.
posted by corb at 11:42 AM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
MetaChat doesn't ban complaints about Metafilter. It's just that people might not take up the discussion, or might think you're boring, or an ass, or would rather talk about what food they're eating or how much their boss sucks.
posted by corb at 11:42 AM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
I have trouble seeing how saying that abortion rights are particularly relevant to persons with uteruses, no matter what their gender, is trans-exclusionary. But this TERF stuff is a derail, so I'll drop it now.
posted by klausness at 11:44 AM on June 16, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by klausness at 11:44 AM on June 16, 2015 [7 favorites]
Just to be clear are we talking about metachat.org or chat.metafilter.com here?
posted by Elementary Penguin at 11:44 AM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Elementary Penguin at 11:44 AM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
It's just that people might not take up the discussion, or might think you're boring, or an ass, or would rather talk about what food they're eating or how much their boss sucks.
Or rabbits? If I remember right.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 11:44 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Or rabbits? If I remember right.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 11:44 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
If it's metachat.org, we're talking about rabbits.
posted by maxsparber at 11:45 AM on June 16, 2015
posted by maxsparber at 11:45 AM on June 16, 2015
This thread is an interesting artifact. Not only does it clearly answer the question (were the mods correct to delete those FPPs?) with a resounding YES, it even manages to show exactly why the FPPs were deleted and what a good idea that was. Yeesh.
posted by GenjiandProust at 11:45 AM on June 16, 2015 [14 favorites]
posted by GenjiandProust at 11:45 AM on June 16, 2015 [14 favorites]
> However, if someone went to MetaChat and said they were upset because a comment they thought was legitimate had been deleted here, that would be a complaint about Metafilter regardless of the content of the original comment.
So you're mad that things are being deleted in meTa and mad that you can't talk about that meCha? You could always go start a blogger or wordpress site exactly for that, you know.
posted by rtha at 11:46 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
So you're mad that things are being deleted in meTa and mad that you can't talk about that meCha? You could always go start a blogger or wordpress site exactly for that, you know.
posted by rtha at 11:46 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Ha! And the very top post on Metachat's front page is indeed "Bunny! OMG!"
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 11:47 AM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 11:47 AM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
If it's chat.metafilter.org, we're talking about how god loves gay rain and whining about the distribution of water in North America.
posted by sciatrix at 11:48 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by sciatrix at 11:48 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
MetaChat specifically bans complaints of any kind about Metafilter.Can't you make at least a rudimentary effort to check your facts before posting, corb?
MetaChat doesn't ban complaints about Metafilter. It's just that people might not take up the discussion, or might think you're boring, or an ass, or would rather talk about what food they're eating or how much their boss sucks.
This applies also to MetaFilter issues: they belong on MetaFilter, not here. A good relationship with MetaFilter is important to MetaChat.posted by jamjam at 12:00 PM on June 16, 2015
> corb: Have you missed all the discussion of the story elsewhere on the internet? Because even though it shouldn't have anything to do with trans people, a ton of anti-trans people are working very hard to make it about them.
It's not just the internet. My wife and I were listening to NPR news and the story came up and literally the first thing said about it was a trans derail. It's a shitty situation and in some ways an intriguing one and it's understandable that people want to talk about it here but for reasons that should be totally understandable and acceptable if you're reading this thread that's not possible right now. It may well be possible in the future when the furor has died down a bit. The fact that we can't discuss it right now, and this MeTa thread, are really not the end of the world, or even the end of MetaFilter. It will be all right.
posted by languagehat at 12:01 PM on June 16, 2015 [22 favorites]
It's not just the internet. My wife and I were listening to NPR news and the story came up and literally the first thing said about it was a trans derail. It's a shitty situation and in some ways an intriguing one and it's understandable that people want to talk about it here but for reasons that should be totally understandable and acceptable if you're reading this thread that's not possible right now. It may well be possible in the future when the furor has died down a bit. The fact that we can't discuss it right now, and this MeTa thread, are really not the end of the world, or even the end of MetaFilter. It will be all right.
posted by languagehat at 12:01 PM on June 16, 2015 [22 favorites]
there are other offshoot mefi communities that aren't metachat and plenty of complaining happens there. it also happens here. that's just a function of the internet and has nothing to do with whatever thin ice you imagine the mods on.
posted by nadawi at 12:04 PM on June 16, 2015
posted by nadawi at 12:04 PM on June 16, 2015
MetaChan.org has really gone to shit since they killed the anime board though.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 12:06 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 12:06 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
The complaints about mods and MetaFilter policy aren't what's being deleted.
Yeah, you just need to look at the deleted comments to see what's being deleted...
posted by smackfu at 12:12 PM on June 16, 2015
Yeah, you just need to look at the deleted comments to see what's being deleted...
posted by smackfu at 12:12 PM on June 16, 2015
Or at the notes I'm leaving, in which I say what was deleted.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 12:14 PM on June 16, 2015 [10 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 12:14 PM on June 16, 2015 [10 favorites]
"I just keep coming back to the idea that something can be important but hard, too hard, to discuss here."
I think so. I think that's okay.
Indeed, I've avoided this thread and only read portions of it because it doesn't, in fact, add anything vital to my life. Any one discussion on MetaFilter just isn't that important. Sure, the cumulative effect of reading and participating here can be and has been very important to many people. But we are not deeply impoverished without a Dolezal thread or, indeed, a MetaTalk thread about those deletions. In contrast, those threads and this one stir up a great deal of hurt.
We have in the past and will in the future discuss, in other forms, every issue raised by Dolezal. We have learned from each other and we will continue to learn from each other. The people who are leveraging these deletions as an argument about the state of MetaFilter are doing everyone a big disservice.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 12:14 PM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
I think so. I think that's okay.
Indeed, I've avoided this thread and only read portions of it because it doesn't, in fact, add anything vital to my life. Any one discussion on MetaFilter just isn't that important. Sure, the cumulative effect of reading and participating here can be and has been very important to many people. But we are not deeply impoverished without a Dolezal thread or, indeed, a MetaTalk thread about those deletions. In contrast, those threads and this one stir up a great deal of hurt.
We have in the past and will in the future discuss, in other forms, every issue raised by Dolezal. We have learned from each other and we will continue to learn from each other. The people who are leveraging these deletions as an argument about the state of MetaFilter are doing everyone a big disservice.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 12:14 PM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
...less free to spew out rampant bigotry, you mean. This is the very definition of false equivalency.
No its simply acknowledging that there are two perspectives and that both can have validity. Basically the opposite of the frothing extreme example you have just given.
posted by biffa at 12:20 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
No its simply acknowledging that there are two perspectives and that both can have validity. Basically the opposite of the frothing extreme example you have just given.
posted by biffa at 12:20 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
No its simply acknowledging that there are two perspectives and that both can have validity.
More people should know about zero-one-infinity and that two is an impossible number.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 12:24 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
More people should know about zero-one-infinity and that two is an impossible number.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 12:24 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
AFAICT there are the same handful of SILENCED ALL MY LIFE posters here that are upset about this deletion, most deletions, deletions of their comments, and MetaTalk not being a complete clusterfuck in which it is okay for everyone to swing their harmfully ignorant and/or hateful opinions around about any individual or group of people who happens to draw their ire, particularly when the person or people involved are members of a marginalized group. There's also a lot of nostalgia for a (real or imagined) metafiler which allowed that kind of thing. But it's the same repetitive boring thing that we seem to see in pretty much every contentious MeTa thread, and it doesn't have much to do with the Dolezal posts at all, except that they're a vector for people with garbage opinions about trans people to take more dumps.
posted by NoraReed at 12:24 PM on June 16, 2015 [51 favorites]
posted by NoraReed at 12:24 PM on June 16, 2015 [51 favorites]
The idea of Two Sides, Both Alike In Dignity might facilitate discussion but hoo boy does it have a shitty track record of the sort of discussion it facilitates.
posted by griphus at 12:26 PM on June 16, 2015 [17 favorites]
posted by griphus at 12:26 PM on June 16, 2015 [17 favorites]
No its simply acknowledging that there are two perspectives and that both can have validity.
Which is different from "There are two perspectives and therefore both have validity." There are, in fact, as many perspectives as there are people in this thread. People are naturally going to assume that the reason you brought up a perspective is that you think it has some applicability, and people are free to argue with you about that applicability.
posted by kagredon at 12:32 PM on June 16, 2015
Which is different from "There are two perspectives and therefore both have validity." There are, in fact, as many perspectives as there are people in this thread. People are naturally going to assume that the reason you brought up a perspective is that you think it has some applicability, and people are free to argue with you about that applicability.
posted by kagredon at 12:32 PM on June 16, 2015
NoraReed:
posted by charred husk at 12:32 PM on June 16, 2015 [8 favorites]
"There's also a lot of nostalgia for a (real or imagined) metafiler which allowed that kind of thing."Remember when MetaFilter was good?
posted by charred husk at 12:32 PM on June 16, 2015 [8 favorites]
NoraReed wins MeTa, we can all go home now.
posted by sciatrix at 12:32 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by sciatrix at 12:32 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
The idea of Two Sides, Both Alike In Dignity might facilitate discussion but hoo boy does it have a shitty track record of the sort of discussion it facilitates.
Ha, yeah, it "facilitates discussion" alright, in much the same way that tossing a lit M-80 into a chicken coop facilitates feathers. I still can't believe people still trot out Let's Hear What Both Sides Think, for as many times as it's been proven to not be the one-size-fits-all metric for reasoned discussion, but here we are.
Also what Nora said. Like I said upthread, I really feel as though people with major chips on their shoulders about the Good Old Days and the rampant censorship of Metafilter just shoehorn that gripe into pretty much any available MeTa, on the grounds that MeTa is about site policy so surely it must be relevant to copy-paste the same gripe from the .txt file they keep handy for these threads.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 12:33 PM on June 16, 2015 [16 favorites]
Ha, yeah, it "facilitates discussion" alright, in much the same way that tossing a lit M-80 into a chicken coop facilitates feathers. I still can't believe people still trot out Let's Hear What Both Sides Think, for as many times as it's been proven to not be the one-size-fits-all metric for reasoned discussion, but here we are.
Also what Nora said. Like I said upthread, I really feel as though people with major chips on their shoulders about the Good Old Days and the rampant censorship of Metafilter just shoehorn that gripe into pretty much any available MeTa, on the grounds that MeTa is about site policy so surely it must be relevant to copy-paste the same gripe from the .txt file they keep handy for these threads.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 12:33 PM on June 16, 2015 [16 favorites]
acknowledging that there are two perspectives and that both can have validity
Two perspectives ON WHAT? The lack of specificity is maddening. This mysterious creature, the Opinion Which Is Not Bigoted But Is Nevertheless Suppressed, keeps coming up. Yet no one has described what such an opinion would look like.
posted by neroli at 12:34 PM on June 16, 2015 [26 favorites]
Two perspectives ON WHAT? The lack of specificity is maddening. This mysterious creature, the Opinion Which Is Not Bigoted But Is Nevertheless Suppressed, keeps coming up. Yet no one has described what such an opinion would look like.
posted by neroli at 12:34 PM on June 16, 2015 [26 favorites]
This experience has repeated across subjects and from other users, and the obvious conclusion is that we as Mefites are not nearly as intelligent and thoughtful, across every subject, as we would like to think.
This is absolutely true. There is frequently asymmetry of knowledge in most threads. My perspective as a contributor in that situation is not to get rustled when the one-liners happen, or worse, when someone who doesn't know what their talking about posts paragraphs.
The more technical discussions tend not to be identity politics (with significant exceptions), but they can get heated. See any of the discussions about holistic medicine, for example. Should we ban those as well? That's not hypothetical---there's lots of wrongness, mean spiritedness mixed in with cheap shots, good comments and good-faith plain terrible comments. Would metafilter be better without another anti-vaxxer thread? The argument could be made.
posted by bonehead at 12:36 PM on June 16, 2015
This is absolutely true. There is frequently asymmetry of knowledge in most threads. My perspective as a contributor in that situation is not to get rustled when the one-liners happen, or worse, when someone who doesn't know what their talking about posts paragraphs.
The more technical discussions tend not to be identity politics (with significant exceptions), but they can get heated. See any of the discussions about holistic medicine, for example. Should we ban those as well? That's not hypothetical---there's lots of wrongness, mean spiritedness mixed in with cheap shots, good comments and good-faith plain terrible comments. Would metafilter be better without another anti-vaxxer thread? The argument could be made.
posted by bonehead at 12:36 PM on June 16, 2015
NoraReed wins MeTa, we can all go home now.
AND IM TAKIN MY BALL WITH ME
posted by NoraReed at 12:39 PM on June 16, 2015 [10 favorites]
AND IM TAKIN MY BALL WITH ME
posted by NoraReed at 12:39 PM on June 16, 2015 [10 favorites]
> See any of the discussions about holistic medicine, for example. Should we ban those as well?
Threads about race, racism, identity, and racial/ethnic/cultural appropriation are not banned. Saying that posts about this particular woman are not being entertained at this time is not saying the subject is banned.
posted by rtha at 12:42 PM on June 16, 2015 [15 favorites]
Threads about race, racism, identity, and racial/ethnic/cultural appropriation are not banned. Saying that posts about this particular woman are not being entertained at this time is not saying the subject is banned.
posted by rtha at 12:42 PM on June 16, 2015 [15 favorites]
See any of the discussions about holistic medicine, for example. Should we ban those as well?
I know it's already been said over 9000 times so far, but the Dolezal subject has not been straight-up banned forever. And I think Metafilter is loathe to ban any subject outright; a higher bar is simply set for certain subjects when a proven track record of shitstorm threads has been established.
Interesting that you mention anti-vax, though, because I do remember one such thread going extremely badly when a user started taking all comers about why they weren't going to vaccinate their children. It was heated, ugly, and frankly shocking. Yet here we are, still able to talk about the subject. We just have a higher bar for how such FPPs can be framed.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 12:43 PM on June 16, 2015
I know it's already been said over 9000 times so far, but the Dolezal subject has not been straight-up banned forever. And I think Metafilter is loathe to ban any subject outright; a higher bar is simply set for certain subjects when a proven track record of shitstorm threads has been established.
Interesting that you mention anti-vax, though, because I do remember one such thread going extremely badly when a user started taking all comers about why they weren't going to vaccinate their children. It was heated, ugly, and frankly shocking. Yet here we are, still able to talk about the subject. We just have a higher bar for how such FPPs can be framed.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 12:43 PM on June 16, 2015
NoraReed, I'm sorry to shout after you, since you're heading home with your ball, but:
I disagree that all of the posters in favor of looser moderation are looking for an opportunity to post transphobic things. I think that assertion harms the discussion by framing it as "people in favor of this(and similar) post deletion(s) VS transphobes."
posted by 4th number at 12:43 PM on June 16, 2015 [15 favorites]
I disagree that all of the posters in favor of looser moderation are looking for an opportunity to post transphobic things. I think that assertion harms the discussion by framing it as "people in favor of this(and similar) post deletion(s) VS transphobes."
posted by 4th number at 12:43 PM on June 16, 2015 [15 favorites]
Hey mods? How about a nice round of soothing chamomile tea and a shoulder massage? On me. You deserve it.
posted by mudpuppie at 12:46 PM on June 16, 2015 [13 favorites]
posted by mudpuppie at 12:46 PM on June 16, 2015 [13 favorites]
I disagree that all of the posters in favor of looser moderation are looking for an opportunity to post transphobic things. I think that assertion harms the discussion by framing it as "people in favor of this(and similar) post deletion(s) VS transphobes."
Jesus tap-dancing Christ on a motocycle, this is less than a half-dozen comments above:
This mysterious creature, the Opinion Which Is Not Bigoted But Is Nevertheless Suppressed, keeps coming up. Yet no one has described what such an opinion would look like.
So, what in the name of God cannot be expressed here on the site that somebody wants to express?
posted by Ipsifendus at 12:47 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Jesus tap-dancing Christ on a motocycle, this is less than a half-dozen comments above:
This mysterious creature, the Opinion Which Is Not Bigoted But Is Nevertheless Suppressed, keeps coming up. Yet no one has described what such an opinion would look like.
So, what in the name of God cannot be expressed here on the site that somebody wants to express?
posted by Ipsifendus at 12:47 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
I disagree that all of the posters in favor of looser moderation are looking for an opportunity to post transphobic things.
She didn't say that.
posted by zarq at 12:49 PM on June 16, 2015 [8 favorites]
She didn't say that.
posted by zarq at 12:49 PM on June 16, 2015 [8 favorites]
I disagree that all of the posters in favor of looser moderation are looking for an opportunity to post transphobic things.
it's true. a lot of people just want to read other people's transphobic things, or say misogynist or racist things
posted by NoraReed at 12:49 PM on June 16, 2015 [19 favorites]
it's true. a lot of people just want to read other people's transphobic things, or say misogynist or racist things
posted by NoraReed at 12:49 PM on June 16, 2015 [19 favorites]
So, what in the name of God cannot be expressed here on the site that somebody wants to express?
If you've read the thread, you'll have seen that the mods asked us specifically to refrain from bringing up certain items in this thread. Several times. You're basically trying to goad users into disobeying mod directions.
posted by amorphatist at 12:50 PM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
If you've read the thread, you'll have seen that the mods asked us specifically to refrain from bringing up certain items in this thread. Several times. You're basically trying to goad users into disobeying mod directions.
posted by amorphatist at 12:50 PM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
I disagree that all of the posters in favor of looser moderation are looking for an opportunity to post transphobic things. I think that assertion harms the discussion by framing it as "people in favor of this(and similar) post deletion(s) VS transphobes."
yeah, which is great since she didn't make that assertion:
But it's the same repetitive boring thing that we seem to see in pretty much every contentious MeTa thread, and it doesn't have much to do with the Dolezal posts at all, except that they're a vector for people with garbage opinions about trans people to take more dumps.
posted by kagredon at 12:50 PM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
yeah, which is great since she didn't make that assertion:
But it's the same repetitive boring thing that we seem to see in pretty much every contentious MeTa thread, and it doesn't have much to do with the Dolezal posts at all, except that they're a vector for people with garbage opinions about trans people to take more dumps.
posted by kagredon at 12:50 PM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
If you've read the thread, you'll have seen that the mods asked us specifically to refrain from bringing up certain items in this thread.
I think a distinction can be made between MetaFilter as a site and this particular MeTa which was almost derailed so many times it may qualify for a drift race.
posted by griphus at 12:52 PM on June 16, 2015 [10 favorites]
I think a distinction can be made between MetaFilter as a site and this particular MeTa which was almost derailed so many times it may qualify for a drift race.
posted by griphus at 12:52 PM on June 16, 2015 [10 favorites]
Hey mods? How about a nice round of soothing chamomile tea and a shoulder massage? On me. You deserve it.
Better yet, a way to distribute sedatives to the userbase.
posted by zarq at 12:53 PM on June 16, 2015 [8 favorites]
Better yet, a way to distribute sedatives to the userbase.
posted by zarq at 12:53 PM on June 16, 2015 [8 favorites]
I think a distinction can be made between MetaFilter as a site and this particular MeTa which was almost derailed so many times it may qualify for a drift race.
Initial D: MeTa Edition
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 12:53 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Initial D: MeTa Edition
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 12:53 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
...less free to spew out rampant bigotry, you mean. This is the very definition of false equivalency.No its simply acknowledging that there are two perspectives and that both can have validity. Basically the opposite of the frothing extreme example you have just given.
posted by biffa at 12:20 PM on June 16 [+] [!] Other [2/2]: «≡·
I'm going to state my position on this, and I will say it very plainly. I'm gay. And that's okay. There is nothing wrong with it. That's my perspective.
The second perspective is that I'm sinful, or immoral, or amoral, or sick, or gross, etc. I acknowledge that perspective. I know it exists on the flipside of mine. I encounter it regularly, and it adds hurt and challenges to my life, which I don't think I deserve.
Metafilter is a place on the internet where I can be relatively confident that I won't encounter too much of that second perspective, and I'm really grateful for that. If that were to change -- by looser moderation or an upswell of public opinion or whatever -- it would become a place where I'm not comfortable.
I've already got a lot of those uncomfortable places in my life. I'm happy that Metafilter isn't one of them. I acknowledge that that other perspective exists, and I'm damn glad that it's not usually allowed to stand around here.
If that makes me an advocate for an echo chamber or a champion of censorship or whatever, so be it. I'm fine with that.
posted by mudpuppie at 12:54 PM on June 16, 2015 [56 favorites]
"NoraReed wins MeTa, we can all go home now."
Sadly, I think that what NoraReed described is basically going to be the next twenty years in the US. This is only a microcosm of what's going on culture-wide. We're hearing these complaints from the privileged and we're going to continue hearing them until they get a clue or fade away into obscurity and die.
The people who think that in the past there was "free and open discussion" (here or elsewhere) are always laughingly oblivious to the myriad topics and arguments that have been taboo because those topics are uncomfortable for the privileged. As discussion avoids those things, but everyone feels free to make rape analogies or whatever, the privileged consider this "free and open discussion". Now that those who are less privileged are pointing out how many topics and arguments are exclusionary of them, and asking for the very same sorts of limits and courtesies that have always applied with regard to the issues about which the privileged are sensitive, then suddenly the privileged perceive draconian restriction, free discourse is dead.
Some people eventually figure this out. Some people figure out that what was really happening is that they were relatively to free to say what they wanted to say while, in contrast, a bunch of other people never actually were. And eventually they figure out that being free to make rape analogies is like being free to punch other people in the nose. That is to say, this isn't actually what "freedom" is about, "freedom" is a deeply problematic and suspicious framework for thinking about this stuff that obscures much more than it illuminates. Eventually they figure out that the intersection of all of their individual relative privileges isn't the measure of the rest of the world, of everyone else's experience, of the default "neutral" state.
But many people never figure this out. And they're going to be whining about it for a very long time.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 1:00 PM on June 16, 2015 [96 favorites]
Sadly, I think that what NoraReed described is basically going to be the next twenty years in the US. This is only a microcosm of what's going on culture-wide. We're hearing these complaints from the privileged and we're going to continue hearing them until they get a clue or fade away into obscurity and die.
The people who think that in the past there was "free and open discussion" (here or elsewhere) are always laughingly oblivious to the myriad topics and arguments that have been taboo because those topics are uncomfortable for the privileged. As discussion avoids those things, but everyone feels free to make rape analogies or whatever, the privileged consider this "free and open discussion". Now that those who are less privileged are pointing out how many topics and arguments are exclusionary of them, and asking for the very same sorts of limits and courtesies that have always applied with regard to the issues about which the privileged are sensitive, then suddenly the privileged perceive draconian restriction, free discourse is dead.
Some people eventually figure this out. Some people figure out that what was really happening is that they were relatively to free to say what they wanted to say while, in contrast, a bunch of other people never actually were. And eventually they figure out that being free to make rape analogies is like being free to punch other people in the nose. That is to say, this isn't actually what "freedom" is about, "freedom" is a deeply problematic and suspicious framework for thinking about this stuff that obscures much more than it illuminates. Eventually they figure out that the intersection of all of their individual relative privileges isn't the measure of the rest of the world, of everyone else's experience, of the default "neutral" state.
But many people never figure this out. And they're going to be whining about it for a very long time.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 1:00 PM on June 16, 2015 [96 favorites]
You phrased that very well, Ivan.
posted by maxsparber at 1:01 PM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by maxsparber at 1:01 PM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
Eventually they figure out that the intersection of all of their individual relative privileges isn't the measure of the rest of the world, of everyone else's experience, of the default "neutral" state.
But many people never figure this out. And they're going to be whining about it for a very long time.
Exactly. Their freedom of speech is freedom from criticism, and the more pusback they get for exclusionary tactics, the more they will harken to Ye Olde Tymes when they could do whatever they wanted virtually unchallenged. Weird and sad to see that in microcosm here.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 1:05 PM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
But many people never figure this out. And they're going to be whining about it for a very long time.
Exactly. Their freedom of speech is freedom from criticism, and the more pusback they get for exclusionary tactics, the more they will harken to Ye Olde Tymes when they could do whatever they wanted virtually unchallenged. Weird and sad to see that in microcosm here.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 1:05 PM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
A little over an hour ago, I started reading this thread with the opinion that the thread should have been left in place, because even though there was some fairly dumb stuff going on, the rebuttals were a) instructive and b) gave talking points to people who wouldn't otherwise know what to say to the really dumb stuff the rest of the Internet is saying.
But when you balance that instruction against maybe making this place less hospitable for some really awesome people, I got to side with keeping it hospitable, 'cause it's the awesome people that make the place what it is, ya know?
posted by Mooski at 1:07 PM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
But when you balance that instruction against maybe making this place less hospitable for some really awesome people, I got to side with keeping it hospitable, 'cause it's the awesome people that make the place what it is, ya know?
posted by Mooski at 1:07 PM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
This mysterious creature, the Opinion Which Is Not Bigoted But Is Nevertheless Suppressed, keeps coming up. Yet no one has described what such an opinion would look like.
The mods have specifically said that this is not going to be done in this thread.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:07 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
The mods have specifically said that this is not going to be done in this thread.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:07 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Sadly, I think that what NoraReed described is basically going to be the next twenty years in the US.
That doesn't mean it has to be the next 20 years here, though. Thank god.
posted by NoraReed at 1:11 PM on June 16, 2015 [9 favorites]
That doesn't mean it has to be the next 20 years here, though. Thank god.
posted by NoraReed at 1:11 PM on June 16, 2015 [9 favorites]
Yes, but do they have to whine about it every time there's a discussion about anything on MetaTalk? Because the whole wailing about how it's the end of the world that the mods are trying to make the space welcoming and open to non white/male/cis/het posters is irritating, and as NoraReed points out I keep seeing the same faces over and over again on that front.
Seriously! Every time! I don't suppose we can say "Sorry, but we're not changing this aspect of moderation, shut up about it already" earlier on to this particular derail? Because large swathes of this discussion read to me like the mods--espeically LobsterMitten--having to say "Sorry, that's not going to happen/we do not do hard-and-fast rules here on this site, stop asking for them" as politely as possible while users try to rules-lawyer around this or argue that really it's super terrible for their own sake/freedom of speech that the moderators might restrict their posting to make the body of the site feel more welcome. If Mayor Curley there has been riding his hobby horse for eight years, can he maybe be given one warning and then asked to step out? Do we have to let the usual suspects go on about this in every metatalk they can shoehorn this topic into?
posted by sciatrix at 1:12 PM on June 16, 2015 [15 favorites]
Seriously! Every time! I don't suppose we can say "Sorry, but we're not changing this aspect of moderation, shut up about it already" earlier on to this particular derail? Because large swathes of this discussion read to me like the mods--espeically LobsterMitten--having to say "Sorry, that's not going to happen/we do not do hard-and-fast rules here on this site, stop asking for them" as politely as possible while users try to rules-lawyer around this or argue that really it's super terrible for their own sake/freedom of speech that the moderators might restrict their posting to make the body of the site feel more welcome. If Mayor Curley there has been riding his hobby horse for eight years, can he maybe be given one warning and then asked to step out? Do we have to let the usual suspects go on about this in every metatalk they can shoehorn this topic into?
posted by sciatrix at 1:12 PM on June 16, 2015 [15 favorites]
The mods have specifically said that this is not going to be done in this thread.
Oh well, I guess we'll never learn about the Deeply Valuable But Not In Any Way Racist, Sexist, or Transphobic Ideas That Are Shut Out By The Politically Correct Echo Chamber. A shame, as I'm sure they're fascinating.
posted by neroli at 1:14 PM on June 16, 2015 [19 favorites]
Oh well, I guess we'll never learn about the Deeply Valuable But Not In Any Way Racist, Sexist, or Transphobic Ideas That Are Shut Out By The Politically Correct Echo Chamber. A shame, as I'm sure they're fascinating.
posted by neroli at 1:14 PM on June 16, 2015 [19 favorites]
Mayor Curley appears to have already stepped out, as it were.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 1:15 PM on June 16, 2015
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 1:15 PM on June 16, 2015
I'll miss his moxie.
posted by maxsparber at 1:16 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by maxsparber at 1:16 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Oh well, I guess we'll never learn about the Deeply Valuable But Not In Any Way Racist, Sexist, or Transphobic Ideas That Are Shut Out By The Politically Correct Echo Chamber. A shame, as I'm sure they're fascinating.
Solid contribution there.
posted by amorphatist at 1:17 PM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
Solid contribution there.
posted by amorphatist at 1:17 PM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
You know, I share the impression that a few others have expressed that the main difference that Metafilter That Was had is how much more bigotry was allowed to slide, but I'm newer than a lot of folks and I'm willing to be proven wrong. Anyone want to link to a discussion that they think could not happen now but should?
posted by kagredon at 1:19 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by kagredon at 1:19 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
If you've read the thread, you'll have seen that the mods asked us specifically to refrain from bringing up certain items in this thread. Several times. You're basically trying to goad users into disobeying mod directions.
Stuff and nonsense. The "certain items" that the mods don't want brought up here fall into a few narrowly defined categories: re-litigation of arguments from the original thread, statements (from now inactive members, mind you) in entirely different threads, and a derail about feminist terminology.
The people crying "censorship" assure us that the things they're afraid will be suppressed as a side effect of these policies aren't mere statements of bigotry. So, taking that (really! honestly!) at face value: what are they? If they aren't any of these things, what are they?
posted by Ipsifendus at 1:20 PM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
Stuff and nonsense. The "certain items" that the mods don't want brought up here fall into a few narrowly defined categories: re-litigation of arguments from the original thread, statements (from now inactive members, mind you) in entirely different threads, and a derail about feminist terminology.
The people crying "censorship" assure us that the things they're afraid will be suppressed as a side effect of these policies aren't mere statements of bigotry. So, taking that (really! honestly!) at face value: what are they? If they aren't any of these things, what are they?
posted by Ipsifendus at 1:20 PM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
I am not at all awash in nostalgia for the good old days of freedom on mefi, especially on the grey, thanks to looking through meTas tagged with "boyzone" (the first appeared in 2000, in case anyone is still under the impression that it's recent that this place is being overrun by too-serious SJWs).
posted by rtha at 1:20 PM on June 16, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by rtha at 1:20 PM on June 16, 2015 [7 favorites]
Oh well, I guess we'll never learn about the Deeply Valuable But Not In Any Way Racist, Sexist, or Transphobic Ideas That Are Shut Out By The Politically Correct Echo Chamber. A shame, as I'm sure they're fascinating.
They won't be articulated, because they don't exist. It's a cudgel used to fight back against having to behave like an adult towards people who are normally objectified and ridiculed because "free discussion".
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 1:20 PM on June 16, 2015 [13 favorites]
They won't be articulated, because they don't exist. It's a cudgel used to fight back against having to behave like an adult towards people who are normally objectified and ridiculed because "free discussion".
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 1:20 PM on June 16, 2015 [13 favorites]
This particular topic is delicate because it overlaps areas of concern to several different movements for social justice. Figuring out what the heck actually happened and the philosophical implications for these movements is really up to the insiders of these movements. As a sympathetic outsider, at best I should recognize that I don't really have anything helpful to contribute in that process.
The problem is that if I were philosophically opposed to any of these movements for social justice, this would be a juicy opportunity to score points and set my enemies against each other. I could co-opt their language and philosophical positions to judo them into attacking each other. If I were really a skilled operator, I could probably do that without actually advocating any anti-feminist, anti-trans, or pro-racism sentiment at all. Like, "Hey I'm cool with oppressed groups X, Y and Z, but let's talk about how X is bad for oppressing Y, and Y is bad for oppressing Z, and how everyone is bad for not recognizing the even tinier, more oppressed group represented by Rachel Dolezal."
posted by rustcrumb at 1:21 PM on June 16, 2015 [10 favorites]
The problem is that if I were philosophically opposed to any of these movements for social justice, this would be a juicy opportunity to score points and set my enemies against each other. I could co-opt their language and philosophical positions to judo them into attacking each other. If I were really a skilled operator, I could probably do that without actually advocating any anti-feminist, anti-trans, or pro-racism sentiment at all. Like, "Hey I'm cool with oppressed groups X, Y and Z, but let's talk about how X is bad for oppressing Y, and Y is bad for oppressing Z, and how everyone is bad for not recognizing the even tinier, more oppressed group represented by Rachel Dolezal."
posted by rustcrumb at 1:21 PM on June 16, 2015 [10 favorites]
Regarding alternatives, there is an r/Metafilter on Reddit.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 1:23 PM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by TheophileEscargot at 1:23 PM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
I think you hit the nail on the head rustcrumb. This very unusual edge case is revealing some tensions amongst different strains of the progressive movement, and for sure ideological opponents will make hay of this. So: *earmuffs*
posted by amorphatist at 1:26 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by amorphatist at 1:26 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Is MetaFilter intended by the moderators to be a safe space? I'll borrow a definition from the same place Wikipedia does:
A place where anyone can relax and be fully self-expressed, without fear of being made to feel uncomfortable, unwelcome, or unsafe on account of biological sex, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, cultural background, age, or physical or mental ability; a place where the rules guard each person's self-respect and dignity and strongly encourage everyone to respect others.
The MeFi FAQ specifically prohibits "[r]acist or otherwise hateful comments ... misgendering and ironic racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia" already. Should we add a note that this is a safe space in the above sense?
posted by 4th number at 1:29 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
A place where anyone can relax and be fully self-expressed, without fear of being made to feel uncomfortable, unwelcome, or unsafe on account of biological sex, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, cultural background, age, or physical or mental ability; a place where the rules guard each person's self-respect and dignity and strongly encourage everyone to respect others.
The MeFi FAQ specifically prohibits "[r]acist or otherwise hateful comments ... misgendering and ironic racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia" already. Should we add a note that this is a safe space in the above sense?
posted by 4th number at 1:29 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
MetaFilter is not a safe space. Safe spaces generally require much, much, much heavier moderation.
posted by jaguar at 1:30 PM on June 16, 2015 [17 favorites]
posted by jaguar at 1:30 PM on June 16, 2015 [17 favorites]
except the people who are actually good on SJ pretty much agree with each other on this issue, and mostly it's a bunch of Black people asking people to please stop being racist and trans people asking people to stop co-opting their language and Black trans people doing both things. i mean, yeah, people are still using it to score rhetorical points, but as usual they're doing it by completely making up straw men and then vigorously attacking them. however, this is basically all the anti-SJ crowd ever does; whether they're putting words in the mouths of "SJWs" about "transracialism" (which is not a real thing) or about "misandry" (also not a real thing) or crying about Anita Sarkeesian ~calling for censorship~ or whatever the fuck, making up a bunch of bullshit and crediting it to their ideological opponents is basically their #1 strategy. it's pretty obviously on display here, in this thread, in the sheer amount of comments where they claim someone in this thread said a thing and you get several "uh no they didn't say that" replies. sometimes i like to pretend that their cognitive dissonance is because they are literally posting from a parallel dimension
posted by NoraReed at 1:33 PM on June 16, 2015 [19 favorites]
posted by NoraReed at 1:33 PM on June 16, 2015 [19 favorites]
Threads about race, racism, identity, and racial/ethnic/cultural appropriation are not banned. Saying that posts about this particular woman are not being entertained at this time is not saying the subject is banned.
This isn't even that weird of a thing in real life to make these kinds of boundaries. I think a lot of good relationships have particular issues that need to be broached carefully, and being able to "talk well" about them take time and effort and learning. In some cases, you might not eventually get where you really want to go. If that's hard enough for two people, let's throw in a few hundred more and see what happens.
Also, there are times that large groups of people will agree to disagree about something, so institutional knowledge is aware of these differences, but you also don't go around raising the issue all the time simply because it's possible. You generally have sanctioned ways of discussing differences to allow for community cohesion.
So, it's okay to say, from a community perspective: 1) we don't do this well under certain conditions, so let's wait; 2) we don't do this well ever, so until we figure out a way to get past it, we'll keep it off limits; 3) we know that we disagree about this within the community pretty consistently, and although it might be worth discussing sometimes, we don't need to bring it up all the time.
In order for any those three to be possible, someone has to moderate the gate. And it's a sign of (relatively) good health that we are learning to make these kinds of decisions on how to talk well together, rather than it being a limitation on free speech.
posted by SpacemanStix at 1:34 PM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
This isn't even that weird of a thing in real life to make these kinds of boundaries. I think a lot of good relationships have particular issues that need to be broached carefully, and being able to "talk well" about them take time and effort and learning. In some cases, you might not eventually get where you really want to go. If that's hard enough for two people, let's throw in a few hundred more and see what happens.
Also, there are times that large groups of people will agree to disagree about something, so institutional knowledge is aware of these differences, but you also don't go around raising the issue all the time simply because it's possible. You generally have sanctioned ways of discussing differences to allow for community cohesion.
So, it's okay to say, from a community perspective: 1) we don't do this well under certain conditions, so let's wait; 2) we don't do this well ever, so until we figure out a way to get past it, we'll keep it off limits; 3) we know that we disagree about this within the community pretty consistently, and although it might be worth discussing sometimes, we don't need to bring it up all the time.
In order for any those three to be possible, someone has to moderate the gate. And it's a sign of (relatively) good health that we are learning to make these kinds of decisions on how to talk well together, rather than it being a limitation on free speech.
posted by SpacemanStix at 1:34 PM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
Yeah, the sly insinuations that shady leftist cabals are destroying Metafilter, and by extension liberalism, are as tired as they are stupid.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:37 PM on June 16, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 1:37 PM on June 16, 2015 [9 favorites]
MetaFilter is not a safe space. This has been established for literally years.
That said, MetaFilter does aspire to be a community where QUILTBAG members feel welcome and respected. Again, established for literally years.
We don't need to re-litigate either issue here, because both issues are settled site policy.
posted by scrump at 1:39 PM on June 16, 2015 [10 favorites]
That said, MetaFilter does aspire to be a community where QUILTBAG members feel welcome and respected. Again, established for literally years.
We don't need to re-litigate either issue here, because both issues are settled site policy.
posted by scrump at 1:39 PM on June 16, 2015 [10 favorites]
4th number, MeFi's not a safe space in that sense, and we already say as much in the FAQ.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 1:39 PM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 1:39 PM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
I am neither a dumb nor insensitive man. In my ten years of membership here (and three years of lurking before that), I have been steadfastly liberal, on the side of the oppressed, and at least one former mod can tell you if they so desire, helpful IRL to members in very delicate situations.
But, you know, I have a job and a family, and between that and trying to be a decent person, the last thing I need is the website that was my "go-to" to becoming unwelcoming to me because I can't keep up with which minefields around which I'm supposed to pirouette in the interest of "community."
Seriously? TERFs? Transracial? Man, I do some seriously high-level shit for a living, and I can't parse this place anymore without spending an hour offsite educating myself. This is no longer the "best of the web" but rather, as it says on the tin, a "community weblog."
That's cool. It's great to have a community, and I sincerely mean that. Given the ultimate content of this burnout, I wouldn't blame anyone for doubting that sincerity. But I can't put enough time into a community anymore that has rarefied good faith into some kind of diamond of ultimate purity. I need to step back.
So, I've been digitalprimate online since late '92. About time to retire this username anyway (and apologies to the has-been DJ in Australia that I got the moniker 10 years before you.)
I know myself by now, and I know I'll probably be back as soon as the next 9/11 hits (yes, I was downtown and can "claim" that). But for now I'm done, and I'm not even going to let myself stick around long enough to see if I get any favorites. I need to move on to something a little gentler to my well-intentioned but middle aged, cis-gendered white ass self. To which, the "community" will probably say good riddance.
So long, and thanks for all the fish.
posted by digitalprimate at 1:40 PM on June 16, 2015 [32 favorites]
But, you know, I have a job and a family, and between that and trying to be a decent person, the last thing I need is the website that was my "go-to" to becoming unwelcoming to me because I can't keep up with which minefields around which I'm supposed to pirouette in the interest of "community."
Seriously? TERFs? Transracial? Man, I do some seriously high-level shit for a living, and I can't parse this place anymore without spending an hour offsite educating myself. This is no longer the "best of the web" but rather, as it says on the tin, a "community weblog."
That's cool. It's great to have a community, and I sincerely mean that. Given the ultimate content of this burnout, I wouldn't blame anyone for doubting that sincerity. But I can't put enough time into a community anymore that has rarefied good faith into some kind of diamond of ultimate purity. I need to step back.
So, I've been digitalprimate online since late '92. About time to retire this username anyway (and apologies to the has-been DJ in Australia that I got the moniker 10 years before you.)
I know myself by now, and I know I'll probably be back as soon as the next 9/11 hits (yes, I was downtown and can "claim" that). But for now I'm done, and I'm not even going to let myself stick around long enough to see if I get any favorites. I need to move on to something a little gentler to my well-intentioned but middle aged, cis-gendered white ass self. To which, the "community" will probably say good riddance.
So long, and thanks for all the fish.
posted by digitalprimate at 1:40 PM on June 16, 2015 [32 favorites]
I'm a 43-year-old cis white male, and I don't seem to have any of these issues around feeling excluded or having trouble keeping up.
It's almost like there's the possibility that people can choose to learn and change and keep current without much effort at all, if they listen.
But that must just be crazy liberal echo-chamber talk.
posted by scrump at 1:45 PM on June 16, 2015 [42 favorites]
It's almost like there's the possibility that people can choose to learn and change and keep current without much effort at all, if they listen.
But that must just be crazy liberal echo-chamber talk.
posted by scrump at 1:45 PM on June 16, 2015 [42 favorites]
digitalprimate has deactivated. Best wishes and good luck out there.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 1:46 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 1:46 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
good luck finding a place that is gentler to cis white dudes on the rest of the internet, i am sure it'll be real challenging
posted by NoraReed at 1:47 PM on June 16, 2015 [35 favorites]
posted by NoraReed at 1:47 PM on June 16, 2015 [35 favorites]
But, you know, I have a job and a family, and between that and trying to be a decent person, the last thing I need is the website that was my "go-to" to becoming unwelcoming to me because I can't keep up with which minefields around which I'm supposed to pirouette in the interest of "community."
In all honesty, the discussion revolved around the mods taking care of that for you. I'm sorry you're closing a ten-year old account over it.
posted by Mooski at 1:47 PM on June 16, 2015 [13 favorites]
In all honesty, the discussion revolved around the mods taking care of that for you. I'm sorry you're closing a ten-year old account over it.
posted by Mooski at 1:47 PM on June 16, 2015 [13 favorites]
if the mefi store sold adult sized diapers that said I HAVE AN OPINION and we could send them to people by inputting their user number this site would make billions, billions i tell you.
posted by poffin boffin at 1:50 PM on June 16, 2015 [20 favorites]
posted by poffin boffin at 1:50 PM on June 16, 2015 [20 favorites]
Well, that sure was a goodbye.
posted by rtha at 1:53 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by rtha at 1:53 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
There's a scene in Lost Skeleton of Cadavra when a park ranger exits a cabin late at night, only to hear the breaking twigs of his impending doom, and cries out "Noises! In the night! Things like that don't happen!"
For some reason, I was just reminded of that scene.
posted by maxsparber at 1:54 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
For some reason, I was just reminded of that scene.
posted by maxsparber at 1:54 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
I can't keep up with which minefields around which I'm supposed to pirouette in the interest of "community."
too late for digitalprimate I guess but for anybody else with their finger poised tensely above the button or in the middle of composing their exit speech, know that when a thread looks like a minefield to you you can always, always just opt to not throw spitballs into it, no matter how fresh and game-changing they might seem when you're mushing them together, and skip on over to a thread about food trends or tech startups or whatever where you can totally slag on the subjects and sling around half-baked opinions and it's cool and nobody minds and everyone has a good time
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:54 PM on June 16, 2015 [34 favorites]
too late for digitalprimate I guess but for anybody else with their finger poised tensely above the button or in the middle of composing their exit speech, know that when a thread looks like a minefield to you you can always, always just opt to not throw spitballs into it, no matter how fresh and game-changing they might seem when you're mushing them together, and skip on over to a thread about food trends or tech startups or whatever where you can totally slag on the subjects and sling around half-baked opinions and it's cool and nobody minds and everyone has a good time
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:54 PM on June 16, 2015 [34 favorites]
Are there places other than Metafilter where people actually blow up their accounts when they leave? It seems like a very Metafilter thing.
I've been reading lots of old posts in search of the free-talkin' utopia (still looking) and I swear upwards of 50-60% of the posters in some pre-2009 threads are disabled. It's kind of useful information to see that the sort of "most active" userbase has changed so much. I feel like whatever war people want to fight in this thread over the good old days has been over for a while.
posted by selfnoise at 1:55 PM on June 16, 2015
I've been reading lots of old posts in search of the free-talkin' utopia (still looking) and I swear upwards of 50-60% of the posters in some pre-2009 threads are disabled. It's kind of useful information to see that the sort of "most active" userbase has changed so much. I feel like whatever war people want to fight in this thread over the good old days has been over for a while.
posted by selfnoise at 1:55 PM on June 16, 2015
rtha: "Well, that sure was a goodbye."
I like to think of it as a reverse hello.
posted by scrump at 1:55 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
I like to think of it as a reverse hello.
posted by scrump at 1:55 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
It would be nice if we could allow the the guy to exit without taking potshots. He's deactivated, so he can't respond to jokes or snark.
posted by zarq at 1:57 PM on June 16, 2015 [22 favorites]
posted by zarq at 1:57 PM on June 16, 2015 [22 favorites]
Some people really like to take potshots though!!
posted by smackfu at 1:57 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by smackfu at 1:57 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
I dunno. He took a few shots on his way out. If somebody flips you off as they back out the door, I think you get to point and say "What was up with that?"
posted by maxsparber at 1:58 PM on June 16, 2015 [14 favorites]
posted by maxsparber at 1:58 PM on June 16, 2015 [14 favorites]
Yeah, maybe let's not so much with the needling barbs after the guy has left, it's not necessary. He made his choice, fine, ok, so the thread can continue to be about whatever site issues remain.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 1:59 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 1:59 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
...for anybody else with their finger poised tensely above the button or in the middle of composing their exit speech, know that when a thread looks like a minefield to you you can always, always just opt to not throw spitballs into it, no matter how fresh and game-changing they might seem when you're mushing them together, and skip on over to a thread about food trends or tech startups or whatever where you can totally slag on the subjects and sling around half-baked opinions and it's cool and nobody minds and everyone has a good time
This is true! Also true is that you can continue to read the threads with the seemingly potential mines and maybe actually learn something. But oh no! That would have too many positive ripple effects! You would have to grow! You would better understand some of the people around you and the issues they deal with! It might be uncomfortable for you! Quick, hie thee to a thread that will not challenge you!!
Talk about fragility.
posted by mudpuppie at 2:00 PM on June 16, 2015 [18 favorites]
This is true! Also true is that you can continue to read the threads with the seemingly potential mines and maybe actually learn something. But oh no! That would have too many positive ripple effects! You would have to grow! You would better understand some of the people around you and the issues they deal with! It might be uncomfortable for you! Quick, hie thee to a thread that will not challenge you!!
Talk about fragility.
posted by mudpuppie at 2:00 PM on June 16, 2015 [18 favorites]
i learned through my own publicly recognized break (one where i didn't announce it - it was noticed by others) that once you hit that button you just can't influence the discussion about you, for better or worse. when someone decides to button with a wall of text, especially one that takes potshots, there will probably be some return fire. they had ever opportunity to button silently but decided to do it publicly, so people are going to respond. c'est la vie.
posted by nadawi at 2:00 PM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 2:00 PM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
damn that lack of preview.
i will say if anyone else is having problems with definitions, both terf and transracial have been defined, with their histories discussed, in this very thread - so for anyone participating in the thread, the answers you seek are already here.
posted by nadawi at 2:03 PM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
i will say if anyone else is having problems with definitions, both terf and transracial have been defined, with their histories discussed, in this very thread - so for anyone participating in the thread, the answers you seek are already here.
posted by nadawi at 2:03 PM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
> good luck finding a place that is gentler to cis white dudes on the rest of the internet, i am sure it'll be real challenging
This is super shitty, lowercase first person and all. The dude (yes) said he doesn't feel like he belongs here any more, can't keep up with the trends and closed up his account.
posted by boo_radley at 2:04 PM on June 16, 2015 [17 favorites]
This is super shitty, lowercase first person and all. The dude (yes) said he doesn't feel like he belongs here any more, can't keep up with the trends and closed up his account.
posted by boo_radley at 2:04 PM on June 16, 2015 [17 favorites]
But, you know, I have a job and a family, and between that and trying to be a decent person, the last thing I need is the website that was my "go-to" to becoming unwelcoming to me because I can't keep up with which minefields around which I'm supposed to pirouette in the interest of "community."
Seriously? TERFs? Transracial? Man, I do some seriously high-level shit for a living, and I can't parse this place anymore without spending an hour offsite educating myself. This is no longer the "best of the web" but rather, as it says on the tin, a "community weblog."
This is hyperbolic for sure, but I'd be lying if I didn't say I could relate to some of it. Perhaps it's the height of privilege to feel frustrated for having to seriously THINK about every word you say before it comes out your mouth less it be interpreted that you've said the WRONG thing.
Talk about fragility.
But it's still frustrating.
posted by philip-random at 2:05 PM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
Seriously? TERFs? Transracial? Man, I do some seriously high-level shit for a living, and I can't parse this place anymore without spending an hour offsite educating myself. This is no longer the "best of the web" but rather, as it says on the tin, a "community weblog."
This is hyperbolic for sure, but I'd be lying if I didn't say I could relate to some of it. Perhaps it's the height of privilege to feel frustrated for having to seriously THINK about every word you say before it comes out your mouth less it be interpreted that you've said the WRONG thing.
Talk about fragility.
But it's still frustrating.
posted by philip-random at 2:05 PM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
that sort of frustration might be good for you.
posted by nadawi at 2:06 PM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 2:06 PM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
This is hyperbolic for sure, but I'd be lying if I didn't say I could relate to some of it. Perhaps it's the height of privilege to feel frustrated for having to seriously THINK about every word you say before it comes out your mouth less it be interpreted that you've said the WRONG thing.
I relate to some of it too. But the problem with this situation isn't even that somebody is being asked to seriously think about every word they've been saying. As has been noted above, in closing threads that are problems-waiting-to-happen (or actually happening), the site is literally preventing you from saying the wrong thing in situations like this.
What people are asking for is the right to be possibly wrong in front of an audience and at the expense of others at all times.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 2:09 PM on June 16, 2015 [11 favorites]
I relate to some of it too. But the problem with this situation isn't even that somebody is being asked to seriously think about every word they've been saying. As has been noted above, in closing threads that are problems-waiting-to-happen (or actually happening), the site is literally preventing you from saying the wrong thing in situations like this.
What people are asking for is the right to be possibly wrong in front of an audience and at the expense of others at all times.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 2:09 PM on June 16, 2015 [11 favorites]
I pretty much don't say anything in contentious threads that could possibly be interpreted as an opinion.
posted by smackfu at 2:09 PM on June 16, 2015
posted by smackfu at 2:09 PM on June 16, 2015
philip-random: "This is hyperbolic for sure, but I'd be lying if I didn't say I could relate to some of it. Perhaps it's the height of privilege to feel frustrated for having to seriously THINK about every word you say before it comes out your mouth less it be interpreted that you've said the WRONG thing. "
Having to seriously think about every word you say is nothing new for the POC/QUILTBAG members of this community, here and in real life. And, yet, they live with it.
It seems to me that the biggest "problem" this community is facing is that the majority are having to face some small measure of the same scrutiny that POC/QUILTBAG members face on a daily basis, and are finding it uncomfortable.
There is a position that says, this is a good and necessary thing for MetaFilter, and I agree with this position. There are other positions.
posted by scrump at 2:11 PM on June 16, 2015 [18 favorites]
Having to seriously think about every word you say is nothing new for the POC/QUILTBAG members of this community, here and in real life. And, yet, they live with it.
It seems to me that the biggest "problem" this community is facing is that the majority are having to face some small measure of the same scrutiny that POC/QUILTBAG members face on a daily basis, and are finding it uncomfortable.
There is a position that says, this is a good and necessary thing for MetaFilter, and I agree with this position. There are other positions.
posted by scrump at 2:11 PM on June 16, 2015 [18 favorites]
Do you know, right before this second, I had never heard the term QUILTBAG before?
Took me literally a second to look it up.
posted by maxsparber at 2:13 PM on June 16, 2015 [12 favorites]
Took me literally a second to look it up.
posted by maxsparber at 2:13 PM on June 16, 2015 [12 favorites]
This is super shitty, lowercase first person and all.
Eh, shitty is par for the course in these train wrecks.
posted by MikeMc at 2:15 PM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
Eh, shitty is par for the course in these train wrecks.
posted by MikeMc at 2:15 PM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
Speaking of special terms can we stop using "cis het white dudes"?
posted by MikeMc at 2:16 PM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by MikeMc at 2:16 PM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
Yeah, sorry for the cheapness of that potshot. It was because I'm really, really tired of privileged people deciding that learning how to not swing that privilege around in a way that hurts marginalized people is too much work and then acting like that choice makes them some kind of martyr, and I've been seeing that a lot lately, here and elsewhere, and it particularly rankles because I've had to descend into the depths of the rest of the internet a lot lately, so I've been seeing a lot of the alternative. Plus it feels like we've been seeing more well-poisoning flounces in that vein here lately.
posted by NoraReed at 2:16 PM on June 16, 2015 [20 favorites]
posted by NoraReed at 2:16 PM on June 16, 2015 [20 favorites]
We all have different lived experiences, but chiming in as a 40+ white heterosexual, when I'm confronted with a term I have never seen before, I consult Google. I read a couple definitions, maybe, and then subsequent articles using this term that once I didn't understand now have greater context. If I'm still confused, I have yet to be met with scorn and ridicule around here by asking, "Sorry, pardon my ignorance but can someone tell me what X means?"
But most of the time this is just something that happens on its own while reading. I really hope no one feels they're traversing a minefield when confronted with an unfamiliar acronym, but if you do, just ... ask? I assure you, it's not painful.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 2:17 PM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
But most of the time this is just something that happens on its own while reading. I really hope no one feels they're traversing a minefield when confronted with an unfamiliar acronym, but if you do, just ... ask? I assure you, it's not painful.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 2:17 PM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
And easing off the "I need to have an opinion about this thing I hadn't heard of until literally just now" attitude is one of those things that makes the MetaFilter experience more enjoyable
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:17 PM on June 16, 2015 [15 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:17 PM on June 16, 2015 [15 favorites]
Speaking of special terms can we stop using "cis het white dudes"?
Is there something you'd prefer?
posted by kagredon at 2:17 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Is there something you'd prefer?
posted by kagredon at 2:17 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Speaking of special terms can we stop using "cis het white dudes"?
Describes me all right.
posted by maxsparber at 2:18 PM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
Describes me all right.
posted by maxsparber at 2:18 PM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
MikeMc, that one is pretty much plain description as far as I can see. If you object to the term "cis," we've had that fight in MetaTalk plenty of times and we're not having it again here.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 2:19 PM on June 16, 2015 [14 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 2:19 PM on June 16, 2015 [14 favorites]
MikeMc: "Speaking of special terms can we stop using "cis het white dudes"?"
I'm sorry that you dislike being referred to by your gender presentation, sexual orientation, and race. That must be an uncomfortable feeling.
posted by scrump at 2:20 PM on June 16, 2015 [66 favorites]
I'm sorry that you dislike being referred to by your gender presentation, sexual orientation, and race. That must be an uncomfortable feeling.
posted by scrump at 2:20 PM on June 16, 2015 [66 favorites]
MikeMc, that one is pretty much plain description as far as I can see. If you object to the term "cis," we've had that fight in MetaTalk plenty of times and we're not having it again here.
It was a, lame, sort of off the cuff joke.
posted by MikeMc at 2:21 PM on June 16, 2015
It was a, lame, sort of off the cuff joke.
posted by MikeMc at 2:21 PM on June 16, 2015
Perhaps it's the height of privilege to feel frustrated for having to seriously THINK about every word you say before it comes out your mouth less it be interpreted that you've said the WRONG thing.
Yeah, but that's not Metafilter -- that's life. If you're a person with any empathy or compassion (or social skills) at all, you've got some desire to avoid saying the wrong and hurtful thing. I think that here, though, or maybe just online in general, most of us are exposed to a whole bunch of different people and cultures that we don't encounter in everyday life, so it just seems like it's more frequent. That's not inherently a bad thing, though.
Talk about fragility.
But it's still frustrating.
Sure. And to be clear, my fragility comment was directed at some complaint way up at the top of this thread that the people who care about trying to keep misogynistic or anti-trans shit out of threads are just too fragile to handle honest debate. I turned that one right around, see, in what *I* think was a highly impressive instance of "I'm rubber, you're glue."
posted by mudpuppie at 2:22 PM on June 16, 2015 [9 favorites]
Yeah, but that's not Metafilter -- that's life. If you're a person with any empathy or compassion (or social skills) at all, you've got some desire to avoid saying the wrong and hurtful thing. I think that here, though, or maybe just online in general, most of us are exposed to a whole bunch of different people and cultures that we don't encounter in everyday life, so it just seems like it's more frequent. That's not inherently a bad thing, though.
Talk about fragility.
But it's still frustrating.
Sure. And to be clear, my fragility comment was directed at some complaint way up at the top of this thread that the people who care about trying to keep misogynistic or anti-trans shit out of threads are just too fragile to handle honest debate. I turned that one right around, see, in what *I* think was a highly impressive instance of "I'm rubber, you're glue."
posted by mudpuppie at 2:22 PM on June 16, 2015 [9 favorites]
Speaking of special terms can we stop using "cis het white dudes"?
That's how digitalprimate identified himself (minus the orientation part). I don't see why it's suddenly off-limits.
posted by zombieflanders at 2:22 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
That's how digitalprimate identified himself (minus the orientation part). I don't see why it's suddenly off-limits.
posted by zombieflanders at 2:22 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Ah. I missed the joke, but I'm sure many of mine go unheralded. Nothing more to say then.
posted by maxsparber at 2:22 PM on June 16, 2015
posted by maxsparber at 2:22 PM on June 16, 2015
"cis het white dudes"
It does tend to reflect a perspective which struggles to look beyond the US model of privilege and as such might be regarded as a form of cultural imperialism.
posted by biffa at 2:22 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
It does tend to reflect a perspective which struggles to look beyond the US model of privilege and as such might be regarded as a form of cultural imperialism.
posted by biffa at 2:22 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Ah. I missed the joke,
That's probably because it wasn't a very good one. It happens.
posted by MikeMc at 2:23 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
That's probably because it wasn't a very good one. It happens.
posted by MikeMc at 2:23 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
With all of the discussion in this thread about the deletions silencing racist, sexist, and transphobic ideas, I do think that it's worth acknowledging that the Dolezal deletions aren't only silencing racist, sexist, and transphobic ideas. Those deletions also silenced the black and trans MeFites (and hell, any thoughtful MeFites) who might have had a substantive conversation on the topic.
This is what makes me sad about this, rather than some throwback to the good auld days. That we are forced to silence the very voices we are aiming to be inclusive of in order to include them. I get that mod resources are limited, but I can't help but think that it might have been better to have one very heavily modded thread on the subject (and one very short, very narrowly scoped MeTa thread, if necessary).
If the Mods really don't have the resources to fight the battle on multiple fronts, and those affected agree that the threads weren't worth saving, then I defer.
But I can't help but feel like the asshats win when we have to shut down entire subjects of conversation - even to those voices directly affected by the subject - in order to keep the peace.
And I sure as hell can't find any sympathy for the "MetaFilter is an echo chamber" crowd. At least on the Dolezal subject, at least for today, there are no voices on the front page to echo.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:24 PM on June 16, 2015 [25 favorites]
This is what makes me sad about this, rather than some throwback to the good auld days. That we are forced to silence the very voices we are aiming to be inclusive of in order to include them. I get that mod resources are limited, but I can't help but think that it might have been better to have one very heavily modded thread on the subject (and one very short, very narrowly scoped MeTa thread, if necessary).
If the Mods really don't have the resources to fight the battle on multiple fronts, and those affected agree that the threads weren't worth saving, then I defer.
But I can't help but feel like the asshats win when we have to shut down entire subjects of conversation - even to those voices directly affected by the subject - in order to keep the peace.
And I sure as hell can't find any sympathy for the "MetaFilter is an echo chamber" crowd. At least on the Dolezal subject, at least for today, there are no voices on the front page to echo.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:24 PM on June 16, 2015 [25 favorites]
Greg Nog: "As a cis het white dude, I am fine with that phrasing, though I generally prefer people refer to me as Sexfully Delicious Silver Fox Handsometron"
Doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, there. Can I call you Handso for short?
posted by scrump at 2:24 PM on June 16, 2015
Doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, there. Can I call you Handso for short?
posted by scrump at 2:24 PM on June 16, 2015
Can I call you Handso for short?
What say we settle this on the runway... Hand-Solo?
posted by maxsparber at 2:25 PM on June 16, 2015
What say we settle this on the runway... Hand-Solo?
posted by maxsparber at 2:25 PM on June 16, 2015
What is with all these RULES all of a sudden around here
posted by scrump at 2:26 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by scrump at 2:26 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
GREG NOG SHOT FIRST
posted by zombieflanders at 2:27 PM on June 16, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 2:27 PM on June 16, 2015 [7 favorites]
Folks continuously express anxiety over saying the "wrong thing", and I think that ties hand-in-hand with the constant accusations of Metafilter becoming an echo chamber full of sheeple, because the implication that these comments make is that there's only one "proper" opinion to hold with everything else even slightly deviating from the norm being "wrong" and "shouted down". And boy, this characterization is just so wrong. There's plenty of nuanced, complex and amicably disagreement to be had, even on topics of social marginalization - heck, even a lot of marginalized people themselves disagree on core issues, yet even when this happens we can still work together and foster respect for each other's viewpoints. But these disagreements all build upon the core observation that women/trans people/queer folks/PoC/disabled people/etc are actual people who deserve to be treated with respect in the first place - something that, while can be simply stated, is actually very difficult to practice in person given the way our culture actively incubates us with beliefs and patterns of behaviors that work contrary to these stated ideas.
In a way, I can see why people really struggle to see the nuances of conversation on these social topics. As a scientific analogy, it's like if they were trying to contradict a group of scientists on an incredibly basic principle - "atoms exist", maybe - and then getting uniform pushback from everyone and not understanding that. But if you're inclined to actually debate something like "atoms exist" in the first place, you really don't know enough about science to see past that hill where everyone else is actively debating the facts on the outlier and devising theories and running experiments and contradicting each other - and really easy to fall into certain cognitive traps of not realizing that there's this type of innovation and challenge going on while characterizing everyone else as a uniform body. For anyone who thinks that there's no new conversation to be had on social justice issues, that everyone on the other side holds the same opinions, that there's no way to have debates that aren't shouty - maybe consider you're on the side of a knowledge plateau where you know just so little about these social issues that there's no realistic way for you to engage with the more complex facets where actual amicable debate and fleshing of complexity occurs, because you just don't have the basic assumed ground-level knowledge to do so. And the only way to really remedy that is to educate yourself instead of trying to toss yourself into the debate over and over again and getting frustrated when it seems like it's everyone against you.
posted by Conspire at 2:27 PM on June 16, 2015 [35 favorites]
In a way, I can see why people really struggle to see the nuances of conversation on these social topics. As a scientific analogy, it's like if they were trying to contradict a group of scientists on an incredibly basic principle - "atoms exist", maybe - and then getting uniform pushback from everyone and not understanding that. But if you're inclined to actually debate something like "atoms exist" in the first place, you really don't know enough about science to see past that hill where everyone else is actively debating the facts on the outlier and devising theories and running experiments and contradicting each other - and really easy to fall into certain cognitive traps of not realizing that there's this type of innovation and challenge going on while characterizing everyone else as a uniform body. For anyone who thinks that there's no new conversation to be had on social justice issues, that everyone on the other side holds the same opinions, that there's no way to have debates that aren't shouty - maybe consider you're on the side of a knowledge plateau where you know just so little about these social issues that there's no realistic way for you to engage with the more complex facets where actual amicable debate and fleshing of complexity occurs, because you just don't have the basic assumed ground-level knowledge to do so. And the only way to really remedy that is to educate yourself instead of trying to toss yourself into the debate over and over again and getting frustrated when it seems like it's everyone against you.
posted by Conspire at 2:27 PM on June 16, 2015 [35 favorites]
saying "now is not the time to discuss this breaking news story" is in no way analogous to shutting down entire subjects of conversation.
posted by nadawi at 2:27 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 2:27 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'm trying to wrap my head around the anger in this thread. The mods deleted discussions that had nothing to do with CHWDs, and yet they are the ones up in arms and quitting the forums over an attack on their rights. I usually hate references to 'privilege' - but this drama seems to contain some of the purest expression of it.
(If QUILTBAG is a word, then CisHetWhiteDude should be a word).
posted by kanewai at 2:29 PM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
(If QUILTBAG is a word, then CisHetWhiteDude should be a word).
posted by kanewai at 2:29 PM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
If Google does't provide good context for a word you're looking up, there is always (as the eternally wonderful desjardins said earlier) the Green.
cis-sexual heterosexual caucasian males, then? I guess I could load a shortcut macro or something.
It's "cisgender" not "cissexual", at least most of the time; usually I only hear anything starting with "cissex*" in the context of the word "cissexist", meaning something that is prejudicial in favor of cisgender people. (For example, I went in for a pap smear yesterday and the language around it was really cissexist in a way that made me slightly uncomfortable, because I know that my friends who don't identify as female but still might want screenings for cervical cancer would have to deal with a bunch of misgendering, awkward and cissexist language.)
"Caucasian" is falling out of favor on account of the white supremacist origins of it and the confusion it creates RE the actual people living in the Caucasus.
If there's actual confusion over the terms in particular and that isn't just being used as a debate-shield, I'm sure we could throw something together on the wiki with explanations, especially if it would save us some particularly obnoxious and annoying conversations and derails.
posted by NoraReed at 2:31 PM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
cis-sexual heterosexual caucasian males, then? I guess I could load a shortcut macro or something.
It's "cisgender" not "cissexual", at least most of the time; usually I only hear anything starting with "cissex*" in the context of the word "cissexist", meaning something that is prejudicial in favor of cisgender people. (For example, I went in for a pap smear yesterday and the language around it was really cissexist in a way that made me slightly uncomfortable, because I know that my friends who don't identify as female but still might want screenings for cervical cancer would have to deal with a bunch of misgendering, awkward and cissexist language.)
"Caucasian" is falling out of favor on account of the white supremacist origins of it and the confusion it creates RE the actual people living in the Caucasus.
If there's actual confusion over the terms in particular and that isn't just being used as a debate-shield, I'm sure we could throw something together on the wiki with explanations, especially if it would save us some particularly obnoxious and annoying conversations and derails.
posted by NoraReed at 2:31 PM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
Those deletions also silenced the black and trans MeFites (and hell, any thoughtful MeFites) who might have had a substantive conversation on the topic.
The ignorant comments were already doing that, though. Thoughtful people specifically said they weren't going to participate because the thread was so bad.
posted by jaguar at 2:32 PM on June 16, 2015 [14 favorites]
The ignorant comments were already doing that, though. Thoughtful people specifically said they weren't going to participate because the thread was so bad.
posted by jaguar at 2:32 PM on June 16, 2015 [14 favorites]
Nora, I appreciate your clarifying comment. My own reading of digitalprimate's comment wasn't that he was determined to stay ignorant, but that he was acknowledging that the complexity of the dialog was beyond his ability to keep up. Maybe it's reassuring to say "well it only took me five seconds to google a term, why is that so hard?", but I'd like to think -- being familiar somewhat with digitalprimate as a human being -- that it's more than just being able to decode terms. If a person wants to be genuinely caring and empathetic, I can see how they'd start absorbing things and synthesizing an understanding and then hit some power-law wall of "Well, I don't know how to anneal this situation into my viewpoint" and then just wanting to (a) not piss off the people you've considered online friends and peers and (b) attend to real world needs and desires.
We talk a lot about CHWD privilege and I know that it's easy to see buttoning as an expression of that CHWD privilege. I think that digitalprimate wasn't buttoning out of a refusal to learn/ ball-taking-home, but out of a genuine sense that maybe he'd trip up on something and put some hurt upon somebody.
posted by boo_radley at 2:35 PM on June 16, 2015 [9 favorites]
We talk a lot about CHWD privilege and I know that it's easy to see buttoning as an expression of that CHWD privilege. I think that digitalprimate wasn't buttoning out of a refusal to learn/ ball-taking-home, but out of a genuine sense that maybe he'd trip up on something and put some hurt upon somebody.
posted by boo_radley at 2:35 PM on June 16, 2015 [9 favorites]
But I can't help but feel like the asshats win when we have to shut down entire subjects of conversation - even to those voices directly affected by the subject - in order to keep the peace.
I'm sympathetic to this argument. We aren't hearing from other people who are affected by this story, and that bothers me too.
But it's not permanent. And people had said that the last thread was so awful that they walked away from it and didn't bother commenting. So I'm not sure how much is actually being lost.
posted by zarq at 2:35 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm sympathetic to this argument. We aren't hearing from other people who are affected by this story, and that bothers me too.
But it's not permanent. And people had said that the last thread was so awful that they walked away from it and didn't bother commenting. So I'm not sure how much is actually being lost.
posted by zarq at 2:35 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
We can't predict the future.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff)
*wipes grease on bandana*
*hitches up overalls*
Well there's your problem!
posted by phearlez at 2:36 PM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff)
*wipes grease on bandana*
*hitches up overalls*
Well there's your problem!
posted by phearlez at 2:36 PM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
if you think that's a problem, wait until you can predict the future.
posted by boo_radley at 2:38 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by boo_radley at 2:38 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's nice that on MeFites identify that saying "I'm not X-ist, but I can't keep up" is saying "I'm not regarded as X-ist by the status quo, but I don't like educating myself and still feel that others need to hear my potentially offensive opinions." It's still bias.
Thanks to everyone for respecting that.
posted by halifix at 2:41 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Thanks to everyone for respecting that.
posted by halifix at 2:41 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
If QUILTBAG is a word, then CisHetWhiteDude should be a word
Change "White" to "Unpigmented" to spice up threads with the acronym.
posted by zombieflanders at 2:41 PM on June 16, 2015 [16 favorites]
Change "White" to "Unpigmented" to spice up threads with the acronym.
posted by zombieflanders at 2:41 PM on June 16, 2015 [16 favorites]
I genuinely mean this as a helpful thing to think about; if you get frustrated because you feel like you don't belong and can't participate for reasons that have nothing to do with you personally and everything to do with the circumstances of your birth and biology then imagine if not only Metafilter but the whole fucking world was like that.
Imagine that being your whole life.
posted by winna at 2:44 PM on June 16, 2015 [36 favorites]
Imagine that being your whole life.
posted by winna at 2:44 PM on June 16, 2015 [36 favorites]
to be clear.
I'm not going anywhere ... except for a walk, because it's yet another lovely day here in the Pac-Northwest.
While I'm on this walk, I suspect I'll be mulling over my current big takeaway from this thread.
Metafilter is not an entirely safe place
Metafilter is not an entirely free place.
Obvious, I guess, but every now and then it helps to actually acknowledge the ground you're walking on. I suspect much of the friction at Metafilter comes when those who want it to be more free cross those who want it to be safer (and vice versa). Which inevitably leads to Metas such as this where it feels like we're all diplomats representing various complex interests, trying to agree on where exactly the DMZ should be.
posted by philip-random at 2:45 PM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
I'm not going anywhere ... except for a walk, because it's yet another lovely day here in the Pac-Northwest.
While I'm on this walk, I suspect I'll be mulling over my current big takeaway from this thread.
Metafilter is not an entirely safe place
Metafilter is not an entirely free place.
Obvious, I guess, but every now and then it helps to actually acknowledge the ground you're walking on. I suspect much of the friction at Metafilter comes when those who want it to be more free cross those who want it to be safer (and vice versa). Which inevitably leads to Metas such as this where it feels like we're all diplomats representing various complex interests, trying to agree on where exactly the DMZ should be.
posted by philip-random at 2:45 PM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
My problem with that is that from everything I can tell, the idea you are representing as "more free" boils down to "more free to be a public bigot".
posted by scrump at 2:47 PM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by scrump at 2:47 PM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
> I think that digitalprimate wasn't buttoning out of a refusal to learn/ ball-taking-home, but out of a genuine sense that maybe he'd trip up on something and put some hurt upon somebody.
But why button, why not just take a break? And even more so, why leave a comment like the one he did, which practically invited snarky commentary? I'm not saying this to pick on digitalprimate, who's always seemed like an OK guy; I genuinely don't understand why people do this.
posted by languagehat at 2:47 PM on June 16, 2015 [9 favorites]
But why button, why not just take a break? And even more so, why leave a comment like the one he did, which practically invited snarky commentary? I'm not saying this to pick on digitalprimate, who's always seemed like an OK guy; I genuinely don't understand why people do this.
posted by languagehat at 2:47 PM on June 16, 2015 [9 favorites]
Change "White" to "Unpigmented" to spice up threads with the acronym.
CHUD is awesome! And it sounds vaguely obscene, which makes it even better. However, I think it might lead to another derail of white guys arguing that they are being oppressed because they have melanin too.
(I'm 3/4 CHWD, so I hope it's ok to make fun of my own people).
posted by kanewai at 2:49 PM on June 16, 2015
CHUD is awesome! And it sounds vaguely obscene, which makes it even better. However, I think it might lead to another derail of white guys arguing that they are being oppressed because they have melanin too.
(I'm 3/4 CHWD, so I hope it's ok to make fun of my own people).
posted by kanewai at 2:49 PM on June 16, 2015
....maybe consider you're on the side of a knowledge plateau where you know just so little about these social issues that there's no realistic way for you to engage with the more complex facets where actual amicable debate and fleshing of complexity occurs, because you just don't have the basic assumed ground-level knowledge to do so. And the only way to really remedy that is to educate yourself instead of trying to toss yourself into the debate over and over again and getting frustrated when it seems like it's everyone against you.
A good part of what I do is guiding people over exactly such hills. Science writers get called out all the time for this, and rightly so. If I produce a report about something, or have a public comment, or what ever, I am expected, 100% required to have pieces ready to explain the science without jargon to someone without a science background. This is entirely necessary to allow people who have critical stakes in issues enough context to understand what's happening to and around them.
Like climate change, social change happens whether you pay attention or not. I don't expect someone to know what the hockey stick graph is or why climate research doesn't worry about fugitive black carbon emissions as much any more, what a GHG or an LCA is. Sure, every one of those things is a Google search away, but that really doesn't help context and it sure doesn't transmit nuance. As seen above, I honestly though TERF was a highly derogatory term used to make fun of older feminists, primarily from having seen it used in places like Tumblr and other contexts. I learned today that it started as useful descriptor of points of view within feminism, and isn't (primarily) a really nasty insult.
Jargon and assumed knowledge is bad for any discussion with the general public. One way all of these threads could be vastly improved, in my view, is not assuming that we all have the same context, educationally or experientially. No one ever has any obligation to be anybody's teacher, but don't be surprised misunderstandings or confusion. The single biggest contribution subject-matter experts who contribute here can make is contextualizing for everyone else. Framing issues well is crucial to keep discussions out of the mud. The alternative is a lot of spinning wheels and muck on everyone's faces.
posted by bonehead at 2:52 PM on June 16, 2015 [8 favorites]
A good part of what I do is guiding people over exactly such hills. Science writers get called out all the time for this, and rightly so. If I produce a report about something, or have a public comment, or what ever, I am expected, 100% required to have pieces ready to explain the science without jargon to someone without a science background. This is entirely necessary to allow people who have critical stakes in issues enough context to understand what's happening to and around them.
Like climate change, social change happens whether you pay attention or not. I don't expect someone to know what the hockey stick graph is or why climate research doesn't worry about fugitive black carbon emissions as much any more, what a GHG or an LCA is. Sure, every one of those things is a Google search away, but that really doesn't help context and it sure doesn't transmit nuance. As seen above, I honestly though TERF was a highly derogatory term used to make fun of older feminists, primarily from having seen it used in places like Tumblr and other contexts. I learned today that it started as useful descriptor of points of view within feminism, and isn't (primarily) a really nasty insult.
Jargon and assumed knowledge is bad for any discussion with the general public. One way all of these threads could be vastly improved, in my view, is not assuming that we all have the same context, educationally or experientially. No one ever has any obligation to be anybody's teacher, but don't be surprised misunderstandings or confusion. The single biggest contribution subject-matter experts who contribute here can make is contextualizing for everyone else. Framing issues well is crucial to keep discussions out of the mud. The alternative is a lot of spinning wheels and muck on everyone's faces.
posted by bonehead at 2:52 PM on June 16, 2015 [8 favorites]
The ignorant comments were already doing that, though. Thoughtful people specifically said they weren't going to participate because the thread was so bad.
Yeah, I get that, and tried to explicitly acknowledge it. That's why I would rather have had very heavy moderation at the outset. So thoughtful people could have participated.
And I'm not counting myself among those thoughtful people, by the way, so this isn't about me. It's not limits to my participation that I'm concerned with.
saying "now is not the time to discuss this breaking news story" is in no way analogous to shutting down entire subjects of conversation.
But it's not permanent.
True. So I'm just saying that, as a moderation policy in the future, I'd personally favor brutally heavy moderation at the start of threads involving difficult subjects so that it wasn't necessary for the Mods to shut down all conversation.
Especially since there's little reason to believe that any future thread on this subject that finally gets the go-ahead will not also become a shitstorm without heavy moderation.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:59 PM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
Yeah, I get that, and tried to explicitly acknowledge it. That's why I would rather have had very heavy moderation at the outset. So thoughtful people could have participated.
And I'm not counting myself among those thoughtful people, by the way, so this isn't about me. It's not limits to my participation that I'm concerned with.
saying "now is not the time to discuss this breaking news story" is in no way analogous to shutting down entire subjects of conversation.
But it's not permanent.
True. So I'm just saying that, as a moderation policy in the future, I'd personally favor brutally heavy moderation at the start of threads involving difficult subjects so that it wasn't necessary for the Mods to shut down all conversation.
Especially since there's little reason to believe that any future thread on this subject that finally gets the go-ahead will not also become a shitstorm without heavy moderation.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:59 PM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
> Metafilter is not an entirely safe place
Metafilter is not an entirely free place.
Wordsmithing a bit, I thought this was a debate about "safety from harm" versus "freedom to cause harm to others" and not the blander, impersonal version of this issue. The only freedom being limited here is the freedom to be an ignorant dickhole when members of the community are explicit about the harm you cause.
posted by Johann Georg Faust at 3:03 PM on June 16, 2015 [7 favorites]
Metafilter is not an entirely free place.
Wordsmithing a bit, I thought this was a debate about "safety from harm" versus "freedom to cause harm to others" and not the blander, impersonal version of this issue. The only freedom being limited here is the freedom to be an ignorant dickhole when members of the community are explicit about the harm you cause.
posted by Johann Georg Faust at 3:03 PM on June 16, 2015 [7 favorites]
Yeah, I get that, and tried to explicitly acknowledge it.
Ah, gotcha. I didn't quite put two and two together on your post, but that was my misread.
posted by jaguar at 3:10 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Ah, gotcha. I didn't quite put two and two together on your post, but that was my misread.
posted by jaguar at 3:10 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
A good part of what I do is guiding people over exactly such hills. Science writers get called out all the time for this, and rightly so. If I produce a report about something, or have a public comment, or what ever, I am expected, 100% required to have pieces ready to explain the science without jargon to someone without a science background. This is entirely necessary to allow people who have critical stakes in issues enough context to understand what's happening to and around them.
Well, that's where the analogy breaks down, isn't it? Marginalized people don't have journals. By necessity, our options for connecting with each other and sharing insights and information based upon our bodies of knowledge and experience are largely informal and at a community level - this includes metafilter. Think of all of the threads, for instance, where women bring up a common gendered phenomenon they've noticed - lavaballing, mansplaining, whatever - and then all of these women suddenly chime in with "oh my god, I noticed this was a thing, but I never realized it was a systematic issue with all of these gendered assumptions going on." In other words, you cannot simply characterize the discourse that occurs on this site as marginalized people relaying information to privileged people - a good chunk of it is to develop a space where exactly this type of discourse can occur between marginalized people. And as people have pointed out repeatedly, time after time again, the insistence that all discourse inherently has to cater to people who don't understand is derailing our ability to develop space to discuss any nuance.
And secondly, the point of me bringing up an incredibly basic statement of assumed knowledge like "atoms exist" is because this is precisely where people are stuck upon in regards to conversations on social justice. You may be having to explain certain piece of jargon to people, true, but you're not explaining literally everything from scratch from the ground up starting from kindergarten-level science every time you want to talk about climate change. You're talking to audiences who actually are willing to accept that climate change is a thing in the first place. Meanwhile, we have to start with audiences who think transracialism (not in the definition of adoptees) is even a thing, who don't even understand the basic nuances of social construction of race versus gender, who don't understand definitions of transmisogyny or racism beyond basic "you can't say the t-/n- word", who think they know everything about race/gender because they have one and throw tantrums at even the kindest suggestion that they might not be arguing on an equal level of knowledge here and that they might not know some things.
At a certain stage of ignorance, the onus is on the audience, not on the people trying to have a discussion.
posted by Conspire at 3:13 PM on June 16, 2015 [16 favorites]
Well, that's where the analogy breaks down, isn't it? Marginalized people don't have journals. By necessity, our options for connecting with each other and sharing insights and information based upon our bodies of knowledge and experience are largely informal and at a community level - this includes metafilter. Think of all of the threads, for instance, where women bring up a common gendered phenomenon they've noticed - lavaballing, mansplaining, whatever - and then all of these women suddenly chime in with "oh my god, I noticed this was a thing, but I never realized it was a systematic issue with all of these gendered assumptions going on." In other words, you cannot simply characterize the discourse that occurs on this site as marginalized people relaying information to privileged people - a good chunk of it is to develop a space where exactly this type of discourse can occur between marginalized people. And as people have pointed out repeatedly, time after time again, the insistence that all discourse inherently has to cater to people who don't understand is derailing our ability to develop space to discuss any nuance.
And secondly, the point of me bringing up an incredibly basic statement of assumed knowledge like "atoms exist" is because this is precisely where people are stuck upon in regards to conversations on social justice. You may be having to explain certain piece of jargon to people, true, but you're not explaining literally everything from scratch from the ground up starting from kindergarten-level science every time you want to talk about climate change. You're talking to audiences who actually are willing to accept that climate change is a thing in the first place. Meanwhile, we have to start with audiences who think transracialism (not in the definition of adoptees) is even a thing, who don't even understand the basic nuances of social construction of race versus gender, who don't understand definitions of transmisogyny or racism beyond basic "you can't say the t-/n- word", who think they know everything about race/gender because they have one and throw tantrums at even the kindest suggestion that they might not be arguing on an equal level of knowledge here and that they might not know some things.
At a certain stage of ignorance, the onus is on the audience, not on the people trying to have a discussion.
posted by Conspire at 3:13 PM on June 16, 2015 [16 favorites]
I honestly though TERF was a highly derogatory term used to make fun of older feminists, primarily from having seen it used in places like Tumblr and other contexts. I learned today that it started as useful descriptor of points of view within feminism, and isn't (primarily) a really nasty insult.
It's an accurate and useful descriptor. The people who claim it's a nasty insult seem to be afraid of being called transphobic or transmisogynist.
Yet the shoe fits.
posted by zarq at 3:13 PM on June 16, 2015 [11 favorites]
It's an accurate and useful descriptor. The people who claim it's a nasty insult seem to be afraid of being called transphobic or transmisogynist.
Yet the shoe fits.
posted by zarq at 3:13 PM on June 16, 2015 [11 favorites]
Just a purely technical note, folks - in a MeTa like this, we read every single comment, so flagging tends to be redundant. Flagging stuff that isn't either nuclear-grade fightiness or stuff we've specifically asked people to stop isn't likely to have much effect, either, as we still don't delete much at all here. I know most of you know this, but I suspect it's been long enough since we said it out loud that newer folks haven't heard about it.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 3:18 PM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 3:18 PM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
You may be having to explain certain piece of jargon to people, true, but you're not explaining literally everything from scratch from the ground up starting from kindergarten-level science every time you want to talk about climate change. You're talking to audiences who actually are willing to accept that climate change is a thing in the first place.
Not that it means anything for this discussion, since we can't argue from the metaphor back to the concept itself, but this is not really true, as someone who also tries to communicate climate science; we frequently do have to start from absolute scratch and contend with outright hostility to the concepts we're trying to convey. The most interesting or useful thing I can get from the comparison is that in both situations, the hard part isn't actually getting new information into peoples' minds - it's getting the old, bad information out first. There might be some way to address that commonality through the lens of the information deficit model of science communication.
On preview, I thought one of the takeaways from the more recent MeTas was that people were encouraged to flag things or use the contact form to explain concerns even when they knew it wouldn't result in immediate deletion - is that not the case?
posted by dialetheia at 3:24 PM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
Not that it means anything for this discussion, since we can't argue from the metaphor back to the concept itself, but this is not really true, as someone who also tries to communicate climate science; we frequently do have to start from absolute scratch and contend with outright hostility to the concepts we're trying to convey. The most interesting or useful thing I can get from the comparison is that in both situations, the hard part isn't actually getting new information into peoples' minds - it's getting the old, bad information out first. There might be some way to address that commonality through the lens of the information deficit model of science communication.
On preview, I thought one of the takeaways from the more recent MeTas was that people were encouraged to flag things or use the contact form to explain concerns even when they knew it wouldn't result in immediate deletion - is that not the case?
posted by dialetheia at 3:24 PM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
it's getting the old, bad information out first.
I should have expanded on this a little. One of the biggest problems we have in both e.g. climate science communication and social justice communication is that everyone already thinks they know a bunch about the system in question. Everyone thinks they have some understanding of the weather by virtue of living on Earth, and everyone thinks they understand race and gender on some level because they also have a race and a gender.
The problems arise when people think they understand the thing but they really, really don't, or at least they have a very narrow understanding that is predicated almost all on their narrow experiences - and in both cases, the hardest part is getting people to let go of their previously-held misconceptions on a topic. In other words, it's not the deficit of information we're working against, it's the proliferation of misinformation.
posted by dialetheia at 3:31 PM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
I should have expanded on this a little. One of the biggest problems we have in both e.g. climate science communication and social justice communication is that everyone already thinks they know a bunch about the system in question. Everyone thinks they have some understanding of the weather by virtue of living on Earth, and everyone thinks they understand race and gender on some level because they also have a race and a gender.
The problems arise when people think they understand the thing but they really, really don't, or at least they have a very narrow understanding that is predicated almost all on their narrow experiences - and in both cases, the hardest part is getting people to let go of their previously-held misconceptions on a topic. In other words, it's not the deficit of information we're working against, it's the proliferation of misinformation.
posted by dialetheia at 3:31 PM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
I think that was about flagging site-wide, not in long policy Metas
posted by kagredon at 3:31 PM on June 16, 2015
posted by kagredon at 3:31 PM on June 16, 2015
you're not explaining literally everything from scratch from the ground up starting from kindergarten-level science every time you want to talk about climate change. You're talking to audiences who actually are willing to accept that climate change is a thing in the first place.
You would be surprised. We do have to start from very basic levels. Starting from a grade school education level is frequently what is needed. And no, without dragging what I do into the frame here, I'm not usually talking to people who accept what I have to say. The exact opposite usually. Emotions can run very high.
I think today is the first time I've seen the word "transracialism". I have looked up its meaning, but I have no idea really about what it means in context, particularly the US context. Part of the problem is that I'm not from the US, and talking about "race" with Americans is always fraught, as it depends on cultural experiences we don't share. To be clear, I'm not asking that we do this here, I'm trying to get at the problem around this issue.
But learning without breadcrumbs is hard, and as above, leads to misunderstandings, particularly in nuance. I do think nuance (framing, tone) is one of the primary causes of arguments here, and indeed why this post was deleted. We can't all be experts on everything---which properly means keeping our fingers off the keyboard most of the time. One of the main reasons I come back is to learn about these things. I don't have time to read the primary literature of current gender studies, any more than I expect a humanities scholar to know the carbon cycle.
posted by bonehead at 3:32 PM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
You would be surprised. We do have to start from very basic levels. Starting from a grade school education level is frequently what is needed. And no, without dragging what I do into the frame here, I'm not usually talking to people who accept what I have to say. The exact opposite usually. Emotions can run very high.
I think today is the first time I've seen the word "transracialism". I have looked up its meaning, but I have no idea really about what it means in context, particularly the US context. Part of the problem is that I'm not from the US, and talking about "race" with Americans is always fraught, as it depends on cultural experiences we don't share. To be clear, I'm not asking that we do this here, I'm trying to get at the problem around this issue.
But learning without breadcrumbs is hard, and as above, leads to misunderstandings, particularly in nuance. I do think nuance (framing, tone) is one of the primary causes of arguments here, and indeed why this post was deleted. We can't all be experts on everything---which properly means keeping our fingers off the keyboard most of the time. One of the main reasons I come back is to learn about these things. I don't have time to read the primary literature of current gender studies, any more than I expect a humanities scholar to know the carbon cycle.
posted by bonehead at 3:32 PM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
Not that it means anything for this discussion, since we can't argue from the metaphor back to the concept itself, but this is not really true, as someone who also tries to communicate climate science; we frequently do have to start from absolute scratch and contend with outright hostility to the concepts we're trying to convey
It depends on where your audience is at - but I doubt you explain that and immediately go onto the heavy field-specific statistics right away with the exact same people. Similarly, to discuss the complexities of what's going on with the Dolezal case in the presence of folks who mostly don't grasp the basic distinctions between race and gender identity as social constructs, and who repeatedly invoke their majority voice to insist the conversation centers around them and their education, is not possible. So to go back to the point: no, Metafilter is not a place where we can discuss Dolezal at the moment, at least not without very deliberate framing and aggressive moderation, because informed conversation on it is on a level beyond what's possible here. I'd like it to be something we can talk about, due to the lack of community spaces PoC have for actual discussion on these items, but again, we can't unless people take a step back with the constant transphobic and racist derails.
posted by Conspire at 3:34 PM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
It depends on where your audience is at - but I doubt you explain that and immediately go onto the heavy field-specific statistics right away with the exact same people. Similarly, to discuss the complexities of what's going on with the Dolezal case in the presence of folks who mostly don't grasp the basic distinctions between race and gender identity as social constructs, and who repeatedly invoke their majority voice to insist the conversation centers around them and their education, is not possible. So to go back to the point: no, Metafilter is not a place where we can discuss Dolezal at the moment, at least not without very deliberate framing and aggressive moderation, because informed conversation on it is on a level beyond what's possible here. I'd like it to be something we can talk about, due to the lack of community spaces PoC have for actual discussion on these items, but again, we can't unless people take a step back with the constant transphobic and racist derails.
posted by Conspire at 3:34 PM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
The problems arise when people think they understand the thing but they really, really don't, or at least they have a very narrow understanding that is predicated almost all on their narrow experiences - and in both cases, the hardest part is getting people to let go of their previously-held misconceptions on a topic. In other words, it's not the deficit of information we're working against, it's the proliferation of misinformation.
Dealing with existing externalities, is the politest way I've heard this put. Talking to the yahoos is another.
posted by bonehead at 3:44 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Dealing with existing externalities, is the politest way I've heard this put. Talking to the yahoos is another.
posted by bonehead at 3:44 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
On preview, I thought one of the takeaways from the more recent MeTas was that people were encouraged to flag things or use the contact form to explain concerns even when they knew it wouldn't result in immediate deletion - is that not the case?
Yeah, that's a site-wide thing - MeTa is a little different because when one of this comes up, the duty mod generally has the thread up for their entire shift and is reading every single comment, so drawing our attention to it doesn't have a ton of utility. (Usually it's not an issue, but I've seen about ten or fifteen flags in here in less than an hour, and figured it was worth a clarification.)
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 3:51 PM on June 16, 2015
Yeah, that's a site-wide thing - MeTa is a little different because when one of this comes up, the duty mod generally has the thread up for their entire shift and is reading every single comment, so drawing our attention to it doesn't have a ton of utility. (Usually it's not an issue, but I've seen about ten or fifteen flags in here in less than an hour, and figured it was worth a clarification.)
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 3:51 PM on June 16, 2015
This is hyperbolic for sure, but I'd be lying if I didn't say I could relate to some of it. Perhaps it's the height of privilege to feel frustrated for having to seriously THINK about every word you say before it comes out your mouth less it be interpreted that you've said the WRONG thing.
yeah, I get this, but let's turn it around: imagine the feeling of having to seriously THINK about every word you say before it comes out your mouth less it be noticed and you get beaten to death or stabbed or shot at or lose your job or children and good luck going to the law, because the law often encourages this, and, even if it doesn't, the people in charge of defining and maintaining it do.
So, yeah, I get that frustration is bad, but it could be worse....
posted by GenjiandProust at 3:58 PM on June 16, 2015 [20 favorites]
yeah, I get this, but let's turn it around: imagine the feeling of having to seriously THINK about every word you say before it comes out your mouth less it be noticed and you get beaten to death or stabbed or shot at or lose your job or children and good luck going to the law, because the law often encourages this, and, even if it doesn't, the people in charge of defining and maintaining it do.
So, yeah, I get that frustration is bad, but it could be worse....
posted by GenjiandProust at 3:58 PM on June 16, 2015 [20 favorites]
If anyone else is considering pushing the Big Red Button:
1) Greasemonkey
2) The Diediedead script (a killfile script)
3) When you start getting annoyed at certain conversations, avoid reading about topics where those conversations are common
4) When you start getting annoyed at MeTa, avoid reading MeTa
Seriously, site usage is made so much more enjoyable by the above.
The dangers of killfiles are far overstated. All of the people I've killfiled are on the same end of the political spectrum as me. In fact, I think that I'm in agreement with them on every topic I can recall, except maybe cilantro or dogs vs. cats or other stupid stuff like that. But on all the big issues, we're "on the same side". But MeFi has a ton of people. And when you have a ton of people, there will be assholes. And they won't all be conveniently on the other side. And any opinion that a killfiled user offers is usually much better stated by some other user. So killfiles have not turned MeFi into an echo chamber. But they have made the site a much, much more fun site to read and learn about both goofy shit and really important and serious issues, both.
And avoiding MeTa is massive. Like, it makes a game-changingly giant change to ones impression of the site. MeTa can be important and educational, so it's good to read, but when you get so stressed out you're thinking "Maybe I should just leave this site forever", a better option is "Maybe I should just leave MetaTalk for a few months"
posted by Bugbread at 4:00 PM on June 16, 2015 [12 favorites]
1) Greasemonkey
2) The Diediedead script (a killfile script)
3) When you start getting annoyed at certain conversations, avoid reading about topics where those conversations are common
4) When you start getting annoyed at MeTa, avoid reading MeTa
Seriously, site usage is made so much more enjoyable by the above.
The dangers of killfiles are far overstated. All of the people I've killfiled are on the same end of the political spectrum as me. In fact, I think that I'm in agreement with them on every topic I can recall, except maybe cilantro or dogs vs. cats or other stupid stuff like that. But on all the big issues, we're "on the same side". But MeFi has a ton of people. And when you have a ton of people, there will be assholes. And they won't all be conveniently on the other side. And any opinion that a killfiled user offers is usually much better stated by some other user. So killfiles have not turned MeFi into an echo chamber. But they have made the site a much, much more fun site to read and learn about both goofy shit and really important and serious issues, both.
And avoiding MeTa is massive. Like, it makes a game-changingly giant change to ones impression of the site. MeTa can be important and educational, so it's good to read, but when you get so stressed out you're thinking "Maybe I should just leave this site forever", a better option is "Maybe I should just leave MetaTalk for a few months"
posted by Bugbread at 4:00 PM on June 16, 2015 [12 favorites]
And boy, this characterization is just so wrong. There's plenty of nuanced, complex and amicably disagreement to be had, even on topics of social marginalization -
Maybe. But there are a substantial portion of people here who shoot first and ask questions later. The last time I attempted to contribute something tangential to a thread that had similar issues, I got literally got fart noises in response.
And while both the fart and my middle finger response rightfully got deleted -- that fact that it happened at all shows distinctly the kind of culture Mefi seems to have around these kinds of topics.
If I were to draw an analogy to climate change, it would be like someone innocently asking how much solar flares/intensity contributes, and instead of getting "you might think that, but not as much as X", getting nothing but snark and fart noises because that is the start to a typical climate-change skeptic talking point, and we all hate climate change skeptics.
QUILTBAG
I have issues with this kind of acronym soup because it is necessarily *never* complete and never avoids the reduction people think it does, but my biggest issue is that this particular one just sounds *awful*. :-) I suppose its better than "BLATQUIL" :-P or "UBILLQAT"? Ack... Phbbbt...
posted by smidgen at 4:03 PM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
Maybe. But there are a substantial portion of people here who shoot first and ask questions later. The last time I attempted to contribute something tangential to a thread that had similar issues, I got literally got fart noises in response.
And while both the fart and my middle finger response rightfully got deleted -- that fact that it happened at all shows distinctly the kind of culture Mefi seems to have around these kinds of topics.
If I were to draw an analogy to climate change, it would be like someone innocently asking how much solar flares/intensity contributes, and instead of getting "you might think that, but not as much as X", getting nothing but snark and fart noises because that is the start to a typical climate-change skeptic talking point, and we all hate climate change skeptics.
QUILTBAG
I have issues with this kind of acronym soup because it is necessarily *never* complete and never avoids the reduction people think it does, but my biggest issue is that this particular one just sounds *awful*. :-) I suppose its better than "BLATQUIL" :-P or "UBILLQAT"? Ack... Phbbbt...
posted by smidgen at 4:03 PM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
Have those GM scripts updated for the new site theme? Because they weren't working well the last time I checked.
posted by zarq at 4:11 PM on June 16, 2015
posted by zarq at 4:11 PM on June 16, 2015
i love QUILTBAG! it reminds me of my grandma's quilting bag - you could always find the most interesting fabrics in there and every one seemed to have a story - i found it far more wonderful than looking through her bolts of fabric.
i personally tend to use "queer" but i know some people are opposed to that too. hopefully one day there will be less need to group such wide ranging communities together - for now it seems like there is still a need to discuss not-straight people from time to time and so having a variety of terms to pull from seems useful.
posted by nadawi at 4:12 PM on June 16, 2015 [7 favorites]
i personally tend to use "queer" but i know some people are opposed to that too. hopefully one day there will be less need to group such wide ranging communities together - for now it seems like there is still a need to discuss not-straight people from time to time and so having a variety of terms to pull from seems useful.
posted by nadawi at 4:12 PM on June 16, 2015 [7 favorites]
zarq: "Have those GM scripts updated for the new site theme? Because they weren't working well the last time I checked."
I dunno about all of them, but MefiQuote and Diediedead are working fine (except, and this predates the site theme change, Diediedead doesn't killfile comments that appear when you click the "1 new comment, show" thing that appears at the bottom of the page. You need to reload the entire page for diediedead to apply to the new comments).
posted by Bugbread at 4:22 PM on June 16, 2015
I dunno about all of them, but MefiQuote and Diediedead are working fine (except, and this predates the site theme change, Diediedead doesn't killfile comments that appear when you click the "1 new comment, show" thing that appears at the bottom of the page. You need to reload the entire page for diediedead to apply to the new comments).
posted by Bugbread at 4:22 PM on June 16, 2015
i love QUILTBAG!
eat a bag of quilts?
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 4:27 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
eat a bag of quilts?
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 4:27 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's Canute
Cuchulainn was the dude whose body twisted up into Warp Spasms
he ruled
Actually Canute never fought the tide; he was making a point to his courtiers about the limits of a king's authority.
I think Cuchulainn is probably the reference he was going for tho.
posted by Sebmojo at 4:29 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Cuchulainn was the dude whose body twisted up into Warp Spasms
he ruled
Actually Canute never fought the tide; he was making a point to his courtiers about the limits of a king's authority.
I think Cuchulainn is probably the reference he was going for tho.
posted by Sebmojo at 4:29 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
If I were to draw an analogy to climate change, it would be like someone innocently asking how much solar flares/intensity contributes, and instead of getting "you might think that, but not as much as X", getting nothing but snark and fart noises because that is the start to a typical climate-change skeptic talking point, and we all hate climate change skeptics.
Well.... yeah. Which you also totally see here on the site. My personal version of climate change is evolutionary biology, which I have also taught to less-than-receptive audiences before. In some situations--like in my classroom discussion sections, where I am being paid to be an educator, or in my outreach lecture-to-the-public group, where I am volunteering my time--if someone starts quizzing me on the second law of thermodynamics or why monkeys still exist, I'll cheerfully and gently explain either that it isn't applicable to the subject we're discussing or that it doesn't actually "disprove" anything about evolutionary theory. I am quite willing to be patient and tolerant in that situation.
On the other hand, if I am hanging out at a party and a friend of my roommate's starts going into classic creationist talking points... well, how patient I am feeling is going to depend much more on my mood and whether I feel like teaching right now than on the fact that there's a creationist in my living room. Sometimes I feel like going "Actually, this isn't relevant because such and such." Sometimes I go "Oh, pffbbbbbbt. You realize I work on this, right? I'm right here in the room." because generally speaking that's enough to embarrass the creationist and make them shut up about it so I don't have to teach. Sometimes I just stay awkwardly silent and try to either escape the room for a bit (or the party), or I try to change the topic because I just cannot fucking deal right now. No matter how I choose to react, it still sucks because now the fun party is over for me as I think about how to handle this person who is a) super super clueless and b) likely to be hostile if I point that cluelessness out without bending over backwards to handle their emotions.
It's pretty much exactly how I deal with people who are clueless about my sexual orientation. Except I chose to get into evolutionary biology, and I didn't choose that aspect of myself. For me, Metafilter is not like my classrooms or my LGBTQA panels; Metafilter is a party with cool people discussing cool things. Whether I am willing to hang out in the party and put on my education hat when someone says something utterly clueless and also hostile to me on a personal or semi-personal level is entirely down to how much energy I have on me. And for the record, I am someone who genuinely loves teaching and educating people--now imagine someone whose identity is also a "matter for education" who doesn't ever enjoy that activity.
posted by sciatrix at 4:29 PM on June 16, 2015 [29 favorites]
Well.... yeah. Which you also totally see here on the site. My personal version of climate change is evolutionary biology, which I have also taught to less-than-receptive audiences before. In some situations--like in my classroom discussion sections, where I am being paid to be an educator, or in my outreach lecture-to-the-public group, where I am volunteering my time--if someone starts quizzing me on the second law of thermodynamics or why monkeys still exist, I'll cheerfully and gently explain either that it isn't applicable to the subject we're discussing or that it doesn't actually "disprove" anything about evolutionary theory. I am quite willing to be patient and tolerant in that situation.
On the other hand, if I am hanging out at a party and a friend of my roommate's starts going into classic creationist talking points... well, how patient I am feeling is going to depend much more on my mood and whether I feel like teaching right now than on the fact that there's a creationist in my living room. Sometimes I feel like going "Actually, this isn't relevant because such and such." Sometimes I go "Oh, pffbbbbbbt. You realize I work on this, right? I'm right here in the room." because generally speaking that's enough to embarrass the creationist and make them shut up about it so I don't have to teach. Sometimes I just stay awkwardly silent and try to either escape the room for a bit (or the party), or I try to change the topic because I just cannot fucking deal right now. No matter how I choose to react, it still sucks because now the fun party is over for me as I think about how to handle this person who is a) super super clueless and b) likely to be hostile if I point that cluelessness out without bending over backwards to handle their emotions.
It's pretty much exactly how I deal with people who are clueless about my sexual orientation. Except I chose to get into evolutionary biology, and I didn't choose that aspect of myself. For me, Metafilter is not like my classrooms or my LGBTQA panels; Metafilter is a party with cool people discussing cool things. Whether I am willing to hang out in the party and put on my education hat when someone says something utterly clueless and also hostile to me on a personal or semi-personal level is entirely down to how much energy I have on me. And for the record, I am someone who genuinely loves teaching and educating people--now imagine someone whose identity is also a "matter for education" who doesn't ever enjoy that activity.
posted by sciatrix at 4:29 PM on June 16, 2015 [29 favorites]
Oh, wait, zarq. I forgot there's a little change you have to MeFiQuote to make it work.
Savetheclocktower: MefiQuote is an easy one, once I look at it: the line near the bottom that reads
$("#page").on("click", "a.quotebutton", mq_quotethis);
should now read
$(".content").on("click", "a.quotebutton", mq_quotethis);
posted by Bugbread at 4:31 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Savetheclocktower: MefiQuote is an easy one, once I look at it: the line near the bottom that reads
$("#page").on("click", "a.quotebutton", mq_quotethis);
should now read
$(".content").on("click", "a.quotebutton", mq_quotethis);
posted by Bugbread at 4:31 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
> when you get so stressed out you're thinking "Maybe I should just leave this site forever"
Like Languagehat, above, I just don't get pooshing the button and walking out in a hurfdurf. If ever there would have been a likely candidate for the flounce of shame it would have been me. And yet I seldom have a problem going Oh look, somebody is Wrong On The Internet. Let 'Em Be Wrong. (That may be due to my having got my baptism of flame on usenet, which you could not resign from except by walking away from the keyboard.)
> this kind of acronym soup because it is necessarily *never* complete and never avoids the reduction people think it does
In its favor, it does give you an excuse to go look it up, as maxsparber recommended re QUILTBAG ("Took me literally a second to look it up.") Took me two, because I checked both urbandictionary and encyclopediadramatica.
posted by jfuller at 4:32 PM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
Like Languagehat, above, I just don't get pooshing the button and walking out in a hurfdurf. If ever there would have been a likely candidate for the flounce of shame it would have been me. And yet I seldom have a problem going Oh look, somebody is Wrong On The Internet. Let 'Em Be Wrong. (That may be due to my having got my baptism of flame on usenet, which you could not resign from except by walking away from the keyboard.)
> this kind of acronym soup because it is necessarily *never* complete and never avoids the reduction people think it does
In its favor, it does give you an excuse to go look it up, as maxsparber recommended re QUILTBAG ("Took me literally a second to look it up.") Took me two, because I checked both urbandictionary and encyclopediadramatica.
posted by jfuller at 4:32 PM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
Except I chose to get into evolutionary biology, and I didn't choose that aspect of myself.
Andrew Ti and his guest Kara Brown, on today's Yo Is This Racist? podcast said something along the lines of:
T: "People ask this all the time: 'what if I'm curious?' Yeah, I don't doubt that you're curious."
B: "Why do I have to be uncomfortable because you're curious?"
Which seems pretty on the money today.
posted by GenjiandProust at 4:40 PM on June 16, 2015 [13 favorites]
Andrew Ti and his guest Kara Brown, on today's Yo Is This Racist? podcast said something along the lines of:
T: "People ask this all the time: 'what if I'm curious?' Yeah, I don't doubt that you're curious."
B: "Why do I have to be uncomfortable because you're curious?"
Which seems pretty on the money today.
posted by GenjiandProust at 4:40 PM on June 16, 2015 [13 favorites]
jfuller: "Like Languagehat, above, I just don't get pooshing the button and walking out in a hurfdurf."
When people get pissed off, some bottle it up, some vent to unrelated parties, and some vent to related parties. People push the button for various reasons, and one of those reasons is when they get angry. I would think it would be weird if when it came to pushing the big red button, zero percent of people vented. Likewise, I would think it would be weird if 100% vented.
posted by Bugbread at 4:42 PM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
When people get pissed off, some bottle it up, some vent to unrelated parties, and some vent to related parties. People push the button for various reasons, and one of those reasons is when they get angry. I would think it would be weird if when it came to pushing the big red button, zero percent of people vented. Likewise, I would think it would be weird if 100% vented.
posted by Bugbread at 4:42 PM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
I read the two deleted threads (well, third too, but I didn't see that until much later and it didn't have any comments), and am kind of disappointed in how both those discussions and this one have gone. It's a shame to lose a decent FPP after 100 comments, but I understand why it got axed after we couldn't right the skid into the shit.
This has also been a pretty disappointing MeTa, where the two putative sides seem to routinely burlesque the others' position into unrecognizable caricature, and where the mods seem really overwhelmed and unable to avoid an incoherent mix of novel interpretations and reactive deletions that seem to imply that the push for more moderation really does require more resources.
It's frustrating to see the repeated insinuation that the only reason to object to the increased moderation is a desire to return to the nastiness that used to characterize a lot of MeFi; it's likewise baffling to see older MeFi described as if that was the only salient feature. It kind of obviously can't have been if so many current members were also members then — there must have been something worthwhile.
The other side of that is that there seems to be a lack of understanding about what the trade off in moderation actually has been in terms of discourse and ethos, and why other people may disagree about it. I tend to think that at least some of this fairly venomous discussion comes from people not recognizing what the opposite arguments actually are, and because of that either reducing them or dismissing them as if they could only have come from bad faith.
The previous moderation philosophy, the one that MeFi has shifted away from, tolerated a lot more clueless or offensive comments as well as a lot more nasty retorts. It was generally assumed that bad, noxious shit would get called out, and a lot of it did. There was an ethos, informed in large part by the general seed population of MeFi coming up through usenet, of crucible liberalism, where it wasn't necessary to delete e.g. ParisParamus comments because the consensus opinion would be expressed through calling them and him out. In some ways, that's an easy process to trust in — generally, the less moderation you do, the more transparent it is.
But the invisible cost of that model is that e.g. people who don't want to wade through 30 sexist comments even knowing that there will be regular callouts of those sexist comments were being forced into a conversational norm based on contention and bile. That's a real cost and had a real harm associated with it in diminished participation from members of groups who would routinely have to deal with pretty vile shit thoughtlessly posted. There was a great speech posted here some time back about the unequal costs of free speech liberalism, specifically in the context of working with computer programmers (I wish I could remember the actual link), which pointed out how these costs are unjustly borne by the folks least traditionally privileged, and how they can reinforce an unjust status quo.
However, that's not the same as saying, for example, that people who prefer that contentious model want a site where people are free to be unrepentant bigots. And framing those objections in that way, which has been done again and again within this thread, ends up reinforcing the notion that people who do not want to bear the unfair burden of a mode of discussion that requires that they be exposed to thoughtless and hateful shit really do just want to be free from disagreement because they're treating disagreement as if it is the same as being exposed to hateful shit. I don't think that's actually what people taking that position want generally, though (people being people) some of them do want to avoid strong or profane disagreement in general (see AskMe's aversion to arguments). But it's essentially an ad hominem attack to assume that people who are uncomfortable or unhappy with MeFi and MeTa's shift toward more active moderation are de facto endorsing bigotry.
It's also worth noting that there are costs to a more active moderation philosophy, and that the reduction of other members to bigots as justification for the loss of members uncomfortable with that active moderation philosophy is unfair and undercuts the argument. Just like how losing e.g. women members negatively impacts the breadth of total topics and conversations here, reducing the members to bigots both diminishes overall participation and shifts focus from the problematic parts of their participation to their overall character.
posted by klangklangston at 4:44 PM on June 16, 2015 [81 favorites]
This has also been a pretty disappointing MeTa, where the two putative sides seem to routinely burlesque the others' position into unrecognizable caricature, and where the mods seem really overwhelmed and unable to avoid an incoherent mix of novel interpretations and reactive deletions that seem to imply that the push for more moderation really does require more resources.
It's frustrating to see the repeated insinuation that the only reason to object to the increased moderation is a desire to return to the nastiness that used to characterize a lot of MeFi; it's likewise baffling to see older MeFi described as if that was the only salient feature. It kind of obviously can't have been if so many current members were also members then — there must have been something worthwhile.
The other side of that is that there seems to be a lack of understanding about what the trade off in moderation actually has been in terms of discourse and ethos, and why other people may disagree about it. I tend to think that at least some of this fairly venomous discussion comes from people not recognizing what the opposite arguments actually are, and because of that either reducing them or dismissing them as if they could only have come from bad faith.
The previous moderation philosophy, the one that MeFi has shifted away from, tolerated a lot more clueless or offensive comments as well as a lot more nasty retorts. It was generally assumed that bad, noxious shit would get called out, and a lot of it did. There was an ethos, informed in large part by the general seed population of MeFi coming up through usenet, of crucible liberalism, where it wasn't necessary to delete e.g. ParisParamus comments because the consensus opinion would be expressed through calling them and him out. In some ways, that's an easy process to trust in — generally, the less moderation you do, the more transparent it is.
But the invisible cost of that model is that e.g. people who don't want to wade through 30 sexist comments even knowing that there will be regular callouts of those sexist comments were being forced into a conversational norm based on contention and bile. That's a real cost and had a real harm associated with it in diminished participation from members of groups who would routinely have to deal with pretty vile shit thoughtlessly posted. There was a great speech posted here some time back about the unequal costs of free speech liberalism, specifically in the context of working with computer programmers (I wish I could remember the actual link), which pointed out how these costs are unjustly borne by the folks least traditionally privileged, and how they can reinforce an unjust status quo.
However, that's not the same as saying, for example, that people who prefer that contentious model want a site where people are free to be unrepentant bigots. And framing those objections in that way, which has been done again and again within this thread, ends up reinforcing the notion that people who do not want to bear the unfair burden of a mode of discussion that requires that they be exposed to thoughtless and hateful shit really do just want to be free from disagreement because they're treating disagreement as if it is the same as being exposed to hateful shit. I don't think that's actually what people taking that position want generally, though (people being people) some of them do want to avoid strong or profane disagreement in general (see AskMe's aversion to arguments). But it's essentially an ad hominem attack to assume that people who are uncomfortable or unhappy with MeFi and MeTa's shift toward more active moderation are de facto endorsing bigotry.
It's also worth noting that there are costs to a more active moderation philosophy, and that the reduction of other members to bigots as justification for the loss of members uncomfortable with that active moderation philosophy is unfair and undercuts the argument. Just like how losing e.g. women members negatively impacts the breadth of total topics and conversations here, reducing the members to bigots both diminishes overall participation and shifts focus from the problematic parts of their participation to their overall character.
posted by klangklangston at 4:44 PM on June 16, 2015 [81 favorites]
Thanks Klang, good points.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:48 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:48 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Hey mods? How about a nice round of soothing chamomile tea and a shoulder massage? On me. You deserve it.
There should be a "buy the mods a beer" button in contentious threads that lets you anonymously donate $5 to the PayPal account of whomever is on duty at the moment.
posted by Jacqueline at 4:49 PM on June 16, 2015 [9 favorites]
There should be a "buy the mods a beer" button in contentious threads that lets you anonymously donate $5 to the PayPal account of whomever is on duty at the moment.
posted by Jacqueline at 4:49 PM on June 16, 2015 [9 favorites]
Just a purely technical note, folks - in a MeTa like this, we read every single comment
I haven't donated in a while and this was the line that made me go correct that
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:51 PM on June 16, 2015 [10 favorites]
I haven't donated in a while and this was the line that made me go correct that
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:51 PM on June 16, 2015 [10 favorites]
klangklangston: "But it's essentially an ad hominem attack to assume that people who are uncomfortable or unhappy with MeFi and MeTa's shift toward more active moderation are de facto endorsing bigotry. "
The more active moderation grew directly out of several long MetaTalk knock-down drag-outs surrounding transgender issues. In many ways, the new mode of moderation is intended to directly address some of the worst legacy behaviors of the MetaFilter userbase.
So the strident resistance in some quarters to a change in moderation essentially is an endorsement of bigotry, because the new moderation policies are aimed directly at bigotry.
posted by scrump at 4:51 PM on June 16, 2015 [21 favorites]
The more active moderation grew directly out of several long MetaTalk knock-down drag-outs surrounding transgender issues. In many ways, the new mode of moderation is intended to directly address some of the worst legacy behaviors of the MetaFilter userbase.
So the strident resistance in some quarters to a change in moderation essentially is an endorsement of bigotry, because the new moderation policies are aimed directly at bigotry.
posted by scrump at 4:51 PM on June 16, 2015 [21 favorites]
That's well put Klang.
Scrump, you're wrong, and Klang is right. Imagine that I put a pithy analogy here for you to dismiss, if you like.
posted by Sebmojo at 4:54 PM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
Scrump, you're wrong, and Klang is right. Imagine that I put a pithy analogy here for you to dismiss, if you like.
posted by Sebmojo at 4:54 PM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
restless_nomad: "Just a purely technical note, folks - in a MeTa like this, we read every single comment, so flagging tends to be redundant. "
Just to double-check: does the flagging inconvenience mods or create more work? Because, if so, I'll stop flagging in these kinds of MeTa threads, but I'm not so good at remembering exceptions and special cases, so if you're just ignoring the flags but they don't create any hassle, I'll just forget about this edge case and go back to using a single flagging standard.
posted by Bugbread at 4:56 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Just to double-check: does the flagging inconvenience mods or create more work? Because, if so, I'll stop flagging in these kinds of MeTa threads, but I'm not so good at remembering exceptions and special cases, so if you're just ignoring the flags but they don't create any hassle, I'll just forget about this edge case and go back to using a single flagging standard.
posted by Bugbread at 4:56 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Eh, we have to clear them, and mostly I check them regardless of where they point to, so it's a little more work. Mostly, though, I just don't want people to think that we are ignoring their flags when the issue is different standards of moderation.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 4:58 PM on June 16, 2015
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 4:58 PM on June 16, 2015
"Tends to be redundant."
This is not to say a comment with oddles of flags won't be dismissed, I would imagine it would help, especially in real problematic cases.
posted by clavdivs at 5:02 PM on June 16, 2015
This is not to say a comment with oddles of flags won't be dismissed, I would imagine it would help, especially in real problematic cases.
posted by clavdivs at 5:02 PM on June 16, 2015
People who prefer the older, contentious style of discussion are, however, pushing for a site model that disproportionately makes minority and marginalized people feel unwelcome. I get why they prefer that, but I completely agree with scrump.
They don't need to be consciously endorsing bigotry to be pushing towards a site model that amplifies existing cultural dynamics of marginalization and pushes minority members off the site. That contentious model has the effect of increasing the, for lack of a better term, bigotry levels of the metafilter community and diminishing the diversity of people who find Metafilter a welcome online home. Even though I suspect that's not a directly intended effect for many of the people who miss that style, I find it very difficult to be sympathetic to the people pushing for that model. It's a style that I associate with online harassment and would find deeply unwelcome at this stage of my life, and a style that I furthermore believe to be pretty bad at drawing out interesting discussion.
posted by sciatrix at 5:02 PM on June 16, 2015 [24 favorites]
They don't need to be consciously endorsing bigotry to be pushing towards a site model that amplifies existing cultural dynamics of marginalization and pushes minority members off the site. That contentious model has the effect of increasing the, for lack of a better term, bigotry levels of the metafilter community and diminishing the diversity of people who find Metafilter a welcome online home. Even though I suspect that's not a directly intended effect for many of the people who miss that style, I find it very difficult to be sympathetic to the people pushing for that model. It's a style that I associate with online harassment and would find deeply unwelcome at this stage of my life, and a style that I furthermore believe to be pretty bad at drawing out interesting discussion.
posted by sciatrix at 5:02 PM on June 16, 2015 [24 favorites]
Imagine that I put a pithy analogy here for you to dismiss, if you like.
I'm not sure comparing comment deletions on a web forum to COINTELPRO crackdowns on Marxists was wise, but I'm sure it would have made sense as part of a longer argument. I'm just sad we won't see that argument today.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 5:03 PM on June 16, 2015 [17 favorites]
I'm not sure comparing comment deletions on a web forum to COINTELPRO crackdowns on Marxists was wise, but I'm sure it would have made sense as part of a longer argument. I'm just sad we won't see that argument today.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 5:03 PM on June 16, 2015 [17 favorites]
Case in point, while I edited my comment, R_N was on it. That's service and attention to detail.
posted by clavdivs at 5:04 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by clavdivs at 5:04 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
However, that's not the same as saying, for example, that people who prefer that contentious model want a site where people are free to be unrepentant bigots.
In practice, it is though. Maybe not for the most overtly racist and misogynist stuff, which would add you say get shouted down, but for the more insidious (but no less harmful) stuff, or the stuff about which people are generally less aware or sensitive, the dynamic of bigotry being shouted down just wouldn't happen. One merely needs look at the deleted FPP that spawned this meta to see that.
posted by Dysk at 5:12 PM on June 16, 2015 [10 favorites]
In practice, it is though. Maybe not for the most overtly racist and misogynist stuff, which would add you say get shouted down, but for the more insidious (but no less harmful) stuff, or the stuff about which people are generally less aware or sensitive, the dynamic of bigotry being shouted down just wouldn't happen. One merely needs look at the deleted FPP that spawned this meta to see that.
posted by Dysk at 5:12 PM on June 16, 2015 [10 favorites]
However, that's not the same as saying, for example, that people who prefer that contentious model want a site where people are free to be unrepentant bigots.
Well, maybe not, but there is also the refusal of the "people who prefer that contentious model" to understand (or admit) that, even if they aren't particularly bigoted themselves, their preferred mode gives a lot of cover to people who are (or, at least, people who are so enmeshed in the bigoted status quo that they don't realize how they are presenting and are so invested in that status quo and "contentious discourse" that they don't really seem to care much).
And, as I've said elsewhere, I am getting increasingly impatient with the idea that people's motives matter more than the effects of their actions -- it doesn't really matter if a member is a closeted misogynist or someone who is genuinely clueless and enjoys arguing; if they are driving women off the site, it's their problem, and they need to fix it.
So, yeah, I guess the site could stand to have less defensiveness on all sides, but considering how much higher the real life stakes are on some sides than others, I don't know if that is fair or reasonable to ask.
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:14 PM on June 16, 2015 [22 favorites]
Well, maybe not, but there is also the refusal of the "people who prefer that contentious model" to understand (or admit) that, even if they aren't particularly bigoted themselves, their preferred mode gives a lot of cover to people who are (or, at least, people who are so enmeshed in the bigoted status quo that they don't realize how they are presenting and are so invested in that status quo and "contentious discourse" that they don't really seem to care much).
And, as I've said elsewhere, I am getting increasingly impatient with the idea that people's motives matter more than the effects of their actions -- it doesn't really matter if a member is a closeted misogynist or someone who is genuinely clueless and enjoys arguing; if they are driving women off the site, it's their problem, and they need to fix it.
So, yeah, I guess the site could stand to have less defensiveness on all sides, but considering how much higher the real life stakes are on some sides than others, I don't know if that is fair or reasonable to ask.
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:14 PM on June 16, 2015 [22 favorites]
So, yeah, I guess the site could stand to have less defensiveness on all sides, but considering how much higher the real life stakes are on some sides than others, I don't know if that is fair or reasonable to ask.
the real life stakes on a message board are that people will see words that they don't like
posted by Sebmojo at 5:18 PM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
the real life stakes on a message board are that people will see words that they don't like
posted by Sebmojo at 5:18 PM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
No, Sebmojo. That is not the real life stakes. Multiple people in this thread and God knows how many past threads have explained that over and over and over.
When your very being--due to whatever intersections of race, gender identity, and sexual orientation--is constantly under attack, one actively looks for ways to stop being attacked for a while.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:20 PM on June 16, 2015 [20 favorites]
When your very being--due to whatever intersections of race, gender identity, and sexual orientation--is constantly under attack, one actively looks for ways to stop being attacked for a while.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:20 PM on June 16, 2015 [20 favorites]
the real life stakes on a message board are that people will see words that they don't like
Sure, and the consequences of people seeing words they don't like is that they don't participate and then all of us have a less interesting site to read.
posted by chrchr at 5:20 PM on June 16, 2015 [8 favorites]
Sure, and the consequences of people seeing words they don't like is that they don't participate and then all of us have a less interesting site to read.
posted by chrchr at 5:20 PM on June 16, 2015 [8 favorites]
I took a creative writing non-fiction course with a woman who was ISU's oldest student (mid-to-late 90s). She wrote this story about how her great grandson was gay and was one of the first people to be diagnosed (in Iowa) with AIDS. This was at a time when people were deathly afraid of the illness and had little understanding of it. She wrote about how when he was first hospitalized he complained of the cold, so he decided to sew him a quilt.
She read the story and it was filled with the common horrible stories of disease and bigotry. Pretty much everyone was bawling.
Her great grandson died before she could finish the quilt, so she stayed up for days to get it done for his funeral. They draped the coffin with the quilt. It wasn't until the family was gathered for the service that she noticed, in her haste and exhaustion, one of the squares was rotated by 90 degrees.
Her writing was decent, and her story moving. She even had a picture of the quilt covered casket.
The knife was through the heart, she need only twist.
Then her final sentences were something like this:
He didn't ask for the sickness that killed him. He didn't ask to be born wrong. Like the quilt square he was just an imperfection that was too late to fix.
People tried to make her understand why this ending sucked and how she could make it not only work—with the tiniest of tweaks—but be devastating to the reader and a piece to never be forgotten. She was totally unwilling to listen or change her story (or mind).
This was 20 years ago, so she's dead for certain. I have no doubt she loved her grandson, am certain she wasn't a bigot in an active sense, and in my opinion she fucked up the ending terribly. But I think of that story often.
I don't really know why I am relating this now, other than someone mentioned quilts and this story seems like an allegory for this thread.
posted by cjorgensen at 5:21 PM on June 16, 2015 [31 favorites]
She read the story and it was filled with the common horrible stories of disease and bigotry. Pretty much everyone was bawling.
Her great grandson died before she could finish the quilt, so she stayed up for days to get it done for his funeral. They draped the coffin with the quilt. It wasn't until the family was gathered for the service that she noticed, in her haste and exhaustion, one of the squares was rotated by 90 degrees.
Her writing was decent, and her story moving. She even had a picture of the quilt covered casket.
The knife was through the heart, she need only twist.
Then her final sentences were something like this:
He didn't ask for the sickness that killed him. He didn't ask to be born wrong. Like the quilt square he was just an imperfection that was too late to fix.
People tried to make her understand why this ending sucked and how she could make it not only work—with the tiniest of tweaks—but be devastating to the reader and a piece to never be forgotten. She was totally unwilling to listen or change her story (or mind).
This was 20 years ago, so she's dead for certain. I have no doubt she loved her grandson, am certain she wasn't a bigot in an active sense, and in my opinion she fucked up the ending terribly. But I think of that story often.
I don't really know why I am relating this now, other than someone mentioned quilts and this story seems like an allegory for this thread.
posted by cjorgensen at 5:21 PM on June 16, 2015 [31 favorites]
GenjiandProust: "And, as I've said elsewhere, I am getting increasingly impatient with the idea that people's motives matter more than the effects of their actions -- it doesn't really matter if a member is a closeted misogynist or someone who is genuinely clueless and enjoys arguing; if they are driving women off the site, it's their problem, and they need to fix it."
Motives don't matter more than effects, but why ignore someone's motives and instead accuse their effects as being their true motives?
Okay, that seemed a bit opaque. More specifically: MeFi, for a long time, believed that the best way to fight bigotry was to allow the MeFi readership to give it a resounding smackdown. That method has proven not to work as well as the idealists hoped. The new approach, deleting more stuff, is working better. The end result is more important than the motive, so I'm in favor of deleting.
But there's a big difference between saying "Your proposed method of fighting bigotry doesn't work as well as my proposed method of fighting bigotry, so your intentions may be good, but what truly matters is results" and "Your proposed method of fighting bigotry doesn't work as well as my proposed method of fighting bigotry, so what you want is to increase the amount of bigotry."
posted by Bugbread at 5:36 PM on June 16, 2015 [13 favorites]
Motives don't matter more than effects, but why ignore someone's motives and instead accuse their effects as being their true motives?
Okay, that seemed a bit opaque. More specifically: MeFi, for a long time, believed that the best way to fight bigotry was to allow the MeFi readership to give it a resounding smackdown. That method has proven not to work as well as the idealists hoped. The new approach, deleting more stuff, is working better. The end result is more important than the motive, so I'm in favor of deleting.
But there's a big difference between saying "Your proposed method of fighting bigotry doesn't work as well as my proposed method of fighting bigotry, so your intentions may be good, but what truly matters is results" and "Your proposed method of fighting bigotry doesn't work as well as my proposed method of fighting bigotry, so what you want is to increase the amount of bigotry."
posted by Bugbread at 5:36 PM on June 16, 2015 [13 favorites]
Sebmojo: “That's well put Klang.”
I gather you didn't actually read his comment, and just noticed that scrump disagreed with a part of it – because you don't seem to have understood what klangklangston was saying.
posted by koeselitz at 5:38 PM on June 16, 2015 [7 favorites]
I gather you didn't actually read his comment, and just noticed that scrump disagreed with a part of it – because you don't seem to have understood what klangklangston was saying.
posted by koeselitz at 5:38 PM on June 16, 2015 [7 favorites]
the real life stakes on a message board are that people will see words that they don't like
fffm said it more succinctly, but: this kind of thing is why the "contentious model people" don't get any benefit of the doubt, and why the "pox on both your houses" stance is misplaced and damaging.
Yeah, there are no real life stakes on a message board, or almost none, especially for the white, cis, male, etc etc posters. Which is why I was contrasting the real life stakes of the people pushing back with the message board stakes of the "contentious model people." As many people have explained over and over in this thread, for them, because of race, gender, sexual expression, etc the very process of being in the daily world is a threat. Any day could end with a rape or a board to the face or the loss of your job or housing or children or any one of a thousand lesser problems. And if you think that the possibility that you might end up feeling bad because of some ignorant thing you wrote on the internet stacks up to that, well, I don't know what to tell you.
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:41 PM on June 16, 2015 [16 favorites]
fffm said it more succinctly, but: this kind of thing is why the "contentious model people" don't get any benefit of the doubt, and why the "pox on both your houses" stance is misplaced and damaging.
Yeah, there are no real life stakes on a message board, or almost none, especially for the white, cis, male, etc etc posters. Which is why I was contrasting the real life stakes of the people pushing back with the message board stakes of the "contentious model people." As many people have explained over and over in this thread, for them, because of race, gender, sexual expression, etc the very process of being in the daily world is a threat. Any day could end with a rape or a board to the face or the loss of your job or housing or children or any one of a thousand lesser problems. And if you think that the possibility that you might end up feeling bad because of some ignorant thing you wrote on the internet stacks up to that, well, I don't know what to tell you.
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:41 PM on June 16, 2015 [16 favorites]
Motives don't matter more than effects, but why ignore someone's motives and instead accuse their effects as being their true motives?
because I can't ever know their true motives. I have no way to peer into people's hearts. I can see how they act and the effects those acts have. So, if a poster's behavior is driving, say, PoC off the site, it does not matter if they are "really racist" or just "confrontational. They are doing racism's work, and they have to live with that.
And I'm not saying "Your proposed method of fighting bigotry doesn't work as well as my proposed method of fighting bigotry," I'm saying "your preferred method of discourse privileges and protects bigots, so it doesn't really matter if you are a bigot or not, you are providing cover for bigots, and that's your problem, not mine." "People who enjoy contentious posting," much like "equal opportunity offender" comics, weirdly, never seem to land blows that matter on white cis straight men.
It's a funny world.
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:46 PM on June 16, 2015 [18 favorites]
because I can't ever know their true motives. I have no way to peer into people's hearts. I can see how they act and the effects those acts have. So, if a poster's behavior is driving, say, PoC off the site, it does not matter if they are "really racist" or just "confrontational. They are doing racism's work, and they have to live with that.
And I'm not saying "Your proposed method of fighting bigotry doesn't work as well as my proposed method of fighting bigotry," I'm saying "your preferred method of discourse privileges and protects bigots, so it doesn't really matter if you are a bigot or not, you are providing cover for bigots, and that's your problem, not mine." "People who enjoy contentious posting," much like "equal opportunity offender" comics, weirdly, never seem to land blows that matter on white cis straight men.
It's a funny world.
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:46 PM on June 16, 2015 [18 favorites]
And it's been a long day in a long month in a long year, and they aren't half over yet. I'm going to bed.
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:47 PM on June 16, 2015
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:47 PM on June 16, 2015
MetaFilter: i do know better and in my defense am drunk .
posted by Jacqueline at 5:47 PM on June 16, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by Jacqueline at 5:47 PM on June 16, 2015 [8 favorites]
klangklangston: “It's frustrating to see the repeated insinuation that the only reason to object to the increased moderation is a desire to return to the nastiness that used to characterize a lot of MeFi; it's likewise baffling to see older MeFi described as if that was the only salient feature. It kind of obviously can't have been if so many current members were also members then — there must have been something worthwhile.”
That's not really a rationally sound argument. People might have stuck around for a lot of reasons, and the old MeFi being great is only one possibility. Another one is that the old MeFi was complicated, sometimes good and sometimes awful. Another one – the one I tend to feel makes most sense – is that the people who've stuck around have changed without knowing it. My feeling is that Mayor Curley would certainly not enjoy MeFi today if the laws were immediately relaxed and everything went back to the way it was, because some of us would be suddenly free to say what we thought in the most colorful terms, and that would not be pleasant. And Mayor Curley has not shown a good deal of toughness of hide in this thread. I think he's changed more than he realizes.
The old nastiness was enjoyable. It had a sense of freedom; it was liberal, it was anti-bigotry, so it had a sense of righteousness, too. We were free to tell people they were full of shit, and that they should shut their fucking mouths. Mayor Curley enjoyed that as much as anyone. But we're different people now. Maybe that growth is good for us. Either way, it certainly isn't going to kill us to just try, a tiny bit, not to be such assholes.
And don't try to tell me that there's anything behind the new, heavier moderation scheme beyond "don't be an asshole." That pretty much encompasses it. It's easy. It sometimes isn't the fun thing to do, particularly when it's appealing to be an asshole in the name of justice or freedom or whatever, but it still isn't that difficult to just make the call and not be a dick.
posted by koeselitz at 5:49 PM on June 16, 2015 [14 favorites]
That's not really a rationally sound argument. People might have stuck around for a lot of reasons, and the old MeFi being great is only one possibility. Another one is that the old MeFi was complicated, sometimes good and sometimes awful. Another one – the one I tend to feel makes most sense – is that the people who've stuck around have changed without knowing it. My feeling is that Mayor Curley would certainly not enjoy MeFi today if the laws were immediately relaxed and everything went back to the way it was, because some of us would be suddenly free to say what we thought in the most colorful terms, and that would not be pleasant. And Mayor Curley has not shown a good deal of toughness of hide in this thread. I think he's changed more than he realizes.
The old nastiness was enjoyable. It had a sense of freedom; it was liberal, it was anti-bigotry, so it had a sense of righteousness, too. We were free to tell people they were full of shit, and that they should shut their fucking mouths. Mayor Curley enjoyed that as much as anyone. But we're different people now. Maybe that growth is good for us. Either way, it certainly isn't going to kill us to just try, a tiny bit, not to be such assholes.
And don't try to tell me that there's anything behind the new, heavier moderation scheme beyond "don't be an asshole." That pretty much encompasses it. It's easy. It sometimes isn't the fun thing to do, particularly when it's appealing to be an asshole in the name of justice or freedom or whatever, but it still isn't that difficult to just make the call and not be a dick.
posted by koeselitz at 5:49 PM on June 16, 2015 [14 favorites]
But there's a big difference between saying "Your proposed method of fighting bigotry doesn't work as well as my proposed method of fighting bigotry, so your intentions may be good, but what truly matters is results" and "Your proposed method of fighting bigotry doesn't work as well as my proposed method of fighting bigotry, so what you want is to increase the amount of bigotry."
Extending that good faith is possible when it's clear that everyone is on the same page about fighting bigotry. That's not the case when you have people coming in saying that what people in favor of more active moderation really want [is] a site that features commiseration about how everyone unlike you is a Philistine or that they "really" mean is 'go away and come back when you agree with me'.
posted by kagredon at 5:51 PM on June 16, 2015 [7 favorites]
Extending that good faith is possible when it's clear that everyone is on the same page about fighting bigotry. That's not the case when you have people coming in saying that what people in favor of more active moderation really want [is] a site that features commiseration about how everyone unlike you is a Philistine or that they "really" mean is 'go away and come back when you agree with me'.
posted by kagredon at 5:51 PM on June 16, 2015 [7 favorites]
GenjiandProust: "And I'm not saying "Your proposed method of fighting bigotry doesn't work as well as my proposed method of fighting bigotry," I'm saying "your preferred method of discourse privileges and protects bigots, so it doesn't really matter if you are a bigot or not, you are providing cover for bigots, and that's your problem, not mine.""
Sorry, my comment wasn't directed at you specifically. If you're not doing the "You want MeFi to be more bigoted" thing, then you're not engaged in the behavior I was discussing.
posted by Bugbread at 5:55 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Sorry, my comment wasn't directed at you specifically. If you're not doing the "You want MeFi to be more bigoted" thing, then you're not engaged in the behavior I was discussing.
posted by Bugbread at 5:55 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
However, that's not the same as saying, for example, that people who prefer that contentious model want a site where people are free to be unrepentant bigots.
I don't think that's quite true.
My context for disagreement: I'm one of those people who came up through usenet, spending more time than I like to admit on various queer and depression soc.*s and alt.*s. And your term "crucible" is so apt! There was something really exhilarating about calling out bigotry and hatred in terms one just can't freely use in real life without threat of harm. To be loud, to be vulgar, to be absolute, to use volume as a weapon. It's an electrical feeling very separate from the antelope-spotting-a-lion paralysis that happens (to me at least) in the real world. I love arguing almost as much as I hate being thought wrong, and the anger and vindication of contention kept me going for years.
But there were really two costs to that model. Not just the cost to the participants on the good side who were so vigorous in their defense against seemingly endless hatreds--there was plenty of that cost, and everyone seems to find a breaking point there eventually. But the other cost is, the model creates bigotry. It creates an environment where trolling is fun, where everyone can participate in bashing, where the excitement of participating in, or watching, a really loud argument can be indulged in repeatedly. Even if you did not share an actual hatred for an oppressed group, you could share in the fun of arguing, and become part of that problem of hatred. The model trains people to stay contentious, to lack ways of backing down, of listening. To turn opponents into stereotypes in a way that would probably be shocking to themselves if they heard themselves say similar things in the real world. (Well, one would hope.)
So people who say that they prefer the contentious model, even if they themselves are not bigots, even if they would repudiate bigotry, are, I think, arguing for an environment where at least other people are free to discover within themselves and cultivate bigotry and the tools to forcefully propagate that bigotry, because the only cost for them is a fun bit of angry yelling.
As much as I love arguing, as much as I love playing devil's advocate and shouting down and being shouted down, I have to say, I find this current model far less noisy, far healthier.
posted by mittens at 5:55 PM on June 16, 2015 [22 favorites]
I don't think that's quite true.
My context for disagreement: I'm one of those people who came up through usenet, spending more time than I like to admit on various queer and depression soc.*s and alt.*s. And your term "crucible" is so apt! There was something really exhilarating about calling out bigotry and hatred in terms one just can't freely use in real life without threat of harm. To be loud, to be vulgar, to be absolute, to use volume as a weapon. It's an electrical feeling very separate from the antelope-spotting-a-lion paralysis that happens (to me at least) in the real world. I love arguing almost as much as I hate being thought wrong, and the anger and vindication of contention kept me going for years.
But there were really two costs to that model. Not just the cost to the participants on the good side who were so vigorous in their defense against seemingly endless hatreds--there was plenty of that cost, and everyone seems to find a breaking point there eventually. But the other cost is, the model creates bigotry. It creates an environment where trolling is fun, where everyone can participate in bashing, where the excitement of participating in, or watching, a really loud argument can be indulged in repeatedly. Even if you did not share an actual hatred for an oppressed group, you could share in the fun of arguing, and become part of that problem of hatred. The model trains people to stay contentious, to lack ways of backing down, of listening. To turn opponents into stereotypes in a way that would probably be shocking to themselves if they heard themselves say similar things in the real world. (Well, one would hope.)
So people who say that they prefer the contentious model, even if they themselves are not bigots, even if they would repudiate bigotry, are, I think, arguing for an environment where at least other people are free to discover within themselves and cultivate bigotry and the tools to forcefully propagate that bigotry, because the only cost for them is a fun bit of angry yelling.
As much as I love arguing, as much as I love playing devil's advocate and shouting down and being shouted down, I have to say, I find this current model far less noisy, far healthier.
posted by mittens at 5:55 PM on June 16, 2015 [22 favorites]
That was rudely me, got the skinny. Koeselitz, is it wise to surmise what a member who has buttoned may do?
posted by clavdivs at 5:57 PM on June 16, 2015
posted by clavdivs at 5:57 PM on June 16, 2015
But there's a big difference between saying "Your proposed method of fighting bigotry doesn't work as well as my proposed method of fighting bigotry, so your intentions may be good, but what truly matters is results" and "Your proposed method of fighting bigotry doesn't work as well as my proposed method of fighting bigotry, so what you want is to increase the amount of bigotry."
Either way it presupposes a widely-shared definition of what constitutes bigotry and assumes there are no grey areas.
I'm saying "your preferred method of discourse privileges and protects bigots, so it doesn't really matter if you are a bigot or not, you are providing cover for bigots, and that's your problem, not mine."
Yeah, I guess. I see it as privileging reader over writers, which is mostly fine although we never really know who is or isn't reading, so we have some model of a reader instead. Again, fine. I think it loses some diversity of viewpoints that aren't out-and-out bigoted, but so be it.
posted by GuyZero at 6:00 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Either way it presupposes a widely-shared definition of what constitutes bigotry and assumes there are no grey areas.
I'm saying "your preferred method of discourse privileges and protects bigots, so it doesn't really matter if you are a bigot or not, you are providing cover for bigots, and that's your problem, not mine."
Yeah, I guess. I see it as privileging reader over writers, which is mostly fine although we never really know who is or isn't reading, so we have some model of a reader instead. Again, fine. I think it loses some diversity of viewpoints that aren't out-and-out bigoted, but so be it.
posted by GuyZero at 6:00 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
clavdivs: “That was rude, got the skinny. Koeselitz, is it wise to surmise what a member who has buttoned may do?”
Ah, I missed that. Sorry.
posted by koeselitz at 6:00 PM on June 16, 2015
Ah, I missed that. Sorry.
posted by koeselitz at 6:00 PM on June 16, 2015
klangklangston: There was a great speech posted here some time back about the unequal costs of free speech liberalism, specifically in the context of working with computer programmers (I wish I could remember the actual link), which pointed out how these costs are unjustly borne by the folks least traditionally privileged, and how they can reinforce an unjust status quo.
Yay! That was my post, and the speech was by Metafilter's own brainwane. It left an impression on me, too.
posted by hydropsyche at 6:05 PM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
Yay! That was my post, and the speech was by Metafilter's own brainwane. It left an impression on me, too.
posted by hydropsyche at 6:05 PM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
mittens, I read klanglangston's comment as saying it's better to tell someone "you don't realize that what you're asking for would just leave people free to be unrepentant bigots" rather than saying "you [explicitly] want a site where people are free to be unrepentant bigots". However much intention does or doesn't matter, if people think they're being called [intentional] bigots (or Philistines), it doesn't help the thread.
posted by uosuaq at 6:05 PM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by uosuaq at 6:05 PM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
I'm not pro-bigotry, just really into CHUD-pride.( 🍔 )
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:07 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:07 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
"It's not about hate. It's about CHUD-history."
Really has a ring to it actually.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:08 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Really has a ring to it actually.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:08 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
not all moderation issues have been or are about bigotry - basically, people are saying that we now have to see things through that lens and that lens only
never mind that there are other contentious issues, such as politics and what dissenting viewpoints are allowed in non social justice discussions
you know what they say - to someone who only has a hammer, everything looks like a nail
there's nothing wrong with having different standards for different subjects
but the next time someone stands up for something like people being able to argue for 2nd amendment rights against vocal opposition, it isn't useful to hurl accusations that more lenient moderation in these cases enables bigotry
posted by pyramid termite at 6:09 PM on June 16, 2015
never mind that there are other contentious issues, such as politics and what dissenting viewpoints are allowed in non social justice discussions
you know what they say - to someone who only has a hammer, everything looks like a nail
there's nothing wrong with having different standards for different subjects
but the next time someone stands up for something like people being able to argue for 2nd amendment rights against vocal opposition, it isn't useful to hurl accusations that more lenient moderation in these cases enables bigotry
posted by pyramid termite at 6:09 PM on June 16, 2015
"And Mayor Curley has not shown a good deal of toughness of hide in this thread. I think he's changed more than he realizes."
Great, you think he changed more then he relized. What if he had shown more toughness, the thread isn't closed...am I wrong that we don't surmise on members actions or intentions after they have buttoned?
posted by clavdivs at 6:11 PM on June 16, 2015
Great, you think he changed more then he relized. What if he had shown more toughness, the thread isn't closed...am I wrong that we don't surmise on members actions or intentions after they have buttoned?
posted by clavdivs at 6:11 PM on June 16, 2015
However much intention does or doesn't matter, if people think they're being called [intentional] bigots (or Philistines), it doesn't help the thread.
sigh. Right. When privileged people are asked to think before they speak and to understand that intentions do not outweigh effects, it's "frustrating", but everyone else had better watch their tone or how do they expect anyone to become an ally?
posted by kagredon at 6:12 PM on June 16, 2015 [18 favorites]
sigh. Right. When privileged people are asked to think before they speak and to understand that intentions do not outweigh effects, it's "frustrating", but everyone else had better watch their tone or how do they expect anyone to become an ally?
posted by kagredon at 6:12 PM on June 16, 2015 [18 favorites]
you know what they say - to someone who only has a hammer, everything looks like a nail
Oh man I love that saying it applies to like so many things.
posted by nom de poop at 6:15 PM on June 16, 2015 [19 favorites]
Oh man I love that saying it applies to like so many things.
posted by nom de poop at 6:15 PM on June 16, 2015 [19 favorites]
Fun fact, I spraypainted a nail today for a bird feeder, I used a cotton ball as to not mare the paint on the head.
posted by clavdivs at 6:17 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by clavdivs at 6:17 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
kagredon, I didn't say anything about asking people to think before speaking or to understand that intentions don't trump effects. I said calling people bigots (assuming they're not openly being bigots at the time) doesn't help. That was the full extent of what I said.
posted by uosuaq at 6:21 PM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by uosuaq at 6:21 PM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
>"And Mayor Curley has not shown a good deal of toughness of hide in this thread. I think he's changed more than he realizes."
Great, you think he changed more then he relized. What if he had shown more toughness, the thread isn't closed...am I wrong that we don't surmise on members actions or intentions after they have buttoned?
Yeah, that reads as fucked-up to me; stay and be called a shit, leave and be called a sucky baby. Meet the new nastiness, same as the old nastiness, just with a little less profanity and little more smugness, I suppose.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 6:22 PM on June 16, 2015 [17 favorites]
Great, you think he changed more then he relized. What if he had shown more toughness, the thread isn't closed...am I wrong that we don't surmise on members actions or intentions after they have buttoned?
Yeah, that reads as fucked-up to me; stay and be called a shit, leave and be called a sucky baby. Meet the new nastiness, same as the old nastiness, just with a little less profanity and little more smugness, I suppose.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 6:22 PM on June 16, 2015 [17 favorites]
I said calling people bigots (assuming they're not openly being bigots at the time) doesn't help.
Apply the Jay Smooth rule. Talk about the things being said, not the people saying them. 'That thing you said is pretty bigoted', not 'you are a bigot'.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 6:23 PM on June 16, 2015 [10 favorites]
Apply the Jay Smooth rule. Talk about the things being said, not the people saying them. 'That thing you said is pretty bigoted', not 'you are a bigot'.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 6:23 PM on June 16, 2015 [10 favorites]
Your proposed method of fighting bigotry doesn't work as well as my proposed method of fighting bigotry
I can not imagine that moderation has done anything at all to fight bigotry. It silences it. It does not educate. The bigot learns nothing. Their surface behavior might change, but only on MeFi. That's all well and good, so far as creating a place where readers will not have to see bigotry, but it is far from a "method of fighting" it.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:27 PM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
I can not imagine that moderation has done anything at all to fight bigotry. It silences it. It does not educate. The bigot learns nothing. Their surface behavior might change, but only on MeFi. That's all well and good, so far as creating a place where readers will not have to see bigotry, but it is far from a "method of fighting" it.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:27 PM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
other contentious issues, such as politics and what dissenting viewpoints are allowed in non social justice discussions
Oh look, it's our old friend, Opinions That Are Suppressed Even Though They Are Not Bigoted At All. Are these Opinions still mysterious as ever? Actually, no: here finally is an example of such an opinion:
the next time someone stands up for something like people being able to argue for 2nd amendment rights against vocal opposition
So, are you saying 2nd Amendment arguments are not "allowed"? That doesn't sound right, since you talk about people arguing them. Or do you just mean that these arguments encounter resistance from others? OK, so what opinions are actually Not Allowed?
posted by neroli at 6:27 PM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
Oh look, it's our old friend, Opinions That Are Suppressed Even Though They Are Not Bigoted At All. Are these Opinions still mysterious as ever? Actually, no: here finally is an example of such an opinion:
the next time someone stands up for something like people being able to argue for 2nd amendment rights against vocal opposition
So, are you saying 2nd Amendment arguments are not "allowed"? That doesn't sound right, since you talk about people arguing them. Or do you just mean that these arguments encounter resistance from others? OK, so what opinions are actually Not Allowed?
posted by neroli at 6:27 PM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
giving people a break is a fine way to fight bigotry. sorry it doesn't meet your lofty goals.
posted by nadawi at 6:29 PM on June 16, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 6:29 PM on June 16, 2015 [7 favorites]
five fresh fish: "I can not imagine that moderation has done anything at all to fight bigotry. It silences it. It does not educate. The bigot learns nothing. Their surface behavior might change, but only on MeFi."
Sorry, I thought it was understood that I was talking specifically about just that: fighting bigotry on MeFi.
posted by Bugbread at 6:32 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Sorry, I thought it was understood that I was talking specifically about just that: fighting bigotry on MeFi.
posted by Bugbread at 6:32 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
As many people have explained over and over in this thread, for them, because of race, gender, sexual expression, etc the very process of being in the daily world is a threat. Any day could end with a rape or a board to the face or the loss of your job or housing or children or any one of a thousand lesser problems. And if you think that the possibility that you might end up feeling bad because of some ignorant thing you wrote on the internet stacks up to that, well, I don't know what to tell you.
I agree with this, and I want to emphasize that one of the "thousand lesser problems" is that people will use the arguments they read online to justify not hiring you, not renting to you, voting for politicians who will pass legislation against you, writing letters to the editor of your local paper encouraging others to discriminate against you, taunting your kids for your "lifestyle," not intervening when their kids bully your kids, etc. Arguments on public websites are public, and arguments on public websites help define what's considered an "acceptable" argument.
I know it can seem a stretch that what someone writes on MetaFilter creates a murder or rape or other hate crime. But (1.) studies have shown that "harmless" bigotry encourages more bigotry and encourages hate crimes, creating an environment where truly bad actors think everyone agrees with their bigoted views; and (2.) people who have to worry about hate crimes end up edging toward full fight-flight-flee-alert when speech that might activate such attitudes gets trotted out, so even if the speaker has no plans to engage in rape or physical gay-bashing or some other hate crime, the readers of that speech are smart enough to know that when such speech is allowed, the ripple effects include increased violence against them.
There is a direct link between speech and action. It is not "oversensitive" that the people most at-risk for discriminatory speech turning into violence are highly attuned to the gradations of discriminatory speech. It's "just a website" or "just the internet" for people whose health -- financial, psychological, physical -- doesn't depend on other people being non-discriminatory.
posted by jaguar at 6:36 PM on June 16, 2015 [40 favorites]
I agree with this, and I want to emphasize that one of the "thousand lesser problems" is that people will use the arguments they read online to justify not hiring you, not renting to you, voting for politicians who will pass legislation against you, writing letters to the editor of your local paper encouraging others to discriminate against you, taunting your kids for your "lifestyle," not intervening when their kids bully your kids, etc. Arguments on public websites are public, and arguments on public websites help define what's considered an "acceptable" argument.
I know it can seem a stretch that what someone writes on MetaFilter creates a murder or rape or other hate crime. But (1.) studies have shown that "harmless" bigotry encourages more bigotry and encourages hate crimes, creating an environment where truly bad actors think everyone agrees with their bigoted views; and (2.) people who have to worry about hate crimes end up edging toward full fight-flight-flee-alert when speech that might activate such attitudes gets trotted out, so even if the speaker has no plans to engage in rape or physical gay-bashing or some other hate crime, the readers of that speech are smart enough to know that when such speech is allowed, the ripple effects include increased violence against them.
There is a direct link between speech and action. It is not "oversensitive" that the people most at-risk for discriminatory speech turning into violence are highly attuned to the gradations of discriminatory speech. It's "just a website" or "just the internet" for people whose health -- financial, psychological, physical -- doesn't depend on other people being non-discriminatory.
posted by jaguar at 6:36 PM on June 16, 2015 [40 favorites]
> I can not imagine that moderation has done anything at all to fight bigotry. It silences it. It does not educate. The bigot learns nothing. Their surface behavior might change, but only on MeFi.
Good enough. The world is full of opportunities for learning, and if other people out there have more patience and more connection to the person, then great. MeFi is many things, but it is not the last bastion of Educating Bigots out of Bigotry, and it doesn't have to be.
Shorter: They don't have to go home, but they can't stay here. With the bigoted statements.
posted by rtha at 6:37 PM on June 16, 2015 [10 favorites]
Good enough. The world is full of opportunities for learning, and if other people out there have more patience and more connection to the person, then great. MeFi is many things, but it is not the last bastion of Educating Bigots out of Bigotry, and it doesn't have to be.
Shorter: They don't have to go home, but they can't stay here. With the bigoted statements.
posted by rtha at 6:37 PM on June 16, 2015 [10 favorites]
I can not imagine that moderation has done anything at all to fight bigotry. It silences it. It does not educate. The bigot learns nothing.
This is untrue. They learn that their bigoted opinions are not socially acceptable. They learn that in some places, their views are not welcome. They learn not to express those views in some contexts. The people who are the subject of those views are then not forced to bear witness to them in those contexts. Those are clear and real benefits.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 6:45 PM on June 16, 2015 [39 favorites]
This is untrue. They learn that their bigoted opinions are not socially acceptable. They learn that in some places, their views are not welcome. They learn not to express those views in some contexts. The people who are the subject of those views are then not forced to bear witness to them in those contexts. Those are clear and real benefits.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 6:45 PM on June 16, 2015 [39 favorites]
Like, if a child is smearing feces all over the room, the important thing is that the feces stop getting smeared all over the room. Education about why it's unsanitary can come later.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:47 PM on June 16, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:47 PM on June 16, 2015 [7 favorites]
Plus, c'mon, we're talking about one deleted social justicy thread out of...how much of MeFi's front page is about race, gender, or sexuality? Moderation is only impacting like less than 1% of MeFi's total bigotry-related output.
posted by Bugbread at 6:48 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Bugbread at 6:48 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Like, if a child is smearing feces all over the room, the important thing is that the feces stop getting smeared all over the room. Education about why it's unsanitary can come later.
Oh, gods. Is that a thing?! Please tell me that is not a thing. This is why I don't have children.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 6:49 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Oh, gods. Is that a thing?! Please tell me that is not a thing. This is why I don't have children.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 6:49 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
If the worst thing that happens to you today is that one person on the Internet vaguely alludes to you being a bigot by erasing a comment you made, then I'm willing to bet that you have a pretty fuckin' good life, all in all.
posted by Etrigan at 6:49 PM on June 16, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by Etrigan at 6:49 PM on June 16, 2015 [8 favorites]
also it is gross and demoralizing to constantly be walking into a room smeared with feces. also if there are feces being smeared all the time, it is hard to use that room for other stuff like board game night or guest microbiology lectures for people who have already passed "understanding feces are unsanitary 101"
posted by kagredon at 6:50 PM on June 16, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by kagredon at 6:50 PM on June 16, 2015 [8 favorites]
Oh, gods. Is that a thing?! Please tell me that is not a thing. This is why I don't have children.
Oh, oh yes. Poop is like fingerpaint that YOUR BODY MAKES OMG. Diaper-age kids totally do this.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:51 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Oh, oh yes. Poop is like fingerpaint that YOUR BODY MAKES OMG. Diaper-age kids totally do this.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:51 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
this feckless fecal analogy has got some potential
posted by kagredon at 6:52 PM on June 16, 2015 [11 favorites]
posted by kagredon at 6:52 PM on June 16, 2015 [11 favorites]
His thoughts were red thoughts: "Oh, gods. Is that a thing?! Please tell me that is not a thing. This is why I don't have children."
Don't worry, it's not a thing. With enough people, I'm sure it's happened somewhere, but it's not, in general, a thing.
posted by Bugbread at 6:52 PM on June 16, 2015
Don't worry, it's not a thing. With enough people, I'm sure it's happened somewhere, but it's not, in general, a thing.
posted by Bugbread at 6:52 PM on June 16, 2015
Some believe the answer to bad speech is more speech.
Notice, the it's not "The answer to bad speech is good speech."
There's a marketplace of ideas. People throw out what they believe or think and the ideas that work for the collective stick. The crap comments get refuted and perhaps shamed and maybe there are repercussions for the crap ideas. Hopefully some learn.
I believe this.
I pay money because I believe this.
The last time I put up cash was to defend a trans-woman skeptic atheist who was going after a faith healer. So I find it super ironic when it is suggested, perhaps speech is inherently important, people jump to bigotry as the reason one would defend speech. Some say they resent an increase in moderation, and I would suggest we not assume they are bigoted assholes because they do.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:53 PM on June 16, 2015 [10 favorites]
Notice, the it's not "The answer to bad speech is good speech."
There's a marketplace of ideas. People throw out what they believe or think and the ideas that work for the collective stick. The crap comments get refuted and perhaps shamed and maybe there are repercussions for the crap ideas. Hopefully some learn.
I believe this.
I pay money because I believe this.
The last time I put up cash was to defend a trans-woman skeptic atheist who was going after a faith healer. So I find it super ironic when it is suggested, perhaps speech is inherently important, people jump to bigotry as the reason one would defend speech. Some say they resent an increase in moderation, and I would suggest we not assume they are bigoted assholes because they do.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:53 PM on June 16, 2015 [10 favorites]
Aw, dammit, now I want to go to AskMe and get to the bottom of this. None of the parents I commiserated with when my kids were babies ever said anything about poop fingerpainting, but now I'm wondering if it's a regional thing, or if the people around me are just statistical outliers, or what.
Now, crayon? That's a thing.
posted by Bugbread at 6:54 PM on June 16, 2015
Now, crayon? That's a thing.
posted by Bugbread at 6:54 PM on June 16, 2015
maybe someone is just fecklessly mongering some fecal fear
posted by Jacqueline at 6:57 PM on June 16, 2015 [15 favorites]
posted by Jacqueline at 6:57 PM on June 16, 2015 [15 favorites]
Oh, gods. Is that a thing?!
It's certainly a potential thing. We've avoided it for all of our kids, but I've heard horror stories.
Perhaps appropriately to this anology, there's also no reasoning to make it better. I know someone who resorted to some sort of tape solution to keep the diaper on. It wasn't ideal, but it kept things from descending to crazy town.
posted by SpacemanStix at 6:57 PM on June 16, 2015
It's certainly a potential thing. We've avoided it for all of our kids, but I've heard horror stories.
Perhaps appropriately to this anology, there's also no reasoning to make it better. I know someone who resorted to some sort of tape solution to keep the diaper on. It wasn't ideal, but it kept things from descending to crazy town.
posted by SpacemanStix at 6:57 PM on June 16, 2015
fight-flight-flee-alert
Pedantic need to correct myself. Meant to write "fight-flight-freeze." I actually do know that "flight" and "flee" are the same thing.
Carry on.
posted by jaguar at 6:57 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Pedantic need to correct myself. Meant to write "fight-flight-freeze." I actually do know that "flight" and "flee" are the same thing.
Carry on.
posted by jaguar at 6:57 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
My little nipper is still too young for poo-painting, but can confirm that my bestie's youngest went through a phase (age three?) of doing this on the regular. A good time was had by all.
posted by amorphatist at 7:00 PM on June 16, 2015
posted by amorphatist at 7:00 PM on June 16, 2015
Why are you people afraid to let shit-smeared walls compete in the marketplace of ideas
posted by prize bull octorok at 7:01 PM on June 16, 2015 [19 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 7:01 PM on June 16, 2015 [19 favorites]
I was a lipstick kid.
posted by clavdivs at 7:03 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by clavdivs at 7:03 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
"It's certainly a potential thing. We've avoided it for all of our kids, but I've heard horror stories."
I babysat for a toddler who did this. Possibly because I was a teen boy and most likely because my mother is the kind of person she is, I called her in a panic about the vast amounts of baby shit smeared over a wide variety of surfaces and she came over and cleaned it up while I watched television.
I need to thank my mom again for that, probably.
Years later, in mid-life, she became a pediatric RN and worked in a children's hospital for a couple of years and let's just say that explosive baby diarrhea can and will go in exactly the very last place you'd ever want it to.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 7:03 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
I babysat for a toddler who did this. Possibly because I was a teen boy and most likely because my mother is the kind of person she is, I called her in a panic about the vast amounts of baby shit smeared over a wide variety of surfaces and she came over and cleaned it up while I watched television.
I need to thank my mom again for that, probably.
Years later, in mid-life, she became a pediatric RN and worked in a children's hospital for a couple of years and let's just say that explosive baby diarrhea can and will go in exactly the very last place you'd ever want it to.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 7:03 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
I work in a field with adults with severe mental illness. The possibility of someone smearing feces on the wall does not end when that someone becomes an adult. It's a pretty strong message.
posted by jaguar at 7:05 PM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by jaguar at 7:05 PM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
Oh, gods. Is that a thing?! Please tell me that is not a thing. This is why I don't have children.
so i know there's a certain discouragement of people who were children answering parenting questions, but reader, i was that child. also - just for the extra level that babies can take shit (haha) to - this phase is also the oral phase, so you just work that puzzle out on your own.
posted by nadawi at 7:06 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
so i know there's a certain discouragement of people who were children answering parenting questions, but reader, i was that child. also - just for the extra level that babies can take shit (haha) to - this phase is also the oral phase, so you just work that puzzle out on your own.
posted by nadawi at 7:06 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
so i know there's a certain discouragement of people who were children answering parenting questions, but reader, i was that child. also - just for the extra level that babies can take shit (haha) to - this phase is also the oral phase, so you just work that puzzle out on your own.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 7:08 PM on June 16, 2015 [12 favorites]
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 7:08 PM on June 16, 2015 [12 favorites]
let's just say that explosive baby diarrhea can and will go in exactly the very last place you'd ever want it to.
spit up too! when i was working at a mall portrait studio a mom was burping her kid, we all heard the spit up sound but couldn't find the evidence (always a bad sign). after the session, after the sales, during the ring up - so, eh, 45 minutes later -she reached into her pocket to pull out her coupon and came back with a hand dripping with baby goo.
posted by nadawi at 7:08 PM on June 16, 2015
spit up too! when i was working at a mall portrait studio a mom was burping her kid, we all heard the spit up sound but couldn't find the evidence (always a bad sign). after the session, after the sales, during the ring up - so, eh, 45 minutes later -she reached into her pocket to pull out her coupon and came back with a hand dripping with baby goo.
posted by nadawi at 7:08 PM on June 16, 2015
Why are you people afraid to let shit-smeared walls compete in the marketplace of ideas
Actually, there's quite a history to this.
posted by amorphatist at 7:09 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Actually, there's quite a history to this.
posted by amorphatist at 7:09 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
"...so i know there's a certain discouragement of people who were children answering parenting questions"
I mostly only trust parenting advice that comes from androids or Athena.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 7:10 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
I mostly only trust parenting advice that comes from androids or Athena.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 7:10 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
(I honestly didn't mean to derail this into a major discussion of kiddypoopin)
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:10 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:10 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
i'm suddenly remembering every shit, puke, and other bodily fluid story that growing up in a reproductively enthusiastic community, and then working 10+ years at a portrait studio, leaves you with.
i'll see myself out.
posted by nadawi at 7:10 PM on June 16, 2015
i'll see myself out.
posted by nadawi at 7:10 PM on June 16, 2015
On the buttoning-out thing, it might be wise to consider that Metafilter isn't entirely a private club and people who cannot (or can no longer) log in can still read everything.
posted by Bringer Tom at 7:12 PM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Bringer Tom at 7:12 PM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
His thoughts were red thoughts: "Oh, gods. Is that a thing?! Please tell me that is not a thing. This is why I don't have children."
Don't worry, it's not a thing. With enough people, I'm sure it's happened somewhere, but it's not, in general, a thing.
posted by Bugbread at 9:52 PM on June 16 [+] [!]
It may not be too much of a thing with young children, but its definitely a thing with grandparents that have Alzheimers. Source: my grandfather (in more ways than one)
posted by disclaimer at 7:24 PM on June 16, 2015
Don't worry, it's not a thing. With enough people, I'm sure it's happened somewhere, but it's not, in general, a thing.
posted by Bugbread at 9:52 PM on June 16 [+] [!]
It may not be too much of a thing with young children, but its definitely a thing with grandparents that have Alzheimers. Source: my grandfather (in more ways than one)
posted by disclaimer at 7:24 PM on June 16, 2015
Wow, what the hell happened to this thread while I was at work?
posted by desjardins at 7:36 PM on June 16, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by desjardins at 7:36 PM on June 16, 2015 [8 favorites]
Years later, in mid-life, she became a pediatric RN and worked in a children's hospital for a couple of years and let's just say that explosive baby diarrhea can and will go in exactly the very last place you'd ever want it to.
My soup?
posted by phearlez at 7:38 PM on June 16, 2015
My soup?
posted by phearlez at 7:38 PM on June 16, 2015
Wow, what the hell happened to this thread while I was at work?
Don't keep an eye on them for just one instant and....
posted by Drinky Die at 7:39 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Don't keep an eye on them for just one instant and....
posted by Drinky Die at 7:39 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Wow, what the hell happened to this thread while I was at work?
Shit got real.
posted by naju at 7:41 PM on June 16, 2015 [40 favorites]
Shit got real.
posted by naju at 7:41 PM on June 16, 2015 [40 favorites]
(I honestly didn't mean to derail this into a major discussion of kiddypoopin)
It's an improvement on the original thread.
posted by sebastienbailard at 7:42 PM on June 16, 2015 [10 favorites]
It's an improvement on the original thread.
posted by sebastienbailard at 7:42 PM on June 16, 2015 [10 favorites]
Shit got real.
it HURTS to snort wine out your nose
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:43 PM on June 16, 2015 [18 favorites]
it HURTS to snort wine out your nose
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:43 PM on June 16, 2015 [18 favorites]
We don't allow recipes, but we allow scat derails? Filed away for future poo flinging.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:44 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by cjorgensen at 7:44 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Well, poop is the result of recipes.
posted by futz at 7:47 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by futz at 7:47 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Frankly I'm so pleased to have a break from the contention that I'm not inclined to interfere if folks want a brief timeout.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 7:48 PM on June 16, 2015 [42 favorites]
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 7:48 PM on June 16, 2015 [42 favorites]
Wow, what the hell happened to this thread while I was at work?
*points to fffm*
posted by SpacemanStix at 7:49 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
*points to fffm*
posted by SpacemanStix at 7:49 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
*points to fffm*
ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ
Fecal fearmongers are gonna monger fecal fear.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 7:54 PM on June 16, 2015 [10 favorites]
ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ
Fecal fearmongers are gonna monger fecal fear.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 7:54 PM on June 16, 2015 [10 favorites]
Basically, what we're saying here is that we're a tribe of shit-flinging monkeys.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:54 PM on June 16, 2015
posted by five fresh fish at 7:54 PM on June 16, 2015
this is really funny because i finally convinced someone i know to ban people from his blog even when "people aren't taking huge dumps in the comments, but they are taking small dumps in them often"
POOP METAPHORS
posted by NoraReed at 7:55 PM on June 16, 2015 [11 favorites]
POOP METAPHORS
posted by NoraReed at 7:55 PM on June 16, 2015 [11 favorites]
There's some sociological observation here regarding how quickly this conversation changed on a dime with just the right analogy. I find it pretty amazing.
posted by SpacemanStix at 7:56 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by SpacemanStix at 7:56 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Shit FLINGING? I believe we were discussing smearing it on walls, thank you. We are shit ARTISTS.
posted by phearlez at 7:58 PM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by phearlez at 7:58 PM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
But but butt butt. Scat duel.
There's no way I'm clicking on that.
I might get rick-rolled.
posted by SpacemanStix at 7:59 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
There's no way I'm clicking on that.
I might get rick-rolled.
posted by SpacemanStix at 7:59 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Frankly I'm so pleased to have a break from the contention that I'm not inclined to interfere if folks want a brief timeout.
A little poop sorbet to clear the palate, if you will
posted by prize bull octorok at 8:00 PM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
A little poop sorbet to clear the palate, if you will
posted by prize bull octorok at 8:00 PM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
Fecal fearmongers are gonna monger fecal fear.
Fecklessly, even! I was just riffing on KathrynT (? I think it was KathrynT) and her thing about shit milkshakes. The eponywhatever just kinda worked out without me thinking about it or intending to, which is pretty close to feckless.
In conclusion, poop is funny.
(All that said I kind of worry if the people who were personally attacked by the horseshit in the 100 comment thread and in this one are mainly thinking "Oh thank fuck, a break, poop is funny" or "you assbags went from hashing out something important to talking about poop because one assbag made a poop metaphor." If the latter is the majority of the thinking, I am truly sorry for starting it.)
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:01 PM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
Fecklessly, even! I was just riffing on KathrynT (? I think it was KathrynT) and her thing about shit milkshakes. The eponywhatever just kinda worked out without me thinking about it or intending to, which is pretty close to feckless.
In conclusion, poop is funny.
(All that said I kind of worry if the people who were personally attacked by the horseshit in the 100 comment thread and in this one are mainly thinking "Oh thank fuck, a break, poop is funny" or "you assbags went from hashing out something important to talking about poop because one assbag made a poop metaphor." If the latter is the majority of the thinking, I am truly sorry for starting it.)
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:01 PM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
I'd argue that this kind of thing is needed from time to time to bring some levity to the tension. It actually helps, even if unintentionally. So, thanks!
posted by SpacemanStix at 8:04 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by SpacemanStix at 8:04 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Buncha Johnny-poop-latelies, y'all are.
Johnnies-poop-lately?
posted by nom de poop at 8:04 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Johnnies-poop-lately?
posted by nom de poop at 8:04 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
This certainly gives a new flavor to the unrelated comment I left in the middle of the kiddiepoop derail.
posted by Bringer Tom at 8:05 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Bringer Tom at 8:05 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'd argue that this kind of thing is needed from time to time to bring some levity to the tension. It actually helps, even if unintentionally.
Well yeah, and I think so too. And I'm neither trans (and people who are should never have been dragged into this nonsense in the first place!) nor a person of colour, so I think whether or not I think it's funny/necessary really isn't relevant. (I don't know your story so I am decidedly not saying whether or not your opinion is relevant.)
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:10 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Well yeah, and I think so too. And I'm neither trans (and people who are should never have been dragged into this nonsense in the first place!) nor a person of colour, so I think whether or not I think it's funny/necessary really isn't relevant. (I don't know your story so I am decidedly not saying whether or not your opinion is relevant.)
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:10 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
So now I'm watching the poopy suit scene from the Starfighters episode of MST3K, because the power of this thread compelled me. Thanks a lot, fffm.
posted by bakerina at 8:12 PM on June 16, 2015
posted by bakerina at 8:12 PM on June 16, 2015
one aims to please
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:14 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:14 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Endeavours to give satisfaction, fffm. Endeavours to give satisfaction.
posted by uosuaq at 8:19 PM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by uosuaq at 8:19 PM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
I was going to scroll up to see how this whole derail started but instead I'm going to close the tab and go to bed. Y'all are gross.
posted by desjardins at 8:28 PM on June 16, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by desjardins at 8:28 PM on June 16, 2015 [7 favorites]
Buncha Johnny-poop-latelies, y'all are.
Johnnies-poop-lately?
posted by nom de poop
Be on the look out all you Johnnys/ies out there cause there is a de poop looking to nom nom nom.
posted by futz at 8:30 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Johnnies-poop-lately?
posted by nom de poop
Be on the look out all you Johnnys/ies out there cause there is a de poop looking to nom nom nom.
posted by futz at 8:30 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Has anyone checked the front page recently?
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:36 PM on June 16, 2015
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:36 PM on June 16, 2015
I'm neither trans (and people who are should never have been dragged into this nonsense in the first place!
Seriously, if there's one thing I'm certain of that came from this whole debacle...
posted by sweetkid at 8:38 PM on June 16, 2015
Seriously, if there's one thing I'm certain of that came from this whole debacle...
posted by sweetkid at 8:38 PM on June 16, 2015
Has anyone checked the front page recently?
Uh..?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:40 PM on June 16, 2015
Uh..?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:40 PM on June 16, 2015
The old nastiness was enjoyable. It had a sense of freedom; it was liberal, it was anti-bigotry...
Sometimes. If you were in the right group.
Slurs against trans folks pretty much went unchallenged. Misogyny was rampant. There were high-profile users that disparaged gays and lesbians. Or just women in general. In some cases sexist or racist insults were hurled at other Mefites.
Invisible backpacks are filled with nostalgia for the good ol' days.
posted by zarq at 9:00 PM on June 16, 2015 [22 favorites]
Sometimes. If you were in the right group.
Slurs against trans folks pretty much went unchallenged. Misogyny was rampant. There were high-profile users that disparaged gays and lesbians. Or just women in general. In some cases sexist or racist insults were hurled at other Mefites.
Invisible backpacks are filled with nostalgia for the good ol' days.
posted by zarq at 9:00 PM on June 16, 2015 [22 favorites]
this is really funny because i finally convinced someone i know to ban people from his blog even when "people aren't taking huge dumps in the comments, but they are taking small dumps in them often"
also are we talking a #1 or a #5 on the bristol scale? either way the answer is banning + metamucil
posted by en forme de poire at 9:05 PM on June 16, 2015
also are we talking a #1 or a #5 on the bristol scale? either way the answer is banning + metamucil
posted by en forme de poire at 9:05 PM on June 16, 2015
Remember the hand thread? Not as funny now as fond memory might suggest.
I'd actually recommend not highlighting this one in the site faq, personally.
posted by bonehead at 9:24 PM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
I'd actually recommend not highlighting this one in the site faq, personally.
posted by bonehead at 9:24 PM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
Remember the hand thread? Not as funny now as fond memory might suggest.
Oh dear gods, that thread is horrifying. Really highlights how this place has changed.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 9:28 PM on June 16, 2015 [8 favorites]
Oh dear gods, that thread is horrifying. Really highlights how this place has changed.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 9:28 PM on June 16, 2015 [8 favorites]
bonehead: "Remember the hand thread? Not as funny now as fond memory might suggest."
I never found the thread funny, but the hand bit itself? The "For the record, I bet my right hand against quonsar's lies. Under any amount of torture, he will break first, because he is lying. If I break first, I will surrender my right hand" comment? Still...amazing. Maybe "funny" isn't the right word, but amazing.
posted by Bugbread at 9:34 PM on June 16, 2015
I never found the thread funny, but the hand bit itself? The "For the record, I bet my right hand against quonsar's lies. Under any amount of torture, he will break first, because he is lying. If I break first, I will surrender my right hand" comment? Still...amazing. Maybe "funny" isn't the right word, but amazing.
posted by Bugbread at 9:34 PM on June 16, 2015
Oh holy fuck, bonehead. That's something all these freeze peaches/you're too fragile people need to read.
I'd like to point out, though, that anyone clicking through might be happy to see this comment right after the comment linked in the MeTa.
I noped the goddamn fuck out after reading about three more. NASA will have to spend thirty seven billion dollars researching a whole new branch of math to find a number small enough to measure the fractional seconds which I imagine any female-identified person would spend reading that thread before getting the hell out.
That. That, right there, that is what you people who are whining and complaining about 'the old days,' that is what you want back.
If you can't see why what you want back is, words fail me, gross and wrong and anti-human, then seriously? Go crawl back into your caves.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:34 PM on June 16, 2015 [21 favorites]
I'd like to point out, though, that anyone clicking through might be happy to see this comment right after the comment linked in the MeTa.
I noped the goddamn fuck out after reading about three more. NASA will have to spend thirty seven billion dollars researching a whole new branch of math to find a number small enough to measure the fractional seconds which I imagine any female-identified person would spend reading that thread before getting the hell out.
That. That, right there, that is what you people who are whining and complaining about 'the old days,' that is what you want back.
If you can't see why what you want back is, words fail me, gross and wrong and anti-human, then seriously? Go crawl back into your caves.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:34 PM on June 16, 2015 [21 favorites]
Bugbread: If anyone else is considering pushing the Big Red Button:
1) Greasemonkey
2) The Diediedead script (a killfile script)...
Seriously, site usage is made so much more enjoyable by the above.
Oh God yes, THIS.
I used to have a big thing on my profile page describing almost exactly what you wrote about killfiles (no one probably ever read it, though, and I deleted it for some reason).
Random observation: I've noticed that I tend to killfile people who rarely use capitalization. I wonder if there's a connection between that and being a jerk.
One additional thing: use My Mefi. You can use it to exclude FPPs based on tags, and I have it setup to exclude pretty much every topic that's likely to end up fighty not-fun or circlejerky not-fun. This greasemonkey script will automatically redirect you to it from the homepage, if you're like me and still click the banner to go there.
posted by cosmic.osmo at 9:37 PM on June 16, 2015
1) Greasemonkey
2) The Diediedead script (a killfile script)...
Seriously, site usage is made so much more enjoyable by the above.
Oh God yes, THIS.
I used to have a big thing on my profile page describing almost exactly what you wrote about killfiles (no one probably ever read it, though, and I deleted it for some reason).
Random observation: I've noticed that I tend to killfile people who rarely use capitalization. I wonder if there's a connection between that and being a jerk.
One additional thing: use My Mefi. You can use it to exclude FPPs based on tags, and I have it setup to exclude pretty much every topic that's likely to end up fighty not-fun or circlejerky not-fun. This greasemonkey script will automatically redirect you to it from the homepage, if you're like me and still click the banner to go there.
posted by cosmic.osmo at 9:37 PM on June 16, 2015
I never found the thread funny, but the hand bit itself? The "For the record, I bet my right hand against quonsar's lies. Under any amount of torture, he will break first, because he is lying. If I break first, I will surrender my right hand" comment? Still...amazing. Maybe "funny" isn't the right word, but amazing.
I couldn't stomach the whole thing. How did it end?
Does mathowie have a leathery severed hand mounted on his wall like a deer head?
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 10:00 PM on June 16, 2015
I couldn't stomach the whole thing. How did it end?
Does mathowie have a leathery severed hand mounted on his wall like a deer head?
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 10:00 PM on June 16, 2015
His thoughts were red thoughts: "I couldn't stomach the whole thing. How did it end? "
Son of Minya hit the big red button, and there was much rejoicing.
posted by Bugbread at 10:05 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Son of Minya hit the big red button, and there was much rejoicing.
posted by Bugbread at 10:05 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Does mathowie have a leathery severed hand mounted on his wall like a deer head?
If all our bets were required to play out in meatspace, #1 would have the most fucked up trophy wall ever.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:15 PM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
If all our bets were required to play out in meatspace, #1 would have the most fucked up trophy wall ever.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:15 PM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
I would like to thank taz who talked me down from my bad metatalk post about this deletion. I did not keep a copy but the spirits made me use shitstorm as both a title and a tag.
posted by maggieb at 10:25 PM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by maggieb at 10:25 PM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
When your very being--due to whatever intersections of race, gender identity, and sexual orientation--is constantly under attack, one actively looks for ways to stop being attacked for a while.
I empathize with this deeply, but wish those who believed in this would see their way clear to lowering the frequency of attacks they level at other Mefites, because even if Mefites aren't with every post identifying the complexity of the shit they face on a daily basis, there's a lot of us who are living with a lot of hard shit such that attacks are just the cherry on the shit sandwich.
posted by corb at 10:25 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
I empathize with this deeply, but wish those who believed in this would see their way clear to lowering the frequency of attacks they level at other Mefites, because even if Mefites aren't with every post identifying the complexity of the shit they face on a daily basis, there's a lot of us who are living with a lot of hard shit such that attacks are just the cherry on the shit sandwich.
posted by corb at 10:25 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Perhaps you would be best served by being one of the Mefites who thinks more than they comment.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:31 PM on June 16, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:31 PM on June 16, 2015 [9 favorites]
Sweet scat flinging Jesus - those were the good old days? I only lasted five comments in that hand thread & had to quit.
posted by kanewai at 10:38 PM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by kanewai at 10:38 PM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
Yeah, the hand thread. Lots of poetry bombs and Cortex is funny, but some awful stuff there.
( I bet we won't make 2000)
posted by clavdivs at 10:46 PM on June 16, 2015
( I bet we won't make 2000)
posted by clavdivs at 10:46 PM on June 16, 2015
You know, maxsparber, there is actually a longstanding policy against digging through past comments to quote something said by somebody else as a gotcha *to the author of the past comments*. You know, I didn't do that. But it got deleted anyway, because reasons.
BTW, part of the utility of that policy was to allow people to grow and learn, and to keep people from catching grief just because they grew into a new perspective. Yeah, MetaFilter used to believe that users could learn and grow.
LobsterMitten -- "in this case we're discussing here, this Dolezal situation, what does that quote mean -- do you disagree that this Dolezal thing would have been a huge hurtful fight, or do you just think we should allow threads like that to happen regardless?"
As to what the quote means for this case, to me it's a cogent expression of the idea that MetaFilter is poorer when it grinds out of existence the honest expression of ideas the mods or their favorites don't like. MetaFilter hasn't gotten to discuss a completely fascinating and multifaceted human interest story that touches on ideas lots of us value, because the mods valued quashing unpleasant expression more than they valued the opportunity for discourse this presented.
Dolezal is a one-off. There's no particular threat that MetaFilter is going to have Dolezal threads posted every other day for the next three years. A Dolezal one-off thread with some wtf in it is not a site-damaging pattern to be on guard against. But constantly deleting threads that may upset the milquetoast expectations that have metastasized here sure as hell is.
And I get that people might have a real beef with the author of what I quoted. That doesn't make *what I quoted* less clear, less thoughtful, or less accurate. And LOTS of people did manage to see value in it.
five fresh fish -- "Once again, I wonder what happened to simply not going into threads you don't like."
Yeah, I remember when that was part of the ethos. If you knew a thread was going to get on your nerves, you were free to stop reading it or never start. But now the goal seems to be to for the whole site to be sanded down and nerfed until every cranny is smoothed over and no one has to think that they might face an uncomfortable thought or expression.
Another part of the ethos I remember is that MetaTalk served as MetaFilter's sewer. It was the plumbing that the people in the front of the store didn't have to think about, and if you looked into it then you were expected to find shit in it, because sewers are where shit goes. But no, now MetaTalk needs to sanded down and mirror shined, too. That's a giant mistake, one that jettisons the most important function that MetaTalk ever performed for MetaFilter.
Mods, do you want to know why you're handling so much shit? In part it's because you've killed the utility of the sewer. Allow the sewer to do its job, and the job might be a lot less dirty.
posted by NortonDC at 10:46 PM on June 16, 2015 [9 favorites]
BTW, part of the utility of that policy was to allow people to grow and learn, and to keep people from catching grief just because they grew into a new perspective. Yeah, MetaFilter used to believe that users could learn and grow.
LobsterMitten -- "in this case we're discussing here, this Dolezal situation, what does that quote mean -- do you disagree that this Dolezal thing would have been a huge hurtful fight, or do you just think we should allow threads like that to happen regardless?"
As to what the quote means for this case, to me it's a cogent expression of the idea that MetaFilter is poorer when it grinds out of existence the honest expression of ideas the mods or their favorites don't like. MetaFilter hasn't gotten to discuss a completely fascinating and multifaceted human interest story that touches on ideas lots of us value, because the mods valued quashing unpleasant expression more than they valued the opportunity for discourse this presented.
Dolezal is a one-off. There's no particular threat that MetaFilter is going to have Dolezal threads posted every other day for the next three years. A Dolezal one-off thread with some wtf in it is not a site-damaging pattern to be on guard against. But constantly deleting threads that may upset the milquetoast expectations that have metastasized here sure as hell is.
And I get that people might have a real beef with the author of what I quoted. That doesn't make *what I quoted* less clear, less thoughtful, or less accurate. And LOTS of people did manage to see value in it.
five fresh fish -- "Once again, I wonder what happened to simply not going into threads you don't like."
Yeah, I remember when that was part of the ethos. If you knew a thread was going to get on your nerves, you were free to stop reading it or never start. But now the goal seems to be to for the whole site to be sanded down and nerfed until every cranny is smoothed over and no one has to think that they might face an uncomfortable thought or expression.
Another part of the ethos I remember is that MetaTalk served as MetaFilter's sewer. It was the plumbing that the people in the front of the store didn't have to think about, and if you looked into it then you were expected to find shit in it, because sewers are where shit goes. But no, now MetaTalk needs to sanded down and mirror shined, too. That's a giant mistake, one that jettisons the most important function that MetaTalk ever performed for MetaFilter.
Mods, do you want to know why you're handling so much shit? In part it's because you've killed the utility of the sewer. Allow the sewer to do its job, and the job might be a lot less dirty.
posted by NortonDC at 10:46 PM on June 16, 2015 [9 favorites]
Seriously, the omnipresent self-concern-trolling over "saying the wrong thing" (per Conspire's really good comment upthread) is just so much fucking theatre. All well-meaning people inevitably do say the wrong thing sometimes, to someone, in some context within which they're ignorant. And where there's otherwise a good faith effort to engage, the fuckups are overwhelmingly forgiven if not always forgotten.
posted by threeants at 10:47 PM on June 16, 2015 [13 favorites]
posted by threeants at 10:47 PM on June 16, 2015 [13 favorites]
Corb, are you really that totally oblivious to your own comment history regarding trans folks? There was a meta. You posted it. There have been other instances, including the Coy Mathis thread.
If you want people to not feel attacked, stop attacking them.
posted by zarq at 10:47 PM on June 16, 2015 [22 favorites]
If you want people to not feel attacked, stop attacking them.
posted by zarq at 10:47 PM on June 16, 2015 [22 favorites]
> But now the goal seems to be to for the whole site to be sanded down and nerfed
But now the goal seems to be for the whole site to have less of a "toughen up!" ethos so that people don't have to nope out of a thread because people are being offensively shitty in it.
I stay out of threads about certain topics because they don't interest me. That's quite different from feeling forced out of threads because people are allowed to make rape jokes and gay jokes and be transphobic shitheads. Like, that hand meTa? Sand that shit right the fuck out and good riddance.
posted by rtha at 10:53 PM on June 16, 2015 [28 favorites]
But now the goal seems to be for the whole site to have less of a "toughen up!" ethos so that people don't have to nope out of a thread because people are being offensively shitty in it.
I stay out of threads about certain topics because they don't interest me. That's quite different from feeling forced out of threads because people are allowed to make rape jokes and gay jokes and be transphobic shitheads. Like, that hand meTa? Sand that shit right the fuck out and good riddance.
posted by rtha at 10:53 PM on June 16, 2015 [28 favorites]
kanewai: "Sweet scat flinging Jesus - those were the good old days? I only lasted five comments in that hand thread & had to quit."
Not that the thread ever gets good, but the first part, the quonsar zone, is the worst part. Then the Son_of_Minya part starts, and that's just crazy.
As NortonDC mentions, "Another part of the ethos I remember is that MetaTalk served as MetaFilter's sewer." When people pine for the Good Old Days, they're usually pining for the Blue of yesteryear, and seldom for the Gray of yesteryear.
posted by Bugbread at 10:56 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Not that the thread ever gets good, but the first part, the quonsar zone, is the worst part. Then the Son_of_Minya part starts, and that's just crazy.
As NortonDC mentions, "Another part of the ethos I remember is that MetaTalk served as MetaFilter's sewer." When people pine for the Good Old Days, they're usually pining for the Blue of yesteryear, and seldom for the Gray of yesteryear.
posted by Bugbread at 10:56 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Aw, but this was the ONE place on the internet where people could be reactionary jerks, treat each other like garbage, and enjoy unquestioned casual misogyny. Something precious and irreplaceable has been lost
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:57 PM on June 16, 2015 [34 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:57 PM on June 16, 2015 [34 favorites]
Another part of the ethos I remember is that MetaTalk served as MetaFilter's sewer.
I highly doubt that this was ever site policy, even after seeing the hand thread, so I cordially invite you to back that up.
MeTa is for discussing site policy, and it's more lightly moderated than the blue, but it's not thunderdome.
Even in the unlikely event that it was a 'sewer', it isn't now. And I can't possibly imagine why you would want it to be.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 10:58 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
I highly doubt that this was ever site policy, even after seeing the hand thread, so I cordially invite you to back that up.
MeTa is for discussing site policy, and it's more lightly moderated than the blue, but it's not thunderdome.
Even in the unlikely event that it was a 'sewer', it isn't now. And I can't possibly imagine why you would want it to be.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 10:58 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
...Wow. I've been reading through this "hand thread" to see what Metafilter was like in 2003 before its apparent change in moderation (when was that, exactly?). My usual instinct is to side with those who say "The solution to bad speech is more speech," instead of wanting to preemptively ban things that might seem offensive... but if this is the kind of drawn-out grudge-airing flame war that results from insufficient moderation, then never mind. Mod away.
The mods here are pretty good about deleting comments based on their tone and not content, so they're not purposely enforcing ideological purity anyway. I trust them to delete personal insults regardless of who they're directed at. (Non-insulting snark is biased toward certain opinions, but that's a matter of culture, not top-down control.) Y'all do some unenviable work weeding this stuff out.
By the way, for discussing the race-related issues which the Dolezal incident brings up, but without the complicating factor of a self-described "transracial" person, there's this post.
posted by Rangi at 11:01 PM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
The mods here are pretty good about deleting comments based on their tone and not content, so they're not purposely enforcing ideological purity anyway. I trust them to delete personal insults regardless of who they're directed at. (Non-insulting snark is biased toward certain opinions, but that's a matter of culture, not top-down control.) Y'all do some unenviable work weeding this stuff out.
By the way, for discussing the race-related issues which the Dolezal incident brings up, but without the complicating factor of a self-described "transracial" person, there's this post.
posted by Rangi at 11:01 PM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
en forme de poire: "this is really funny because i finally convinced someone i know to ban people from his blog even when "people aren't taking huge dumps in the comments, but they are taking small dumps in them often"
also are we talking a #1 or a #5 on the bristol scale? either way the answer is banning + metamucil"
Epon-ew-sterical.
posted by gingerest at 11:02 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
also are we talking a #1 or a #5 on the bristol scale? either way the answer is banning + metamucil"
Epon-ew-sterical.
posted by gingerest at 11:02 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
His thoughts were red thoughts: "I highly doubt that this was ever site policy, even after seeing the hand thread, so I cordially invite you to back that up.
MeTa is for discussing site policy, and it's more lightly moderated than the blue, but it's not thunderdome.
Even in the unlikely event that it was a 'sewer', it isn't now. And I can't possibly imagine why you would want it to be."
The expression that got tossed around all the time back then was "release valve". And while it was never site policy, it was understood enough that when people would call it a "release valve", mods wouldn't contradict it. However, I never found it to be remotely effective as a release valve. It just ended up being an incubator.
posted by Bugbread at 11:02 PM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
MeTa is for discussing site policy, and it's more lightly moderated than the blue, but it's not thunderdome.
Even in the unlikely event that it was a 'sewer', it isn't now. And I can't possibly imagine why you would want it to be."
The expression that got tossed around all the time back then was "release valve". And while it was never site policy, it was understood enough that when people would call it a "release valve", mods wouldn't contradict it. However, I never found it to be remotely effective as a release valve. It just ended up being an incubator.
posted by Bugbread at 11:02 PM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
That doesn't make *what I quoted* less clear, less thoughtful, or less accurate.
You are so significantly underinformed that you could not possibly have anything useful to say on this subject. Using that user as an example of someone who left because of an intolerance for a diversity of opinions is so laughable that you could not come to that conclusion if you actually knew what you were talking about.
With every comment you reveal your own ignorance.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:07 PM on June 16, 2015 [7 favorites]
You are so significantly underinformed that you could not possibly have anything useful to say on this subject. Using that user as an example of someone who left because of an intolerance for a diversity of opinions is so laughable that you could not come to that conclusion if you actually knew what you were talking about.
With every comment you reveal your own ignorance.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:07 PM on June 16, 2015 [7 favorites]
I just made on innocent comment about cutting my right hand off, and BAMM! I was banned.
What you do have to realize is that I like Japanese TV shows because I am a Japanese TV show character.
Okay, if you can tolerate the shit-flinging, the thread is actually worth reading for quotes like these.
posted by Rangi at 11:12 PM on June 16, 2015
What you do have to realize is that I like Japanese TV shows because I am a Japanese TV show character.
Okay, if you can tolerate the shit-flinging, the thread is actually worth reading for quotes like these.
posted by Rangi at 11:12 PM on June 16, 2015
zarq: "Invisible backpacks are filled with nostalgia for the good ol' days."
Yep - I agree completely. Just trying to explain that a person can talk about the "good ol' days" and long for what some may call nastiness and really and truly mean it, without reservations, and without believing they're missing something that's bad. That looseness, the ability actually tell people point-blank when we think they're full of shit, felt like a great deal of honesty, felt like power and free discourse; but really it was just an excuse to indulge in something that was more exclusionary and hurtful than we realized.
posted by koeselitz at 11:13 PM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
Yep - I agree completely. Just trying to explain that a person can talk about the "good ol' days" and long for what some may call nastiness and really and truly mean it, without reservations, and without believing they're missing something that's bad. That looseness, the ability actually tell people point-blank when we think they're full of shit, felt like a great deal of honesty, felt like power and free discourse; but really it was just an excuse to indulge in something that was more exclusionary and hurtful than we realized.
posted by koeselitz at 11:13 PM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
Thoughts that moderation has become too restrictive damn sure doesn't mean the other end of the spectrum -- the hand thread -- is the preference. There is such a thing as middle ground, and ground that's much closer to where things are now than to where they were.
This black-or-white stuff is nonsense.
Casting people with concerns about moderation in this crawl-back-in-your-cave light and using a particularly bad example to do so is shrieking sanctimony.
posted by ambient2 at 11:19 PM on June 16, 2015 [12 favorites]
This black-or-white stuff is nonsense.
Casting people with concerns about moderation in this crawl-back-in-your-cave light and using a particularly bad example to do so is shrieking sanctimony.
posted by ambient2 at 11:19 PM on June 16, 2015 [12 favorites]
NortonDC: "Yeah, I remember when that was part of the ethos. If you knew a thread was going to get on your nerves, you were free to stop reading it or never start. But now the goal seems to be to for the whole site to be sanded down and nerfed until every cranny is smoothed over and no one has to think that they might face an uncomfortable thought or expression."
'If you don't like the thread, just ignore it' is the philosophy of cowardice. It's what drags Reddit down every single day. We're not talking about snooker vs darts here; bullying and nastiness are not matters of preference. They shouldn't be tolerated, flat out. This is identical in form and substance to the idea that I shouldn't care that another part of town is ghettoized and poverty-stricken, full of starving people, because 'if you don't like it, just don't go there.'
"Another part of the ethos I remember is that MetaTalk served as MetaFilter's sewer. It was the plumbing that the people in the front of the store didn't have to think about, and if you looked into it then you were expected to find shit in it, because sewers are where shit goes. But no, now MetaTalk needs to sanded down and mirror shined, too. That's a giant mistake, one that jettisons the most important function that MetaTalk ever performed for MetaFilter."
The giant mistake was ever believing that problems would go away if you stick them in that ghetto and try to ignore them. I'm aware that this is the dominant ethos of our time - at least here in America, where we toss anybody who ever causes us any trouble (and some who don't, for good measure) in prison and forget about them - but it absolutely never worked on Metafilter. We'd try to do that, try to be nice in main threads and ugly on the gray, but it didn't work, because meanness on the gray is still meanness even if the background is a different color. That's why huge threads became the norm - because we'd just fight and brawl and hate on each other, and finally it became too much and some rather brave people spoke up and pointed out that it wasn't really working, this whole thing we thought made sense.
You're sanitizing the past, whitewashing it and making it sound like it worked much better than it actually did. It's ironic, because you've done to your memory of Metafilter the same thing you accuse us of trying to do to the current form of Metafilter: you've sanded off the edges, nerfed it, smoothed it over, until it sits in your mind as a gleaming example of what could have been and ought to be.
But there were serious problems. I was there. I remember. There were fights and brawls and very angry hate-spewing. We took that as proper discourse back then, a signifier that we were engaging in freedom of expression. What we didn't realize - what you're still apparently denying - is that we were hurting a lot of people in acting like that. We didn't know it, we didn't see ourselves as bigots, we didn't see ourselves as hateful; but every loud argument where I told some random that they were full of shit and should shut up about things they don't understand was not just hurtful to the person I was talking about but to all the participants, particularly those less advantaged who'd been cowed by hearing that kind of language their whole lives. My acting like that was a symbol to them that they were not welcome here.
I'm glad some of them spoke up about it, and I'm glad we had a lot of long discussions about what that means. Because it was a huge part of my growth as an adult.
posted by koeselitz at 11:27 PM on June 16, 2015 [39 favorites]
'If you don't like the thread, just ignore it' is the philosophy of cowardice. It's what drags Reddit down every single day. We're not talking about snooker vs darts here; bullying and nastiness are not matters of preference. They shouldn't be tolerated, flat out. This is identical in form and substance to the idea that I shouldn't care that another part of town is ghettoized and poverty-stricken, full of starving people, because 'if you don't like it, just don't go there.'
"Another part of the ethos I remember is that MetaTalk served as MetaFilter's sewer. It was the plumbing that the people in the front of the store didn't have to think about, and if you looked into it then you were expected to find shit in it, because sewers are where shit goes. But no, now MetaTalk needs to sanded down and mirror shined, too. That's a giant mistake, one that jettisons the most important function that MetaTalk ever performed for MetaFilter."
The giant mistake was ever believing that problems would go away if you stick them in that ghetto and try to ignore them. I'm aware that this is the dominant ethos of our time - at least here in America, where we toss anybody who ever causes us any trouble (and some who don't, for good measure) in prison and forget about them - but it absolutely never worked on Metafilter. We'd try to do that, try to be nice in main threads and ugly on the gray, but it didn't work, because meanness on the gray is still meanness even if the background is a different color. That's why huge threads became the norm - because we'd just fight and brawl and hate on each other, and finally it became too much and some rather brave people spoke up and pointed out that it wasn't really working, this whole thing we thought made sense.
You're sanitizing the past, whitewashing it and making it sound like it worked much better than it actually did. It's ironic, because you've done to your memory of Metafilter the same thing you accuse us of trying to do to the current form of Metafilter: you've sanded off the edges, nerfed it, smoothed it over, until it sits in your mind as a gleaming example of what could have been and ought to be.
But there were serious problems. I was there. I remember. There were fights and brawls and very angry hate-spewing. We took that as proper discourse back then, a signifier that we were engaging in freedom of expression. What we didn't realize - what you're still apparently denying - is that we were hurting a lot of people in acting like that. We didn't know it, we didn't see ourselves as bigots, we didn't see ourselves as hateful; but every loud argument where I told some random that they were full of shit and should shut up about things they don't understand was not just hurtful to the person I was talking about but to all the participants, particularly those less advantaged who'd been cowed by hearing that kind of language their whole lives. My acting like that was a symbol to them that they were not welcome here.
I'm glad some of them spoke up about it, and I'm glad we had a lot of long discussions about what that means. Because it was a huge part of my growth as an adult.
posted by koeselitz at 11:27 PM on June 16, 2015 [39 favorites]
As the #1 cited person as causing problems in the biggest deleted post, I really strongly suggest that you read through why certain comments are not okay and look at your own in that light. Or to put it more bluntly: you are a lot of the reason why that post was deleted. Please think about why that is. Protip: it's not because you have some Big Truth that we don't see.
...Sure, I can do that. I thought the issue was people being outright racist and transphobic. Guess I was wrong.
Casting people with concerns about moderation in this crawl-back-in-your-cave light and using a particularly bad example to do so is shrieking sanctimony.
That's definitely not what I was trying to say. I know that people can (and have) made complaints about current moderation without secretly wanting to have that worst-case scenario. I just found it worth noting as an example of the far lasseiz faire end of the moderation spectrum, regardless of whether today's moderation is too far on the strict end.
posted by Rangi at 11:27 PM on June 16, 2015
...Sure, I can do that. I thought the issue was people being outright racist and transphobic. Guess I was wrong.
Casting people with concerns about moderation in this crawl-back-in-your-cave light and using a particularly bad example to do so is shrieking sanctimony.
That's definitely not what I was trying to say. I know that people can (and have) made complaints about current moderation without secretly wanting to have that worst-case scenario. I just found it worth noting as an example of the far lasseiz faire end of the moderation spectrum, regardless of whether today's moderation is too far on the strict end.
posted by Rangi at 11:27 PM on June 16, 2015
The thing with the idea that MeTa is the sewer is that the point of sewers is that you don't have to interact with them. It was more like the street that people emptied chamberpots into, except the contents of those pots generally were aimed primarily at women, trans folks, and members of other marginalized groups.
Also I really do not want this to turn into The Corb Show, because I really think there have been more episodes of that than every American soap opera combined, but it's really hard when the mods are continuing to allow her to continue taking these transphobic and/or racist dumps in threads on a fairly regular basis. The amount of disruption and grief she manages to cause both here and on the Blue eclipses any other user I can think of, and it just makes me tired.
posted by NoraReed at 11:27 PM on June 16, 2015 [11 favorites]
Also I really do not want this to turn into The Corb Show, because I really think there have been more episodes of that than every American soap opera combined, but it's really hard when the mods are continuing to allow her to continue taking these transphobic and/or racist dumps in threads on a fairly regular basis. The amount of disruption and grief she manages to cause both here and on the Blue eclipses any other user I can think of, and it just makes me tired.
posted by NoraReed at 11:27 PM on June 16, 2015 [11 favorites]
how I feel right now
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:39 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:39 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Funny, those decrying the hand thread weren't even members then.
It has no bearing on commentary, son of minya does Eddie Munster etc.
The key is not to participate in threads like that one 12 years ago. I wanna give the community (then) a break to say it was a pressure valve esp. With the war and all.
How's that worked out. Contention is up but its a bigger site...
Bunch of yatta from 2003 being hoisted once again for what?
Use your own era. That ones dead.
posted by clavdivs at 11:40 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
It has no bearing on commentary, son of minya does Eddie Munster etc.
The key is not to participate in threads like that one 12 years ago. I wanna give the community (then) a break to say it was a pressure valve esp. With the war and all.
How's that worked out. Contention is up but its a bigger site...
Bunch of yatta from 2003 being hoisted once again for what?
Use your own era. That ones dead.
posted by clavdivs at 11:40 PM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Bunch of yatta from 2003 being hoisted once again for what?
Use your own era. That ones dead.
Er, yes. That is the point. Stop longing for the 'good old days'. They're not coming back, and they weren't that good.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 11:51 PM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
Use your own era. That ones dead.
Er, yes. That is the point. Stop longing for the 'good old days'. They're not coming back, and they weren't that good.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 11:51 PM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
A couple of comments deleted. FFFM, you need to dial it waaaaay back.
posted by taz (staff) at 11:53 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by taz (staff) at 11:53 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
You were one of the people being outright racist and transphobic, Rangi. So you were right about the issue. Now look at yourself.
Excuse me? I just checked that thread again to be sure of what I said, and nowhere am I claiming that one race is superior to another, or that trans men/women are not really men/women and just have a mental disorder, or that one drop of black blood makes you black, or that a trans person without bottom surgery is somehow lying. That would be racist and transphobic. I was saying the exact opposite of all of that. I am totally accepting of trans and non-binary genders, and am insulted that you're saying I was being transphobic. And if I was too quick to analogize to "transracialism" and give Ms. Dolezal the benefit of the doubt, instead of immediately condemning her for "blackface," that may put me in the minority, but it doesn't make me racist. (Thank you to those who politely explained why the analogy doesn't work, I thought about things after the thread was deleted and appreciate the correction.)
I probably won't post in the new thread on race issues—I don't want to offend people and see it derailed or deleted, and I'm not certain enough of my own opinions to think that they need to be expressed—but I take offense to being insulted for not entering a thread with already 100% orthodox beliefs.
posted by Rangi at 11:58 PM on June 16, 2015 [7 favorites]
Excuse me? I just checked that thread again to be sure of what I said, and nowhere am I claiming that one race is superior to another, or that trans men/women are not really men/women and just have a mental disorder, or that one drop of black blood makes you black, or that a trans person without bottom surgery is somehow lying. That would be racist and transphobic. I was saying the exact opposite of all of that. I am totally accepting of trans and non-binary genders, and am insulted that you're saying I was being transphobic. And if I was too quick to analogize to "transracialism" and give Ms. Dolezal the benefit of the doubt, instead of immediately condemning her for "blackface," that may put me in the minority, but it doesn't make me racist. (Thank you to those who politely explained why the analogy doesn't work, I thought about things after the thread was deleted and appreciate the correction.)
I probably won't post in the new thread on race issues—I don't want to offend people and see it derailed or deleted, and I'm not certain enough of my own opinions to think that they need to be expressed—but I take offense to being insulted for not entering a thread with already 100% orthodox beliefs.
posted by Rangi at 11:58 PM on June 16, 2015 [7 favorites]
It is possible that listing all the different types of beliefs that are transphobic or racist isn't the best approach to this, Rangi? (I know that given my history this is gonna sound sarcastic, but I'm not. NO BURGER.) You're doing the thing where you are getting personally offended when people are telling you to get off their foot. It's unhelpful.
posted by NoraReed at 12:18 AM on June 17, 2015 [13 favorites]
posted by NoraReed at 12:18 AM on June 17, 2015 [13 favorites]
Excuse me? I just checked that thread again to be sure of what I said, and nowhere am I claiming that one race is superior to another, or that trans men/women are not really men/women and just have a mental disorder, or that one drop of black blood makes you black, or that a trans person without bottom surgery is somehow lying. That would be racist and transphobic.
No. What trans people say is transphobic is transphobic. Not what you decide is.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:25 AM on June 17, 2015 [14 favorites]
No. What trans people say is transphobic is transphobic. Not what you decide is.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:25 AM on June 17, 2015 [14 favorites]
I would be hard pressed to think of a user who gets criticized more regularly, anyway it turns out the power to roll credits on the corb show was within us all along
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:27 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:27 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
And now I'm with Justinian on deletions here. Overkill. And am willing to share via memail my comments that were deleted.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:27 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:27 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Honestly, Rangi, I don't think you're understanding what Feckless and Nora Reed are saying. And, honestly, Feckless and Nora Reed, I don't think you're understanding what Rangi is saying. And having seen enough of this particular stripe of communication breakdown, I think the odds of y'all talking about the issue enough that you all say, "Oh, you meant X! Oh, okay, never mind then!" is basically zilch. So my advice would be for you all to give up this particular mini-line of discussion in this one thread, and try to clear your memory counter of it so that the next interaction isn't pretainted. And if next time you come to the same conclusions about each other, then you may be onto something.
That's what it looks like to me, at least.
posted by Bugbread at 12:35 AM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
That's what it looks like to me, at least.
posted by Bugbread at 12:35 AM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
A couple of comments deleted. Okay, have it your way and take some time off, FFFM.
posted by taz (staff) at 12:36 AM on June 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by taz (staff) at 12:36 AM on June 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
"So the strident resistance in some quarters to a change in moderation essentially is an endorsement of bigotry, because the new moderation policies are aimed directly at bigotry."
No. That's only true to the extent that any given moderation decision is the only way to diminish expressed bigotry. Framing it like that eliminates the possibility of discussing moderation decisions.
"And, as I've said elsewhere, I am getting increasingly impatient with the idea that people's motives matter more than the effects of their actions -- it doesn't really matter if a member is a closeted misogynist or someone who is genuinely clueless and enjoys arguing; if they are driving women off the site, it's their problem, and they need to fix it."
I'm really sympathetic to this view — I've voiced it before — but there are a lot of limits to it as an ethos. That effects matter more than intentions doesn't mean that intentions don't matter, especially for discussions of community norms. It's also not something that's as opaque as you imply in a later comment — while we can't know people's intentions perfectly, we know many of them as well as we know the effects: through personal statement. This is something that a lot of people pushing for more stringent moderation already act consistently with — otherwise a lot of the snark from people who support more stringent moderation wouldn't be tolerated. Intentions are treated as if they matter all the time here.
The other reason why intention is important and reflexively reducing this to a With Us or Against Us cry against bigotry has some significant costs is because persuasion is hugely more efficient than intervention (to say nothing of healthier for the community), and intent matters in persuading someone else to change their behavior. If you you reduce objections to shifts in moderation policy to being an endorsement of bigotry, someone who is not intending to endorse bigotry will either conclude that you're not talking about their particular comment or that you are insulting them rather than engaging.
"the real life stakes on a message board are that people will see words that they don't like"
Sure, yeah, OK. Think that through. If words on a message board don't matter, then it doesn't matter if your comments are deleted and you're banned. But people build real relationships here and this community has a lot of value for a lot of people in it. Diminishing that in order to dismiss the impact on other members neither supports any points against changes in moderation nor against other members feeling hurt by comments here.
"And don't try to tell me that there's anything behind the new, heavier moderation scheme beyond "don't be an asshole." That pretty much encompasses it. It's easy. It sometimes isn't the fun thing to do, particularly when it's appealing to be an asshole in the name of justice or freedom or whatever, but it still isn't that difficult to just make the call and not be a dick."
This entire thread is pretty concrete evidence that there's disagreements over what exactly "don't be an asshole" means in practice, and people pushing for more moderation have explicitly bucked against metrics of civility as being trumps specifically because of that. That's a circular argument.
"So people who say that they prefer the contentious model, even if they themselves are not bigots, even if they would repudiate bigotry, are, I think, arguing for an environment where at least other people are free to discover within themselves and cultivate bigotry and the tools to forcefully propagate that bigotry, because the only cost for them is a fun bit of angry yelling."
I do think that it's an under-estimated cost by some of the folks who are arguing for a more contentious mode here, yeah. I do also think that it's something where overstating that framing can lead to dumber, more reactive and more incoherent moderation decisions, and to ignoring some legitimate costs that can be mitigated by assuming the end goal of some other members isn't to end up with conversation space for unrepentant bigots. Pretty much everyone here already believes that many of the costs associated with more active moderation (compared to e.g. usenet or chans) are worth bearing. Otherwise, they wouldn't have ponied up $5 or stuck around long enough to be a still-active free account.
"That. That, right there, that is what you people who are whining and complaining about 'the old days,' that is what you want back."
Well, no. That was 12 years ago with a relatively tiny userbase and Matt as the only mod. Even legitimately important threads are hugely different than what works on MeFi now. But it's not like it was all terrible.
Usually, what people mean is more like these, but I think that a more salient example would be something like this. Or this. That's where people can remember flaming fondly without recognizing the costs of the larger context, specifically that there was a ton of homophobia, misogyny, racism and transphobia tolerated around them even if those threads have only minimal amounts.
And hell, that's still like 9-10 years ago at this point.
posted by klangklangston at 12:45 AM on June 17, 2015 [13 favorites]
No. That's only true to the extent that any given moderation decision is the only way to diminish expressed bigotry. Framing it like that eliminates the possibility of discussing moderation decisions.
"And, as I've said elsewhere, I am getting increasingly impatient with the idea that people's motives matter more than the effects of their actions -- it doesn't really matter if a member is a closeted misogynist or someone who is genuinely clueless and enjoys arguing; if they are driving women off the site, it's their problem, and they need to fix it."
I'm really sympathetic to this view — I've voiced it before — but there are a lot of limits to it as an ethos. That effects matter more than intentions doesn't mean that intentions don't matter, especially for discussions of community norms. It's also not something that's as opaque as you imply in a later comment — while we can't know people's intentions perfectly, we know many of them as well as we know the effects: through personal statement. This is something that a lot of people pushing for more stringent moderation already act consistently with — otherwise a lot of the snark from people who support more stringent moderation wouldn't be tolerated. Intentions are treated as if they matter all the time here.
The other reason why intention is important and reflexively reducing this to a With Us or Against Us cry against bigotry has some significant costs is because persuasion is hugely more efficient than intervention (to say nothing of healthier for the community), and intent matters in persuading someone else to change their behavior. If you you reduce objections to shifts in moderation policy to being an endorsement of bigotry, someone who is not intending to endorse bigotry will either conclude that you're not talking about their particular comment or that you are insulting them rather than engaging.
"the real life stakes on a message board are that people will see words that they don't like"
Sure, yeah, OK. Think that through. If words on a message board don't matter, then it doesn't matter if your comments are deleted and you're banned. But people build real relationships here and this community has a lot of value for a lot of people in it. Diminishing that in order to dismiss the impact on other members neither supports any points against changes in moderation nor against other members feeling hurt by comments here.
"And don't try to tell me that there's anything behind the new, heavier moderation scheme beyond "don't be an asshole." That pretty much encompasses it. It's easy. It sometimes isn't the fun thing to do, particularly when it's appealing to be an asshole in the name of justice or freedom or whatever, but it still isn't that difficult to just make the call and not be a dick."
This entire thread is pretty concrete evidence that there's disagreements over what exactly "don't be an asshole" means in practice, and people pushing for more moderation have explicitly bucked against metrics of civility as being trumps specifically because of that. That's a circular argument.
"So people who say that they prefer the contentious model, even if they themselves are not bigots, even if they would repudiate bigotry, are, I think, arguing for an environment where at least other people are free to discover within themselves and cultivate bigotry and the tools to forcefully propagate that bigotry, because the only cost for them is a fun bit of angry yelling."
I do think that it's an under-estimated cost by some of the folks who are arguing for a more contentious mode here, yeah. I do also think that it's something where overstating that framing can lead to dumber, more reactive and more incoherent moderation decisions, and to ignoring some legitimate costs that can be mitigated by assuming the end goal of some other members isn't to end up with conversation space for unrepentant bigots. Pretty much everyone here already believes that many of the costs associated with more active moderation (compared to e.g. usenet or chans) are worth bearing. Otherwise, they wouldn't have ponied up $5 or stuck around long enough to be a still-active free account.
"That. That, right there, that is what you people who are whining and complaining about 'the old days,' that is what you want back."
Well, no. That was 12 years ago with a relatively tiny userbase and Matt as the only mod. Even legitimately important threads are hugely different than what works on MeFi now. But it's not like it was all terrible.
Usually, what people mean is more like these, but I think that a more salient example would be something like this. Or this. That's where people can remember flaming fondly without recognizing the costs of the larger context, specifically that there was a ton of homophobia, misogyny, racism and transphobia tolerated around them even if those threads have only minimal amounts.
And hell, that's still like 9-10 years ago at this point.
posted by klangklangston at 12:45 AM on June 17, 2015 [13 favorites]
There should be a "buy the mods a beer" button in contentious threads that lets you anonymously donate $5 to the PayPal account of whomever is on duty at the moment.
Sometimes I wish there was a button that would let me buy another user a Bloody Mary, redeemable beginning ten hours after issuance.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:47 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Sometimes I wish there was a button that would let me buy another user a Bloody Mary, redeemable beginning ten hours after issuance.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:47 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Is sealioning another word for 'politely voicing thoughts I disagree with'? I thought that was called 'conversation'?
This comment was hours ago, but someone should reply. "Sealioning" comes from this Wondermark cartoon, and its implication should be obvious. It's a metaphor a lot of forum participants enthusiastically embrace.
The obvious fallacy of the metaphor is that while participants may happen to be reading the forum in thier bedroom, the forum is not actually thier bedroom. Like many immature adults, they take offense at the ability of others to say unpleasant things in a venue they imagine belongs to them.
This little buzzword helps them support that delusion.
posted by clarknova at 1:18 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
This comment was hours ago, but someone should reply. "Sealioning" comes from this Wondermark cartoon, and its implication should be obvious. It's a metaphor a lot of forum participants enthusiastically embrace.
The obvious fallacy of the metaphor is that while participants may happen to be reading the forum in thier bedroom, the forum is not actually thier bedroom. Like many immature adults, they take offense at the ability of others to say unpleasant things in a venue they imagine belongs to them.
This little buzzword helps them support that delusion.
posted by clarknova at 1:18 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
The context for the "sealioning" Wondermark cartoon was GamerGaters going into conversations on Twitter that mentioned any of their favorite topics (gaming, gamergate itself, Zoe Quinn, games that don't involve enough stubbly white men with big guns, etc) and bothering strangers about it. It's come to mean a kind of bad faith engagement in which people come into a conversation and demand that it caters to their particular idea of "civil debate", which usually involves a lot of inserting of their bigoted garbage opinions, which are often based in many verifiable falsehoods, and a good deal of JAQing off. Since it's a relatively recently coined term, its meaning is somewhat flexible, and many different communities use it in different ways.
posted by NoraReed at 1:35 AM on June 17, 2015 [27 favorites]
posted by NoraReed at 1:35 AM on June 17, 2015 [27 favorites]
Moreover, nor are their interlocutors, strictly speaking, a kind of lion. Thus the metaphor collapses. *puffs pipe*
posted by nom de poop at 1:42 AM on June 17, 2015 [24 favorites]
posted by nom de poop at 1:42 AM on June 17, 2015 [24 favorites]
The obvious fallacy of the metaphor is that while participants may happen to be reading the forum in thier bedroom, the forum is not actually thier bedroom. Like many immature adults, they take offense at the ability of others to say unpleasant things in a venue they imagine belongs to them.
If you already know that some may be participating from their "bedrooms", why not be the mature adult and refrain from jumping in and saying unpleasant things over a communication medium?
posted by polymodus at 1:46 AM on June 17, 2015
If you already know that some may be participating from their "bedrooms", why not be the mature adult and refrain from jumping in and saying unpleasant things over a communication medium?
posted by polymodus at 1:46 AM on June 17, 2015
Most people who indulge in this kind of behaviour do not live by the sea, hence your analogy is invalid.
posted by h00py at 1:46 AM on June 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by h00py at 1:46 AM on June 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
Sea lioning means different things in different contexts.
In one context, it's about people butting in on "private" Twitter conversations with polite but annoyingly insistent questions. On the one hand, the concept of private Twitter conversations is ridiculous. On the other hand, the sea lioning is incredibly annoying, especially if it's high volume, in which case you're really talking about the dual problem of sea lioning and the equivalent of a forum invasion.
But on the other hand, it's been extended to refer to that whole argument style, using politely phrased but infuriatingly insistent and possibly insulting questions and then when people get pissed off saying "I'm just asking questions here". This is something that happens and is annoying as fuck. It's like "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you!" for adults. When people on MetaFilter accuse someone of sea lioning, they're generally talking about the latter type.
(Also, am I the only person who initially didn't understand that Wondermark comic because they assumed the woman at the start was supposed to be representing a racist?)
posted by Bugbread at 1:59 AM on June 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
In one context, it's about people butting in on "private" Twitter conversations with polite but annoyingly insistent questions. On the one hand, the concept of private Twitter conversations is ridiculous. On the other hand, the sea lioning is incredibly annoying, especially if it's high volume, in which case you're really talking about the dual problem of sea lioning and the equivalent of a forum invasion.
But on the other hand, it's been extended to refer to that whole argument style, using politely phrased but infuriatingly insistent and possibly insulting questions and then when people get pissed off saying "I'm just asking questions here". This is something that happens and is annoying as fuck. It's like "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you!" for adults. When people on MetaFilter accuse someone of sea lioning, they're generally talking about the latter type.
(Also, am I the only person who initially didn't understand that Wondermark comic because they assumed the woman at the start was supposed to be representing a racist?)
posted by Bugbread at 1:59 AM on June 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
The context for the "sealioning" Wondermark cartoon was GamerGaters going into conversations on Twitter...
You're just making my point. Twitter is not a private venue that its users control. They do not own the namespace. People do not have personal twitter conversations that others intrude into. Especially if they throw in a few hashtags. To think you can advertise your quips to the world and it should respond with nothing but affirmation from friends is an infantile fantasy.
*puffs pipe*
*tips fedora*
Also, am I the only person who initially didn't understand that Wondermark comic because they assumed the woman at the start was supposed to be representing a racist?
Ain't ambiguity fun?
posted by clarknova at 2:25 AM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
You're just making my point. Twitter is not a private venue that its users control. They do not own the namespace. People do not have personal twitter conversations that others intrude into. Especially if they throw in a few hashtags. To think you can advertise your quips to the world and it should respond with nothing but affirmation from friends is an infantile fantasy.
*puffs pipe*
*tips fedora*
Also, am I the only person who initially didn't understand that Wondermark comic because they assumed the woman at the start was supposed to be representing a racist?
Ain't ambiguity fun?
posted by clarknova at 2:25 AM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
At this point people should take complaints about the term "sealioning" to the Metatalk thread for complaining about the term sealioning, and complaints about Twitter to the Metatalk thread for complaining about Twitter, and if those threads don't exist, go ahead and submit a post if you feel that it's something that needs to be addressed as a site issue.
posted by taz (staff) at 2:38 AM on June 17, 2015 [21 favorites]
posted by taz (staff) at 2:38 AM on June 17, 2015 [21 favorites]
Mods need a drag and drop interface which allows them to rearrange comments so discussions are always cleanly separated by category.
This seems like the perfect place to make that pony request.
posted by clarknova at 2:43 AM on June 17, 2015
This seems like the perfect place to make that pony request.
posted by clarknova at 2:43 AM on June 17, 2015
and if those threads don't exist, go ahead and submit a post if you feel that it's something that needs to be addressed as a site issue
Can we have a thread about too many open threads as well?
also this is an unthreaded forum, we should call them "flats", why has discussion on this been suppressed, I am disappoint.
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:44 AM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Can we have a thread about too many open threads as well?
also this is an unthreaded forum, we should call them "flats", why has discussion on this been suppressed, I am disappoint.
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:44 AM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'm pretty sure this thread is actually an anagram of the Treaty of Westphalia.
posted by Bugbread at 2:54 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Bugbread at 2:54 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
No, that would be FART AWHILE AT YE POST.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:22 AM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:22 AM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
You're just making my point. Twitter is not a private venue that its users control. They do not own the namespace. People do not have personal twitter conversations that others intrude into. Especially if they throw in a few hashtags. To think you can advertise your quips to the world and it should respond with nothing but affirmation from friends is an infantile fantasy.
(Annie Potts)We got one!(/Annie Potts)
posted by running order squabble fest at 3:59 AM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
(Annie Potts)We got one!(/Annie Potts)
posted by running order squabble fest at 3:59 AM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
Motives don't matter more than effects, but why ignore someone's motives and instead accuse their effects as being their true motives?
Okay, that seemed a bit opaque. More specifically: MeFi, for a long time, believed that the best way to fight bigotry was to allow the MeFi readership to give it a resounding smackdown. That method has proven not to work as well as the idealists hoped. The new approach, deleting more stuff, is working better. The end result is more important than the motive, so I'm in favor of deleting.
But there's a big difference between saying "Your proposed method of fighting bigotry doesn't work as well as my proposed method of fighting bigotry, so your intentions may be good, but what truly matters is results" and "Your proposed method of fighting bigotry doesn't work as well as my proposed method of fighting bigotry, so what you want is to increase the amount of bigotry."
Except that we're not saying that 'your true motive is bigotry!' what we're saying is 'your true motive causes bigotry' - whether or not the first sentence is true as well is irrelevant. In practice, if what you want is something that will decrease the effectiveness with which we fight bigotry, what you want will lead to more bigotry. What you want ENTAILS more bigotry. Functionally, that's equivalent to wanting more bigotry, and the distinction is unknowable to anyone other than the person in in question. What's in your heart of hearts is just not relevant - the functional outcomes of your words and actions are.
I said calling people bigots (assuming they're not openly being bigots at the time) doesn't help.
Sometimes it does. Calling a spade a spade will help people figure out what shape spades are and be more able to recognise them in future.
I can not imagine that moderation has done anything at all to fight bigotry. It silences it. It does not educate. The bigot learns nothing. Their surface behavior might change, but only on MeFi. That's all well and good, so far as creating a place where readers will not have to see bigotry, but it is far from a "method of fighting" it.
Won't someone think of the bigots!
It's not our job to educate bigots. That is not an obligation we have as people, or as mefites. To not hurt others with bigotry or hatred, that is an obligation we have as people, and as mefites. Moderation has done a LOT to reduce the amount of naked bigotry on display on the blue when talking about trans issues, and if you compare the old boyzone days to today, I suspect you'll find that that same pattern holds true for many other forms too.
The last time I put up cash was to defend a trans-woman skeptic atheist who was going after a faith healer. So I find it super ironic when it is suggested, perhaps speech is inherently important, people jump to bigotry as the reason one would defend speech. Some say they resent an increase in moderation, and I would suggest we not assume they are bigoted assholes because they do.
Except in pratice, on mefi, what moderation achieves is a decrease in the net amount of bigotry. We're talking about moderating mefi here, after all - how your marketplace of ideas (or money) or whatever works in other contexts is neither here nor there. In practice, what gets deleted by the mefi mods is generally the worst kind of sexist, homobphobic, and transphobic bullshit. Leaving it up emphatically does not lead to the kind of 'the bad ideas will lose out in the end' scenario on all of those issues - again, just look at the deleted thread about Dolezal to see bigotry being refuted and not being dropped.
MetaFilter hasn't gotten to discuss a completely fascinating and multifaceted human interest story that touches on ideas lots of us value, because the mods valued quashing unpleasant expression more than they valued the opportunity for discourse this presented.
As a whole, the mefi userbase gazed upon that opportunity, and decided to throw shit at the thread instead. I would posit that that opportunity was never really there (certainly that context did not increase the potential for good conversation about Issues, but rather the opposite) but regardless of that, a glance at the deleted thread reveals that such potential was certainly not realised.
posted by Dysk at 4:03 AM on June 17, 2015 [19 favorites]
Okay, that seemed a bit opaque. More specifically: MeFi, for a long time, believed that the best way to fight bigotry was to allow the MeFi readership to give it a resounding smackdown. That method has proven not to work as well as the idealists hoped. The new approach, deleting more stuff, is working better. The end result is more important than the motive, so I'm in favor of deleting.
But there's a big difference between saying "Your proposed method of fighting bigotry doesn't work as well as my proposed method of fighting bigotry, so your intentions may be good, but what truly matters is results" and "Your proposed method of fighting bigotry doesn't work as well as my proposed method of fighting bigotry, so what you want is to increase the amount of bigotry."
Except that we're not saying that 'your true motive is bigotry!' what we're saying is 'your true motive causes bigotry' - whether or not the first sentence is true as well is irrelevant. In practice, if what you want is something that will decrease the effectiveness with which we fight bigotry, what you want will lead to more bigotry. What you want ENTAILS more bigotry. Functionally, that's equivalent to wanting more bigotry, and the distinction is unknowable to anyone other than the person in in question. What's in your heart of hearts is just not relevant - the functional outcomes of your words and actions are.
I said calling people bigots (assuming they're not openly being bigots at the time) doesn't help.
Sometimes it does. Calling a spade a spade will help people figure out what shape spades are and be more able to recognise them in future.
I can not imagine that moderation has done anything at all to fight bigotry. It silences it. It does not educate. The bigot learns nothing. Their surface behavior might change, but only on MeFi. That's all well and good, so far as creating a place where readers will not have to see bigotry, but it is far from a "method of fighting" it.
Won't someone think of the bigots!
It's not our job to educate bigots. That is not an obligation we have as people, or as mefites. To not hurt others with bigotry or hatred, that is an obligation we have as people, and as mefites. Moderation has done a LOT to reduce the amount of naked bigotry on display on the blue when talking about trans issues, and if you compare the old boyzone days to today, I suspect you'll find that that same pattern holds true for many other forms too.
The last time I put up cash was to defend a trans-woman skeptic atheist who was going after a faith healer. So I find it super ironic when it is suggested, perhaps speech is inherently important, people jump to bigotry as the reason one would defend speech. Some say they resent an increase in moderation, and I would suggest we not assume they are bigoted assholes because they do.
Except in pratice, on mefi, what moderation achieves is a decrease in the net amount of bigotry. We're talking about moderating mefi here, after all - how your marketplace of ideas (or money) or whatever works in other contexts is neither here nor there. In practice, what gets deleted by the mefi mods is generally the worst kind of sexist, homobphobic, and transphobic bullshit. Leaving it up emphatically does not lead to the kind of 'the bad ideas will lose out in the end' scenario on all of those issues - again, just look at the deleted thread about Dolezal to see bigotry being refuted and not being dropped.
MetaFilter hasn't gotten to discuss a completely fascinating and multifaceted human interest story that touches on ideas lots of us value, because the mods valued quashing unpleasant expression more than they valued the opportunity for discourse this presented.
As a whole, the mefi userbase gazed upon that opportunity, and decided to throw shit at the thread instead. I would posit that that opportunity was never really there (certainly that context did not increase the potential for good conversation about Issues, but rather the opposite) but regardless of that, a glance at the deleted thread reveals that such potential was certainly not realised.
posted by Dysk at 4:03 AM on June 17, 2015 [19 favorites]
Dysk: "Except that we're not saying that 'your true motive is bigotry!' what we're saying is 'your true motive causes bigotry'"
This is a very long thread, making it very hard to search, but I'm pretty sure some people have said "you want more bigotry on Mefi". If you're not one of them, great, that comment wasn't about you. If nobody said that, wonderful, my comment was about no one and I'm happy to be wrong. But in a thread this long, with people saying all kinds of things, I would be very surprised if my impression is wrong and nobody has said that.
posted by Bugbread at 4:25 AM on June 17, 2015
This is a very long thread, making it very hard to search, but I'm pretty sure some people have said "you want more bigotry on Mefi". If you're not one of them, great, that comment wasn't about you. If nobody said that, wonderful, my comment was about no one and I'm happy to be wrong. But in a thread this long, with people saying all kinds of things, I would be very surprised if my impression is wrong and nobody has said that.
posted by Bugbread at 4:25 AM on June 17, 2015
So we are not allowed to criticize certain members? Let me try again.
Also I really do not want this to turn into The Corb Show, because I really think there have been more episodes of that than every American soap opera combined, but it's really hard when the mods are continuing to allow her to continue taking these transphobic and/or racist dumps in threads on a fairly regular basis. The amount of disruption and grief she manages to cause both here and on the Blue eclipses any other user I can think of, and it just makes me tired.
Well the NoraReed show isn't much better, but you don't hear me calling for you to be banned, do you?
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 4:25 AM on June 17, 2015 [23 favorites]
Also I really do not want this to turn into The Corb Show, because I really think there have been more episodes of that than every American soap opera combined, but it's really hard when the mods are continuing to allow her to continue taking these transphobic and/or racist dumps in threads on a fairly regular basis. The amount of disruption and grief she manages to cause both here and on the Blue eclipses any other user I can think of, and it just makes me tired.
Well the NoraReed show isn't much better, but you don't hear me calling for you to be banned, do you?
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 4:25 AM on June 17, 2015 [23 favorites]
Ok so this story goes against the popular narrative. It's banned. Censorship exists. Let's all move on. Jesus Christ.
posted by holybagel at 4:31 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by holybagel at 4:31 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
I don't buy the "release valve" theory, for MeTa or pretty much anywhere else I have seen it attempted. The concept of cathartic release as a means of alleviating anger is disputed, as it often just creates... more anger. You can see this in effect on any board designated "the sewer" - it doesn't magically wash away the hatred and bile; it sits there, right on top of the poster's name, festering and generating more hurt feelings, grudges, and ill will through the entire community. It's not a sewer; it's a busted septic tank.
And L-O-L at "we can't discuss big important ideas anymore", like some kinda Algonquin Roundtable of esteemed colleagues sipping martinis. Lots of incredibly interesting and important stuff gets discussed here all the time; you just have to actually think a bit before you speak if the subject involves the socially marginalized - you have to actually consider them living, feeling human beings and not abstract concepts.
Honestly, all the howling about overmoderation and how we CAN'T say this or that and SJWs or whatever just really, really sounds like it comes from a fear of being wrong, when for so long you used to be right. And being wrong is fine. This hyperbolic reaction that your grand but totally not bigoted or bigot-enabling ideas are being suppressed underlines this.
Unlike the "just words on a screen" defense of edgy blather-free-for-all, being mistaken or having your status quo ideas challenged is not oppression. On the contrary, it's liberating. Everyone stumbles, everyone misspeaks and can get called out on it. What you learn from that is what you gain, to the benefit of yourself and your fellow members here.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 4:33 AM on June 17, 2015 [30 favorites]
And L-O-L at "we can't discuss big important ideas anymore", like some kinda Algonquin Roundtable of esteemed colleagues sipping martinis. Lots of incredibly interesting and important stuff gets discussed here all the time; you just have to actually think a bit before you speak if the subject involves the socially marginalized - you have to actually consider them living, feeling human beings and not abstract concepts.
Honestly, all the howling about overmoderation and how we CAN'T say this or that and SJWs or whatever just really, really sounds like it comes from a fear of being wrong, when for so long you used to be right. And being wrong is fine. This hyperbolic reaction that your grand but totally not bigoted or bigot-enabling ideas are being suppressed underlines this.
Unlike the "just words on a screen" defense of edgy blather-free-for-all, being mistaken or having your status quo ideas challenged is not oppression. On the contrary, it's liberating. Everyone stumbles, everyone misspeaks and can get called out on it. What you learn from that is what you gain, to the benefit of yourself and your fellow members here.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 4:33 AM on June 17, 2015 [30 favorites]
This is a very long thread, making it very hard to search, but I'm pretty sure some people have said "you want more bigotry on Mefi".
I'm not positive, but I believe it was "wanting X is in effect wanting more bigotry" and that if that wasn't explicitly stated at first, was later clarified.
posted by hoyland at 4:35 AM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'm not positive, but I believe it was "wanting X is in effect wanting more bigotry" and that if that wasn't explicitly stated at first, was later clarified.
posted by hoyland at 4:35 AM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Like when Rand Paul wants to do away with the Civil Rights Act because the market will eliminate discrimination (or whatever the theory is) and everyone else says "Uh... wanting to do away with the Civil Rights Act is wanting to give businesses the right to discriminate." It doesn't matter a whole lot what Rand Paul thinks he's wanting when it's obvious what the consequences would be.
posted by hoyland at 4:39 AM on June 17, 2015 [14 favorites]
posted by hoyland at 4:39 AM on June 17, 2015 [14 favorites]
If NoraReed had a show, I for one would watch it.
This is a very long thread, making it very hard to search, but I'm pretty sure some people have said "you want more bigotry on Mefi". If you're not one of them, great, that comment wasn't about you. If nobody said that, wonderful, my comment was about no one and I'm happy to be wrong. But in a thread this long, with people saying all kinds of things, I would be very surprised if my impression is wrong and nobody has said that.
A common shorthand for 'a is functionally the same as b' is 'a means b' or even 'a is b'.
posted by Dysk at 4:53 AM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
This is a very long thread, making it very hard to search, but I'm pretty sure some people have said "you want more bigotry on Mefi". If you're not one of them, great, that comment wasn't about you. If nobody said that, wonderful, my comment was about no one and I'm happy to be wrong. But in a thread this long, with people saying all kinds of things, I would be very surprised if my impression is wrong and nobody has said that.
A common shorthand for 'a is functionally the same as b' is 'a means b' or even 'a is b'.
posted by Dysk at 4:53 AM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
It BLOWS MY MIND that anyone can look at the official pushback against hostility towards members who are women, who are trans, who are gay, who are people of color -- hostility which is severe and pervasive enough to chase those members away, causing us to lose their voices and perspectives -- and label that a "narrowing."
There are women, POC and queer people who are being told that their opinions are anti-woman, anti-PoC, anti-queer, respectively.
When it comes to social justice issues, there seems to be an assumption that if you don't agree with certain ideas, that's because "you just don't understand, you haven't had that experience". Except that there are people who are women, who are POC, who are queer, who do have that experience, but who simply don't agree with you. This isn't a Metafilter problem, it's a wider social justice / activism problem.
And now I think to myself: oh, don't post that, you'll be accused of being sexist, racist, homophobic and/or transphobic and anti-social justice. Except why would I care if I was? I care about social issues, which is why I care when debate within them is shut down - and women, POC and queer people are among those being pushed out.
posted by jb at 4:58 AM on June 17, 2015 [36 favorites]
There are women, POC and queer people who are being told that their opinions are anti-woman, anti-PoC, anti-queer, respectively.
When it comes to social justice issues, there seems to be an assumption that if you don't agree with certain ideas, that's because "you just don't understand, you haven't had that experience". Except that there are people who are women, who are POC, who are queer, who do have that experience, but who simply don't agree with you. This isn't a Metafilter problem, it's a wider social justice / activism problem.
And now I think to myself: oh, don't post that, you'll be accused of being sexist, racist, homophobic and/or transphobic and anti-social justice. Except why would I care if I was? I care about social issues, which is why I care when debate within them is shut down - and women, POC and queer people are among those being pushed out.
posted by jb at 4:58 AM on June 17, 2015 [36 favorites]
One thing I've seen NortonDC pointing to a lot is a list of female members, feminists all, who don't feel comfortable with some of the changes in tone.
There are - I'm one of them. I haven't left, but I've felt attacked in threads on gender, especially since (as a genderqueer person) I have a different experience with gender than a lot of cis or trans people.
One of the members being criticised in the original thread stopped to identify as a POC, only to have others completely ignore that in their wish to attack her as racist and/or transphobic (while also misinterpreting her comments about race to be about gender identity).
posted by jb at 5:04 AM on June 17, 2015 [11 favorites]
There are - I'm one of them. I haven't left, but I've felt attacked in threads on gender, especially since (as a genderqueer person) I have a different experience with gender than a lot of cis or trans people.
One of the members being criticised in the original thread stopped to identify as a POC, only to have others completely ignore that in their wish to attack her as racist and/or transphobic (while also misinterpreting her comments about race to be about gender identity).
posted by jb at 5:04 AM on June 17, 2015 [11 favorites]
Dysk: "A common shorthand for 'a is functionally the same as b' is 'a means b' or even 'a is b'."
So it makes sense to say "Bob doesn't want more bigotry, but Bob wants more bigotry"? Well, then, I guess my problem is with the English language. Damn you, English language! And I'm more of a descriptivist than a prescriptivist, so I can't even blame the OED, I can only blame the collective English-speaking community. Damn you, English speakers!
posted by Bugbread at 5:09 AM on June 17, 2015
So it makes sense to say "Bob doesn't want more bigotry, but Bob wants more bigotry"? Well, then, I guess my problem is with the English language. Damn you, English language! And I'm more of a descriptivist than a prescriptivist, so I can't even blame the OED, I can only blame the collective English-speaking community. Damn you, English speakers!
posted by Bugbread at 5:09 AM on June 17, 2015
It's absolutely possible for women to express opinions that are misogynist, POCs to express opinions that are racist, Jews to express opinions that are anti-Semitic, &c &c &c. I think we need to recognise this, as well as recognising that it doesn't necessarily make the holder of those opinions misogynist, racist, or anti-Semitic.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:09 AM on June 17, 2015 [14 favorites]
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:09 AM on June 17, 2015 [14 favorites]
So it makes sense to say "Bob doesn't want more bigotry, but Bob wants more bigotry"? Well, then, I guess my problem is with the English language. Damn you, English language! And I'm more of a descriptivist than a prescriptivist, so I can't even blame the OED, I can only blame the collective English-speaking community. Damn you, English speakers!
So it makes sense to say that "what Bob wants is more bigotry even if that isn't WHY he wants it". "You want x" doesn't necessarily mean "you want x in and of itself".
posted by Dysk at 5:10 AM on June 17, 2015
So it makes sense to say that "what Bob wants is more bigotry even if that isn't WHY he wants it". "You want x" doesn't necessarily mean "you want x in and of itself".
posted by Dysk at 5:10 AM on June 17, 2015
Or more simply: "want" can mean subtly different things, so it does indeed make sense to say "what Bob wants is more bigotry, but he doesn't *WANT* more bigotry".
posted by Dysk at 5:12 AM on June 17, 2015
posted by Dysk at 5:12 AM on June 17, 2015
Yeah, I wasn't being flippant there, I'm actually being annoyed at the English language right now.
posted by Bugbread at 5:14 AM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Bugbread at 5:14 AM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Really? I see that equation quite commonly. Lots of unrepentant 2nd wave "essentialist" feminists get called TERFs on the internet. (A colleague of mine often rails against the number of contemporary feminist scholars who are real-live TERFs in their scholarship and never get called on it.) It seems like a pretty common problem, sadly.
There are old school feminists who are TERFs, and there are old school feminists who aren't TERFs. Some - not all - of the second set may disagree with some - not all - trans* activists on gender as a social phenomenon (as opposed to innate identity), but fully support the reality of innate gender identity and the inclusion of trans people as full and equal members of society.
Basically, there is a difference between denying trans identity (as TERFs do), and talking about how trans and cis (and genderqueer) experiences are quite different, due to gender as a social (as opposed to personal) phenomenon.
posted by jb at 5:17 AM on June 17, 2015
There are old school feminists who are TERFs, and there are old school feminists who aren't TERFs. Some - not all - of the second set may disagree with some - not all - trans* activists on gender as a social phenomenon (as opposed to innate identity), but fully support the reality of innate gender identity and the inclusion of trans people as full and equal members of society.
Basically, there is a difference between denying trans identity (as TERFs do), and talking about how trans and cis (and genderqueer) experiences are quite different, due to gender as a social (as opposed to personal) phenomenon.
posted by jb at 5:17 AM on June 17, 2015
Personally I think that has fuck all to do with this meta, whether it's a sincerely held belief by you or not.
posted by h00py at 5:19 AM on June 17, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by h00py at 5:19 AM on June 17, 2015 [8 favorites]
My read is that there are no post-Judith Butler feminists doing scholarship on this issue who could be described as TERFs.
No, there's still that woman in Britain who gets trotted out by the BBC when they want a contrarian voice on trans* issues. Julie something-or-other. Also, the people who run the Michigan Women's Music Festival. They may or may not be academic feminists, but they are influential/loud.
posted by jb at 5:23 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
No, there's still that woman in Britain who gets trotted out by the BBC when they want a contrarian voice on trans* issues. Julie something-or-other. Also, the people who run the Michigan Women's Music Festival. They may or may not be academic feminists, but they are influential/loud.
posted by jb at 5:23 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Or more simply: "want" can mean subtly different things, so it does indeed make sense to say "what Bob wants is more bigotry, but he doesn't *WANT* more bigotry".
Is anyone else having flashbacks to middle school conversations of "so do you like, like him, or do you like, LIKE him?"
posted by Jacqueline at 5:26 AM on June 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
Is anyone else having flashbacks to middle school conversations of "so do you like, like him, or do you like, LIKE him?"
posted by Jacqueline at 5:26 AM on June 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
It's absolutely possible for women to express opinions that are misogynist, POCs to express opinions that are racist, Jews to express opinions that are anti-Semitic, &c &c &c.
True which is why we need forums where the discussion is based in logic and reason and sealions can be heard and refuted and sometimes feelings will be hurt but the right side will prove its case with logic, history and rhethotic rather than raw lived experience.
Some people think Metafilter used to be like that. For some things other than SJ it still is. But it doesn't have to be. And what it is: a place for marginalized groups to share their experiences (in a circumspect way, with no expectation of debate from within or without) seems like a great thing that is valued by many, including me! I've learned a heck of a lot from shutting up and reading.
I wish it could be both and not limit or hurt anyone but thems the breaks. I appeciate the place as it is, and will keep looking for a non-Tumbler discussion of SJ issues elsewhere too.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 5:41 AM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
True which is why we need forums where the discussion is based in logic and reason and sealions can be heard and refuted and sometimes feelings will be hurt but the right side will prove its case with logic, history and rhethotic rather than raw lived experience.
Some people think Metafilter used to be like that. For some things other than SJ it still is. But it doesn't have to be. And what it is: a place for marginalized groups to share their experiences (in a circumspect way, with no expectation of debate from within or without) seems like a great thing that is valued by many, including me! I've learned a heck of a lot from shutting up and reading.
I wish it could be both and not limit or hurt anyone but thems the breaks. I appeciate the place as it is, and will keep looking for a non-Tumbler discussion of SJ issues elsewhere too.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 5:41 AM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
I agree with IRFH. It feels to me like we are developing a heckler's veto on the site - some users communicate disrespectfully on a topic, some users take offense, and the entire topic then gets yanked from the whole userbase, who, by-and-large, are not bigots or disrespectful. I get that this particular news story isn't the biggest deal in the world, but I hope the mods tread lightly in the future when thinking about similar potential deletions.
As a slightly side-point, I do wonder whether the deletion really accomplished anything, anyway. We still have a giant MeTa thread, we still have a lot of grar and anger, and I don't think we're in any better position for the next story/topic that emerges on issues of race/gender/etc. Would it really have been worse if we just had the original thread (or the second thread), had the truly hurtful/insensitive comments deleted, and had a long MeTa thread that would have probably looked much like this one?
It is also really disturbing to me how many vocal users in this thread seem to think that the way to make progress with one's thoughts and ideas in society is to make other people stop talking. I understand that the "words on a screen" argument proves too much - if none of this matters then who cares, etc. - but, still, if you need to have comments or users deleted in order to feel you can participate on a left-leaning website, I would suggest you're going to have a hard time convincing people of anything in the wider world. And the rejoinder "it's not my job to educate you and I'm tired of it" is truly bizarre to me - it's a discussion website; we discuss things and educate each other with respect to our views. If you're tired of that, ok, but that should not mean that other people have to stop talking.
posted by Mid at 5:41 AM on June 17, 2015 [30 favorites]
As a slightly side-point, I do wonder whether the deletion really accomplished anything, anyway. We still have a giant MeTa thread, we still have a lot of grar and anger, and I don't think we're in any better position for the next story/topic that emerges on issues of race/gender/etc. Would it really have been worse if we just had the original thread (or the second thread), had the truly hurtful/insensitive comments deleted, and had a long MeTa thread that would have probably looked much like this one?
It is also really disturbing to me how many vocal users in this thread seem to think that the way to make progress with one's thoughts and ideas in society is to make other people stop talking. I understand that the "words on a screen" argument proves too much - if none of this matters then who cares, etc. - but, still, if you need to have comments or users deleted in order to feel you can participate on a left-leaning website, I would suggest you're going to have a hard time convincing people of anything in the wider world. And the rejoinder "it's not my job to educate you and I'm tired of it" is truly bizarre to me - it's a discussion website; we discuss things and educate each other with respect to our views. If you're tired of that, ok, but that should not mean that other people have to stop talking.
posted by Mid at 5:41 AM on June 17, 2015 [30 favorites]
If NoraReed had a show...
Would it be on AMC, Netflix or HBO?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:43 AM on June 17, 2015
Would it be on AMC, Netflix or HBO?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:43 AM on June 17, 2015
Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane -- "Honestly, all the howling about overmoderation and how we CAN'T say this or that and SJWs or whatever just really, really sounds like it comes from a fear of being wrong"
Read on my user page the post of mine that got deleted and then try to tell me it's about fear of being wrong.
posted by NortonDC at 5:44 AM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
Read on my user page the post of mine that got deleted and then try to tell me it's about fear of being wrong.
posted by NortonDC at 5:44 AM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
Not all progresss involves changing minds. Plenty is accomplished by banding together.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 5:45 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 5:45 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
except the people who are actually good on SJ pretty much agree with each other on this issue
Except that this is a tautology, since "good on SJ" is defined as agreeing on this issue.
This is the Internet. We don't really know each other. No one knows how we really conduct our lives, how we prioritise what we do. I spend most of my time not on Metafilter - and a lot of that time is spent working (paid and volunteer) for a more inclusive society - for queer people, for people of colour, for women, for the disabled, and for the poor. Is this not social justice, though I and those I work with rarely use that language? My boss has done more than anyone I know to raise awareness of the specific needs of people with chronic diseases in the workplace - but she works entirely outside of the social justice paradigm.
It's not a matter of the SJ world versus bigots - and a reduction of debates here to that false dichotomy are harmful.
posted by jb at 5:47 AM on June 17, 2015 [19 favorites]
Except that this is a tautology, since "good on SJ" is defined as agreeing on this issue.
This is the Internet. We don't really know each other. No one knows how we really conduct our lives, how we prioritise what we do. I spend most of my time not on Metafilter - and a lot of that time is spent working (paid and volunteer) for a more inclusive society - for queer people, for people of colour, for women, for the disabled, and for the poor. Is this not social justice, though I and those I work with rarely use that language? My boss has done more than anyone I know to raise awareness of the specific needs of people with chronic diseases in the workplace - but she works entirely outside of the social justice paradigm.
It's not a matter of the SJ world versus bigots - and a reduction of debates here to that false dichotomy are harmful.
posted by jb at 5:47 AM on June 17, 2015 [19 favorites]
So it makes sense to say that "what Bob wants is more bigotry even if that isn't WHY he wants it". "You want x" doesn't necessarily mean "you want x in and of itself".
This discussion of entailment is weird. I very much want to eat some ice cream. I don't want to get fat. It seems perfectly cromulent to me to say that. But on your view, my wanting to eat ice cream is a desire to get fat! That can't be right.
I want to eat ice cream in the counterfactual world where it doesn't make me fat. I want to duck the entailment. I think the most you can say here is that if I eat the ice cream knowing that we live in a world where it will make me fat, I have accepted unfortunate consequences. But no, I did not want to get fat. Getting fat is a side effect of my desires.
(There's pretty good evidence that we attribute intention to people when they harm us, though.)
posted by anotherpanacea at 5:48 AM on June 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
This discussion of entailment is weird. I very much want to eat some ice cream. I don't want to get fat. It seems perfectly cromulent to me to say that. But on your view, my wanting to eat ice cream is a desire to get fat! That can't be right.
I want to eat ice cream in the counterfactual world where it doesn't make me fat. I want to duck the entailment. I think the most you can say here is that if I eat the ice cream knowing that we live in a world where it will make me fat, I have accepted unfortunate consequences. But no, I did not want to get fat. Getting fat is a side effect of my desires.
(There's pretty good evidence that we attribute intention to people when they harm us, though.)
posted by anotherpanacea at 5:48 AM on June 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
jb, are you working through the thread and responding to comments as you arrive at them? That TERF discussion was like 500 comments ago.
posted by anotherpanacea at 5:49 AM on June 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by anotherpanacea at 5:49 AM on June 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
I'm really sympathetic to this view — I've voiced it before — but there are a lot of limits to it as an ethos. That effects matter more than intentions doesn't mean that intentions don't matter, especially for discussions of community norms. It's also not something that's as opaque as you imply in a later comment — while we can't know people's intentions perfectly, we know many of them as well as we know the effects: through personal statement. This is something that a lot of people pushing for more stringent moderation already act consistently with — otherwise a lot of the snark from people who support more stringent moderation wouldn't be tolerated. Intentions are treated as if they matter all the time here.
The other reason why intention is important and reflexively reducing this to a With Us or Against Us cry against bigotry has some significant costs is because persuasion is hugely more efficient than intervention (to say nothing of healthier for the community), and intent matters in persuading someone else to change their behavior. If you you reduce objections to shifts in moderation policy to being an endorsement of bigotry, someone who is not intending to endorse bigotry will either conclude that you're not talking about their particular comment or that you are insulting them rather than engaging.
Sorry for the long quote, but I wanted to be sure to get all of it. I think that intentions, as far as they matter, will appear not via member statements about their intents so much as future member actions. So, when I step on someone's foot at a party, it doesn't really matter if I intended to step on their foot, accidentally stepped on their foot because I wasn't paying attention, stepped on their foot because the room is crowded and I got shoved by someone else, or any other scenario. The immediate problem is that I am standing on their foot, and I need to get off their foot." So, one way I show my good intentions (given that no one (including me, often enough) can know my pure intentions, is by saying "sorry" as I get off their foot. I can further show my good intentions by making more effort to look where I am walking in the future, attending to the space around me better so I don't get pushed as easily, maybe not having my conversation in the doorway or buffet line, and so on. Loudly proclaiming my support of People with Sore Toes is only evidence of good intentions if I make continued effort not to step on people's toes -- effects speak way way louder than intentions. Similarly, if someone is generally a courteous non-toe-stepper, if they do step on someone's toes, I am more likely to assume that it was an accident; similarly, if I have watched them stamp around in huge clown shoes at every party, all the protestations of good intentions are wasted, because, well, I can see the damn clown shoes.
To the second point, I get that you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar, and I tend toward consensus and conciliation in my professional life and management style, but there are plenty of people for whom the softer approach just doesn't work, since it's easier for them to ignore the offers of conciliation than to give up their clown shoes. I think stricter moderation has, in the short term, moved at least some of the shouting from the bigotry to the complaints that "MetaFilter was better back in the old days when Al Swearengen could just shoot someone in the street without taz making such a deal about it," but this could die down as people get used to the idea that there are some ways they just can't behave anymore. Looking back at those old threads, it's clear that people have, on the whole, learned to behave better than they did 10 years ago. Those changes in moderation and site culture seem to have worked....
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:52 AM on June 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
The other reason why intention is important and reflexively reducing this to a With Us or Against Us cry against bigotry has some significant costs is because persuasion is hugely more efficient than intervention (to say nothing of healthier for the community), and intent matters in persuading someone else to change their behavior. If you you reduce objections to shifts in moderation policy to being an endorsement of bigotry, someone who is not intending to endorse bigotry will either conclude that you're not talking about their particular comment or that you are insulting them rather than engaging.
Sorry for the long quote, but I wanted to be sure to get all of it. I think that intentions, as far as they matter, will appear not via member statements about their intents so much as future member actions. So, when I step on someone's foot at a party, it doesn't really matter if I intended to step on their foot, accidentally stepped on their foot because I wasn't paying attention, stepped on their foot because the room is crowded and I got shoved by someone else, or any other scenario. The immediate problem is that I am standing on their foot, and I need to get off their foot." So, one way I show my good intentions (given that no one (including me, often enough) can know my pure intentions, is by saying "sorry" as I get off their foot. I can further show my good intentions by making more effort to look where I am walking in the future, attending to the space around me better so I don't get pushed as easily, maybe not having my conversation in the doorway or buffet line, and so on. Loudly proclaiming my support of People with Sore Toes is only evidence of good intentions if I make continued effort not to step on people's toes -- effects speak way way louder than intentions. Similarly, if someone is generally a courteous non-toe-stepper, if they do step on someone's toes, I am more likely to assume that it was an accident; similarly, if I have watched them stamp around in huge clown shoes at every party, all the protestations of good intentions are wasted, because, well, I can see the damn clown shoes.
To the second point, I get that you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar, and I tend toward consensus and conciliation in my professional life and management style, but there are plenty of people for whom the softer approach just doesn't work, since it's easier for them to ignore the offers of conciliation than to give up their clown shoes. I think stricter moderation has, in the short term, moved at least some of the shouting from the bigotry to the complaints that "MetaFilter was better back in the old days when Al Swearengen could just shoot someone in the street without taz making such a deal about it," but this could die down as people get used to the idea that there are some ways they just can't behave anymore. Looking back at those old threads, it's clear that people have, on the whole, learned to behave better than they did 10 years ago. Those changes in moderation and site culture seem to have worked....
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:52 AM on June 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
I honestly though TERF was a highly derogatory term used to make fun of older feminists, primarily from having seen it used in places like Tumblr and other contexts. I learned today that it started as useful descriptor of points of view within feminism, and isn't (primarily) a really nasty insult.
It's an accurate and useful descriptor. The people who claim it's a nasty insult seem to be afraid of being called transphobic or transmisogynist.
TERF is an accurate and useful descriptor when applied to people like the ones discussed in this article (and elsewhere on the same site). However, I think actual usage is often closer to bonehead's initial impression of the meaning. I do see it deployed as an insult against people who are clearly not radical feminists and are therefore not TERFs (even if they might be transphobes). And since the meaning of a word is determined by its usage, I don't think it's unreasonable to consider it an insult (except when it's carefully used to only refer to people who subscribe to a trans-exclusionary radical feminist ideology, as it is on theterfs).
posted by klausness at 6:01 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's an accurate and useful descriptor. The people who claim it's a nasty insult seem to be afraid of being called transphobic or transmisogynist.
TERF is an accurate and useful descriptor when applied to people like the ones discussed in this article (and elsewhere on the same site). However, I think actual usage is often closer to bonehead's initial impression of the meaning. I do see it deployed as an insult against people who are clearly not radical feminists and are therefore not TERFs (even if they might be transphobes). And since the meaning of a word is determined by its usage, I don't think it's unreasonable to consider it an insult (except when it's carefully used to only refer to people who subscribe to a trans-exclusionary radical feminist ideology, as it is on theterfs).
posted by klausness at 6:01 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
So, when I step on someone's foot at a party, it doesn't really matter if I intended to step on their foot, accidentally stepped on their foot because I wasn't paying attention, stepped on their foot because the room is crowded and I got shoved by someone else, or any other scenario. The immediate problem is that I am standing on their foot, and I need to get off their foot.
Perhaps the problem is a bunch of people wearing clown shoes.
posted by amorphatist at 6:02 AM on June 17, 2015
Perhaps the problem is a bunch of people wearing clown shoes.
posted by amorphatist at 6:02 AM on June 17, 2015
I understand that the "words on a screen" argument proves too much - if none of this matters then who cares, etc. - but, still, if you need to have comments or users deleted in order to feel you can participate on a left-leaning website, I would suggest you're going to have a hard time convincing people of anything in the wider world.
MetaFilter is not the rest of the world. The rest of the world is. How we engage there and here are not necessarily related. You do not need to concern-troll about the strength and mental health of the people suggesting that this be a venue where they do not need to put up with toxic shit.
posted by Dysk at 6:03 AM on June 17, 2015 [16 favorites]
MetaFilter is not the rest of the world. The rest of the world is. How we engage there and here are not necessarily related. You do not need to concern-troll about the strength and mental health of the people suggesting that this be a venue where they do not need to put up with toxic shit.
posted by Dysk at 6:03 AM on June 17, 2015 [16 favorites]
This discussion of entailment is weird. I very much want to eat some ice cream. I don't want to get fat. It seems perfectly cromulent to me to say that. But on your view, my wanting to eat ice cream is a desire to get fat! That can't be right.
I want to eat ice cream in the counterfactual world where it doesn't make me fat. I want to duck the entailment. I think the most you can say here is that if I eat the ice cream knowing that we live in a world where it will make me fat, I have accepted unfortunate consequences. But no, I did not want to get fat. Getting fat is a side effect of my desires.
Analogies break down here because 'getting fat' does not follow from eating ice cream in the same way. You might have only wanted an ice cream for the flavour, or the coldness, or whatever - it'd still be correct to say that you wanted to eat.
We also don't live in a counterfactual world, and a desire in the real world to eat ice cream is a desire to ingest calories. 'Getting fat' is too far removed from that. Wanting less moderation is wanting more opinions expressed, including bigotry. It is wanting more bigotry. A broader cultural shift toward more racism, sexism, homophobia, &c in the world is analogous to 'getting fat' here, and does not necessarily follow.
posted by Dysk at 6:06 AM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
I want to eat ice cream in the counterfactual world where it doesn't make me fat. I want to duck the entailment. I think the most you can say here is that if I eat the ice cream knowing that we live in a world where it will make me fat, I have accepted unfortunate consequences. But no, I did not want to get fat. Getting fat is a side effect of my desires.
Analogies break down here because 'getting fat' does not follow from eating ice cream in the same way. You might have only wanted an ice cream for the flavour, or the coldness, or whatever - it'd still be correct to say that you wanted to eat.
We also don't live in a counterfactual world, and a desire in the real world to eat ice cream is a desire to ingest calories. 'Getting fat' is too far removed from that. Wanting less moderation is wanting more opinions expressed, including bigotry. It is wanting more bigotry. A broader cultural shift toward more racism, sexism, homophobia, &c in the world is analogous to 'getting fat' here, and does not necessarily follow.
posted by Dysk at 6:06 AM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
Late to the party (?) ... this has been a beast to read up on. But my reaction to the OP it is pretty much the same -- the mods were probably right to delete the thread from a practical standpoint, but it really is a conversation we should be capable of having. And some of the arguments surrounding this have been troubling.
I've only been around MeFi since late '07, so I can't speak to the quality of discussion on race and gender issues prior. Even in that relatively short time, things have improved markedly, especially after watershed posts like this. Jessamyn especially did a fantastic job raising the quality bar.
But I've also noticed that in the last 2-3 years such valuable discussions have been soured more and more by the most zealous aspects of the Twitter/Tumblr callout culture -- a kind of zero-tolerance hostility not just towards redpillers, gamergators, casual racists, and other overt enemies, but towards friends and allies that conduct themselves imperfectly. Where polite disagreement and well-meaning cluelessness is equated with bigotry and hate speech, and scorned just as hard.
Consider the MeTa post a few months back calling for a blanket ban on Reddit links, where those disagreeing with the idea were called thoughtless, unwelcoming to queer people and women, and equated with rape apologists. Or the recent threads about a possible #JuneByQueers, a benign, welcoming gesture that got so mired in criticism and tarred as arrogant and oppressive that OP had to leave the site for a while. Or heck, just look at this current trainwreck. Not only are the deleted thread mentions of "transracialism" hate-filled transphobia rather than simply un-(or mis)informed, but people who suggest the deletion was bad or that such offensively wrong ideas are worth arguing against rather than suppressing are supporters of bigotry, if not closet bigots themselves. There's way too much assumption of bad faith and interpreting motives in the least charitable light. The heavy reliance on theory and jargon and meta-analysis (where the very act of talking about these issues impolitically is deemed offensive and even harmful) makes having any kind of constructive dialogue with the uninitiated even more difficult.
It would be really nice if we could all try to heed Jay Smooth's advice to criticize the behavior and not the person when it comes to sensitive issues like this, as well as to be realistic about the level of understanding the average person, or even the average MeFite, is going to have about the realities of being queer or being trans*, even when those realities are incredibly important to said groups. I'm not saying ignorance of the burdens of trans issues is okay, but this tendency to attack both it and any attempt to bridge the gap is not healthy. And I worry about the long-term viability of the site if it develops a reputation as an unforgiving minefield of esoteric critical theory and identity politics that's unwelcoming not just for social conservatives but for people who are sympathetic to (or even members of) marginalized groups.
posted by Rhaomi at 6:07 AM on June 17, 2015 [76 favorites]
I've only been around MeFi since late '07, so I can't speak to the quality of discussion on race and gender issues prior. Even in that relatively short time, things have improved markedly, especially after watershed posts like this. Jessamyn especially did a fantastic job raising the quality bar.
But I've also noticed that in the last 2-3 years such valuable discussions have been soured more and more by the most zealous aspects of the Twitter/Tumblr callout culture -- a kind of zero-tolerance hostility not just towards redpillers, gamergators, casual racists, and other overt enemies, but towards friends and allies that conduct themselves imperfectly. Where polite disagreement and well-meaning cluelessness is equated with bigotry and hate speech, and scorned just as hard.
Consider the MeTa post a few months back calling for a blanket ban on Reddit links, where those disagreeing with the idea were called thoughtless, unwelcoming to queer people and women, and equated with rape apologists. Or the recent threads about a possible #JuneByQueers, a benign, welcoming gesture that got so mired in criticism and tarred as arrogant and oppressive that OP had to leave the site for a while. Or heck, just look at this current trainwreck. Not only are the deleted thread mentions of "transracialism" hate-filled transphobia rather than simply un-(or mis)informed, but people who suggest the deletion was bad or that such offensively wrong ideas are worth arguing against rather than suppressing are supporters of bigotry, if not closet bigots themselves. There's way too much assumption of bad faith and interpreting motives in the least charitable light. The heavy reliance on theory and jargon and meta-analysis (where the very act of talking about these issues impolitically is deemed offensive and even harmful) makes having any kind of constructive dialogue with the uninitiated even more difficult.
It would be really nice if we could all try to heed Jay Smooth's advice to criticize the behavior and not the person when it comes to sensitive issues like this, as well as to be realistic about the level of understanding the average person, or even the average MeFite, is going to have about the realities of being queer or being trans*, even when those realities are incredibly important to said groups. I'm not saying ignorance of the burdens of trans issues is okay, but this tendency to attack both it and any attempt to bridge the gap is not healthy. And I worry about the long-term viability of the site if it develops a reputation as an unforgiving minefield of esoteric critical theory and identity politics that's unwelcoming not just for social conservatives but for people who are sympathetic to (or even members of) marginalized groups.
posted by Rhaomi at 6:07 AM on June 17, 2015 [76 favorites]
Does "toxic shit" include being accused of attacking someone's "mental health" when you did no such thing? Or do the calls for respect (and deletions) only run one way?
posted by Mid at 6:07 AM on June 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by Mid at 6:07 AM on June 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
MetaFilter is not the rest of the world. The rest of the world is. How we engage there and here are not necessarily related. You do not need to concern-troll about the strength and mental health of the people suggesting that this be a venue where they do not need to put up with toxic shit.
Where do you come up with this shit? Are you sure you're posting in the right browser tab?
posted by amorphatist at 6:12 AM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Where do you come up with this shit? Are you sure you're posting in the right browser tab?
posted by amorphatist at 6:12 AM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Not only are the deleted thread mentions of "transracialism" hate-filled transphobia rather than simply un-(or mis)informed
The two are not mutually exclusive. You can parrot hate-filled transphobia as a result of being un- or misinformed. One needs not assume bad faith to find something to be hate-filled transphobia, and the opposite - that assuming good faith means NOT pointing out when something is hate-filled transphobia - a rather disturbing alternative.
posted by Dysk at 6:12 AM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
The two are not mutually exclusive. You can parrot hate-filled transphobia as a result of being un- or misinformed. One needs not assume bad faith to find something to be hate-filled transphobia, and the opposite - that assuming good faith means NOT pointing out when something is hate-filled transphobia - a rather disturbing alternative.
posted by Dysk at 6:12 AM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
Does "toxic shit" include being accused of attacking someone's "mental health" when you did no such thing? Or do the calls for respect (and deletions) only run one way?
Hey now, I thought it was just words on a screen.
posted by Dysk at 6:12 AM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
Hey now, I thought it was just words on a screen.
posted by Dysk at 6:12 AM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
anotherpanacea: yes, I was behind. Still am - this is a long thread.
posted by jb at 6:14 AM on June 17, 2015
posted by jb at 6:14 AM on June 17, 2015
jb: then please consider whether commenting on topics that have since been left behind is actually all that helpful here.
posted by Too-Ticky at 6:17 AM on June 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by Too-Ticky at 6:17 AM on June 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
Perhaps the problem is a bunch of people wearing clown shoes.
I'm kind of surprised it's taken so long to get to the tinfoil-hat part of the conversation, where the contrarians start accusing people of making this all up just to gain sympathy or internet points.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:18 AM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
I'm kind of surprised it's taken so long to get to the tinfoil-hat part of the conversation, where the contrarians start accusing people of making this all up just to gain sympathy or internet points.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:18 AM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
I /think/ you’re confused about which side that poster is on zombieflanders. But I look forward to the outrage from the OP that they might be making stuff up in order to score internet points: Clearly only the *other* side ever does that.
posted by pharm at 6:24 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by pharm at 6:24 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
> True which is why we need forums where the discussion is based in logic and reason and sealions can be heard and refuted and sometimes feelings will be hurt but the right side will prove its case with logic, history and rhethotic rather than raw lived experience.
Leaving aside for the moment the premise that lived experience is of less value than logic, and that somehow things like racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia can be solved using logic, this all falls apart when someone simply will not accept the premise that logic-arguer is working from. There have been multiple mefites in multiple threads who seem to be happy to ignore logic, history, and helpful links full of the same because they would rather e.g. misgender someone, or continue to insist that no, it really is a compliment when a man hey-babys a woman on the street.
And what, exactly, would be the logic that cat-calling is unwelcome to the vast majority of women that would convince the cat-caller to quit it already? I have some lived experience around that but I guess that doesn't count (as much)?
posted by rtha at 6:25 AM on June 17, 2015 [18 favorites]
Leaving aside for the moment the premise that lived experience is of less value than logic, and that somehow things like racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia can be solved using logic, this all falls apart when someone simply will not accept the premise that logic-arguer is working from. There have been multiple mefites in multiple threads who seem to be happy to ignore logic, history, and helpful links full of the same because they would rather e.g. misgender someone, or continue to insist that no, it really is a compliment when a man hey-babys a woman on the street.
And what, exactly, would be the logic that cat-calling is unwelcome to the vast majority of women that would convince the cat-caller to quit it already? I have some lived experience around that but I guess that doesn't count (as much)?
posted by rtha at 6:25 AM on June 17, 2015 [18 favorites]
Where do you come up with this shit? Are you sure you're posting in the right browser tab?
Substitute "ability to deal with the world" for "mental health" and it should be much clearer. They mean the same.
posted by Dysk at 6:27 AM on June 17, 2015
Substitute "ability to deal with the world" for "mental health" and it should be much clearer. They mean the same.
posted by Dysk at 6:27 AM on June 17, 2015
Folks, I'd like to make a plea for trying to keep this reined in to discuss the post topic in considered way and try to avoid wandering down all sorts of derailing detours and interpersonal fights, generalized complaints, animosity and hostility, etc. We literally cannot keep up with this thread.
Google tells me a typical novel has 80,000 - 100,000 words. This thread is over 120,000 words. We have limited human bandwidth, and it's stretched mighty thin at the moment. Please, if you are going to comment here, try to make it productive and useful.
posted by taz (staff) at 6:28 AM on June 17, 2015 [19 favorites]
Google tells me a typical novel has 80,000 - 100,000 words. This thread is over 120,000 words. We have limited human bandwidth, and it's stretched mighty thin at the moment. Please, if you are going to comment here, try to make it productive and useful.
posted by taz (staff) at 6:28 AM on June 17, 2015 [19 favorites]
I /think/ you’re confused about which side that poster is on zombieflanders. But I look forward to the outrage from the OP that they might be making stuff up in order to score internet points: Clearly only the *other* side ever does that.
I think amorphatist is saying the problem is that people are oversensitive to comments which they find hurtful.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 6:29 AM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
I think amorphatist is saying the problem is that people are oversensitive to comments which they find hurtful.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 6:29 AM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
Wow, this shit storm is still raging! Great because I was wondering something and someone here might know the answer. Are "we" saying that the misuse of the term "transracial" is transphobic? And if we are I'm unclear how using that term constitutes "phobic" behavior (irrational anxiety or fear) or is transphobic more of catch-all sort of term?
posted by MikeMc at 6:30 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by MikeMc at 6:30 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
>Perhaps the problem is a bunch of people wearing clown shoes.
I'm kind of surprised it's taken so long to get to the tinfoil-hat part of the conversation, where the contrarians start accusing people of making this all up just to gain sympathy or internet points.
That may be a bit unkind. Perhaps amorphatist is coming to the realization that, yes, MetaFilter has a bunch of people wearing clown shoes, and those derided as SJWs are simply asking that clown shoes be left at the door of this particular party.
I mean, a boy can dream.
In other news, my spell-checker made a sort of bizarre attempt to get me to type "MetaFilleter," which kind of is a thing. New subsite, please?
posted by GenjiandProust at 6:32 AM on June 17, 2015
I'm kind of surprised it's taken so long to get to the tinfoil-hat part of the conversation, where the contrarians start accusing people of making this all up just to gain sympathy or internet points.
That may be a bit unkind. Perhaps amorphatist is coming to the realization that, yes, MetaFilter has a bunch of people wearing clown shoes, and those derided as SJWs are simply asking that clown shoes be left at the door of this particular party.
I mean, a boy can dream.
In other news, my spell-checker made a sort of bizarre attempt to get me to type "MetaFilleter," which kind of is a thing. New subsite, please?
posted by GenjiandProust at 6:32 AM on June 17, 2015
Wow, this shit storm is still raging! Great because I was wondering something and someone here might know the answer. Are "we" saying that the misuse of the term "transracial" is transphobic?
Yes.
And if we are I'm unclear how using that term constitutes "phobic" behavior (irrational anxiety or fear) or is transphobic more of catch-all sort of term?
Transphobia (and homophobia) are not phobias in that sense, much like a computer virus isn't actually a a small infectious agent that replicates only inside the living cells of other organisms.
posted by Dysk at 6:34 AM on June 17, 2015 [24 favorites]
Yes.
And if we are I'm unclear how using that term constitutes "phobic" behavior (irrational anxiety or fear) or is transphobic more of catch-all sort of term?
Transphobia (and homophobia) are not phobias in that sense, much like a computer virus isn't actually a a small infectious agent that replicates only inside the living cells of other organisms.
posted by Dysk at 6:34 AM on June 17, 2015 [24 favorites]
I read it as saying that if people are getting their toes trodden on by people with clown shoes on, it’s the fault of the clown-shoes wearers (in this analogy, the clown-shoes wearers are those innocently (or not) repeating viewpoints that oppress others) & they ought to take their clown shoes off and stop inadvertently treading on other people’s toes.
It’s interesting that other people appear to have jumped to exactly the opposite conclusion.
posted by pharm at 6:34 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
It’s interesting that other people appear to have jumped to exactly the opposite conclusion.
posted by pharm at 6:34 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Transracial is a bullshit made up term being used to undermine transgender people's actual life experience. The fact that people are trying to use other people's life experiences as gotchas is maybe not phobic but it certainly seems to be disrespectful, that's for sure.
posted by h00py at 6:36 AM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by h00py at 6:36 AM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
Note: pharm asked that their comment be deleted, which it has been.
posted by taz (staff) at 6:45 AM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by taz (staff) at 6:45 AM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Rhaomi (and maybe His thoughts were red thoughts)-- "It would be really nice if we could all try to heed Jay Smooth's advice to criticize the behavior and not the person"
Heh, I may have been the first person to formalize that idea for Metafilter. Slightly before Jay Smooth!
posted by NortonDC at 6:45 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Heh, I may have been the first person to formalize that idea for Metafilter. Slightly before Jay Smooth!
posted by NortonDC at 6:45 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
I read it as saying that if people are getting their toes trodden on by people with clown shoes on, it’s the fault of the clown-shoes wearers (in this analogy, the clown-shoes wearers are those innocently (or not) repeating viewpoints that oppress others) & they ought to take their clown shoes off and stop inadvertently treading on other people’s toes.
pharm, I think you misread the analogy amorphatist was responding to. The person repeating oppressive viewpoints is the person stepping on people's feet, which is much easier to do when the people around that person are wearing clown shoes:
So, when I step on someone's foot at a party, it doesn't really matter if I intended to step on their foot, accidentally stepped on their foot because I wasn't paying attention, stepped on their foot because the room is crowded and I got shoved by someone else, or any other scenario. The immediate problem is that I am standing on their foot, and I need to get off their foot.
But really, I read amorphatist's comment the way I did because I remember which side of this kind of argument he's come down on in the past, even in this thread.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 6:48 AM on June 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
pharm, I think you misread the analogy amorphatist was responding to. The person repeating oppressive viewpoints is the person stepping on people's feet, which is much easier to do when the people around that person are wearing clown shoes:
So, when I step on someone's foot at a party, it doesn't really matter if I intended to step on their foot, accidentally stepped on their foot because I wasn't paying attention, stepped on their foot because the room is crowded and I got shoved by someone else, or any other scenario. The immediate problem is that I am standing on their foot, and I need to get off their foot.
But really, I read amorphatist's comment the way I did because I remember which side of this kind of argument he's come down on in the past, even in this thread.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 6:48 AM on June 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
Substitute "ability to deal with the world" for "mental health" and it should be much clearer. They mean the same.
Yeah, that also wasn't said. Best I can find in the comment you were addressing was "but, still, if you need to have comments or users deleted in order to feel you can participate on a left-leaning website, I would suggest you're going to have a hard time convincing people of anything in the wider world.". There is no commentary made there on anybody's mental health, that comment is just smearing shit around.
pharm, I think you misread the analogy amorphatist was responding to. The person repeating oppressive viewpoints is the person stepping on people's feet, which is much easier to do when the people around that person are wearing clown shoes:
Rustic, you are correct. This is an important issue to me and my cloven-hooved cadre.
posted by amorphatist at 6:54 AM on June 17, 2015
Yeah, that also wasn't said. Best I can find in the comment you were addressing was "but, still, if you need to have comments or users deleted in order to feel you can participate on a left-leaning website, I would suggest you're going to have a hard time convincing people of anything in the wider world.". There is no commentary made there on anybody's mental health, that comment is just smearing shit around.
pharm, I think you misread the analogy amorphatist was responding to. The person repeating oppressive viewpoints is the person stepping on people's feet, which is much easier to do when the people around that person are wearing clown shoes:
Rustic, you are correct. This is an important issue to me and my cloven-hooved cadre.
posted by amorphatist at 6:54 AM on June 17, 2015
Dysk: "The two are not mutually exclusive. You can parrot hate-filled transphobia as a result of being un- or misinformed. One needs not assume bad faith to find something to be hate-filled transphobia, and the opposite - that assuming good faith means NOT pointing out when something is hate-filled transphobia - a rather disturbing alternative."
There is also a reasonable middle ground: recognizing the difference between (1) hurtful comments made out of ignorance that they are hurtful and (2) hurtful comments made out of contempt in order to hurt. My point is that it's not constructive to characterize the former as the latter by using loaded words like transphobic and bigoted that lump them in with the very real people who actively hate -- it just puts people on the defensive and causes unnecessarily nasty fights.
posted by Rhaomi at 6:55 AM on June 17, 2015 [9 favorites]
There is also a reasonable middle ground: recognizing the difference between (1) hurtful comments made out of ignorance that they are hurtful and (2) hurtful comments made out of contempt in order to hurt. My point is that it's not constructive to characterize the former as the latter by using loaded words like transphobic and bigoted that lump them in with the very real people who actively hate -- it just puts people on the defensive and causes unnecessarily nasty fights.
posted by Rhaomi at 6:55 AM on June 17, 2015 [9 favorites]
Rhaomi (and maybe His thoughts were red thoughts)-- "It would be really nice if we could all try to heed Jay Smooth's advice to criticize the behavior and not the person"
This is generally great advice, but, in the past we have at least one MeTa attacking this concept. As far as I can tell, the effort is to move the euphemism so far down the line that no one can ever be called out for anything except the most cartoonish bigotry or harassment.
Which doesn't mean it's not a good tactic, just that it also has limitations.
posted by GenjiandProust at 6:56 AM on June 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
This is generally great advice, but, in the past we have at least one MeTa attacking this concept. As far as I can tell, the effort is to move the euphemism so far down the line that no one can ever be called out for anything except the most cartoonish bigotry or harassment.
Which doesn't mean it's not a good tactic, just that it also has limitations.
posted by GenjiandProust at 6:56 AM on June 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
How is that not exactly what I wrote Rustic? ie that the problem is clearly the people with clown shoes on, not the poor sods having their toes trodden on. I am now very confused.
posted by pharm at 6:57 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by pharm at 6:57 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Mmmm. I actually really appreciate comments made recently by jb, Rhaomi, and GenjiandProust here. Because, actually, one thing that I value deeply about the Metafilter community specifically is the chance to have a space that is simultaneously not tolerant of bigoted themes in discussion but which also prioritizes respect among users and an assumption of good faith. It is, admittedly, really difficult to strike a balance there--partly because the topic necessitates an awareness of a whole lot of chafed sore spots set into place by an unequal world outside this comunity--but I think it's worth aiming for.
The thing is, I don't actually think that the solution to minimizing the more toxic aspects of call-out culture is to have less moderation. I think that the best way to foster a sitewide culture of respect that makes call-out culture unnecessary is to... well, foster a sitewide culture of respect and relative trust among people on Metafilter. That means removing inflammatory discussions that are causing a lot of people pain and exhaustion. It means coming down hard on people who are repeatedly making bigoted statements after being requested to stop and pulling them out of the conversation until they can be respectful to everyone, not only people who share their particular background.
Users who have come in swinging on this issue, needling anyone who thinks the increased modding in general has been helpful and publicly espousing a desire for a mythical past, are actually making our ability to have these difficult conversations more difficult. They're making it more likely that those aspects of callout culture will become established in Metafilter culture, because those needling comments establish an atmosphere of "us vs them." And, because they come from mostly (as far as I can tell, anyway) cis/het/white/male posters, they make many users who belong to at least one marginalized group bristle and draw lines in the sand.
That's for a couple of reasons: one, highly privileged people have less experience with patterns of marginalization and with very few exceptions tend to blunder right into those sore spots--metaphorically, people who don't get stepped on very much tend to be a bit clumsier about where they put their feet. The other reason is that the context of many marginalized groups on the internet involves a lot of people dismissing marginalized lived experiences over and over and over again, and that's terribly exhausting. Highly privileged people tossing off one-liners and longing for a past which was demonstrably worse for marginalized groups than Metafilter is now fits right into that dismissive experience and context, which usually makes it much harder to trust the other "side" to respond respectfully in the future. It's hard to make yourself vulnerable and put yourself out there if your entire experience is screaming that the other person you're talking to is going to kick you when you're down.
Barbs grousing about Tumblr and Twitter being terrible are the opposite of helpful here. So are dismissive, terse, "You are completely wrong" style comments. The best way in my experience to deal with that tension and exhaustion is to reiterate the humanity of the person you're talking to and to affirm their lived experiences, even if you personally completely disagree with their take on the situation. Unfortunately that only works if the other person is willing to respect your experience in return, and that's where I think moderation comes in. That's the only way to have the interesting, hard, mind-expanding conversations, though; trusting the other parties in the conversation enough to respect you when you make yourself vulnerable enough to put yourself out there.
posted by sciatrix at 6:59 AM on June 17, 2015 [15 favorites]
The thing is, I don't actually think that the solution to minimizing the more toxic aspects of call-out culture is to have less moderation. I think that the best way to foster a sitewide culture of respect that makes call-out culture unnecessary is to... well, foster a sitewide culture of respect and relative trust among people on Metafilter. That means removing inflammatory discussions that are causing a lot of people pain and exhaustion. It means coming down hard on people who are repeatedly making bigoted statements after being requested to stop and pulling them out of the conversation until they can be respectful to everyone, not only people who share their particular background.
Users who have come in swinging on this issue, needling anyone who thinks the increased modding in general has been helpful and publicly espousing a desire for a mythical past, are actually making our ability to have these difficult conversations more difficult. They're making it more likely that those aspects of callout culture will become established in Metafilter culture, because those needling comments establish an atmosphere of "us vs them." And, because they come from mostly (as far as I can tell, anyway) cis/het/white/male posters, they make many users who belong to at least one marginalized group bristle and draw lines in the sand.
That's for a couple of reasons: one, highly privileged people have less experience with patterns of marginalization and with very few exceptions tend to blunder right into those sore spots--metaphorically, people who don't get stepped on very much tend to be a bit clumsier about where they put their feet. The other reason is that the context of many marginalized groups on the internet involves a lot of people dismissing marginalized lived experiences over and over and over again, and that's terribly exhausting. Highly privileged people tossing off one-liners and longing for a past which was demonstrably worse for marginalized groups than Metafilter is now fits right into that dismissive experience and context, which usually makes it much harder to trust the other "side" to respond respectfully in the future. It's hard to make yourself vulnerable and put yourself out there if your entire experience is screaming that the other person you're talking to is going to kick you when you're down.
Barbs grousing about Tumblr and Twitter being terrible are the opposite of helpful here. So are dismissive, terse, "You are completely wrong" style comments. The best way in my experience to deal with that tension and exhaustion is to reiterate the humanity of the person you're talking to and to affirm their lived experiences, even if you personally completely disagree with their take on the situation. Unfortunately that only works if the other person is willing to respect your experience in return, and that's where I think moderation comes in. That's the only way to have the interesting, hard, mind-expanding conversations, though; trusting the other parties in the conversation enough to respect you when you make yourself vulnerable enough to put yourself out there.
posted by sciatrix at 6:59 AM on June 17, 2015 [15 favorites]
This is an important issue to me and my cloven-hooved cadre.
buddy, you thought "the afternoon of a faun" was about bambi
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 6:59 AM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
buddy, you thought "the afternoon of a faun" was about bambi
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 6:59 AM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Oh right, I see it now: the *other* interpretation is that if there are a bunch of people walking around with clown shoes on, it’s difficult to avoid treading on them.
Another example for the "your own preconceptions will result in you interpreting the same text in completely different ways to other people" folder.
posted by pharm at 7:02 AM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Another example for the "your own preconceptions will result in you interpreting the same text in completely different ways to other people" folder.
posted by pharm at 7:02 AM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
buddy, you thought the afternoon of a faun was about bambi
Hey now, that sounds like a product of cis-shoed privilege. I'm not saying you're hoofphobic, just that that comment could contribute to anti-hoof bigotry.
posted by amorphatist at 7:04 AM on June 17, 2015
Hey now, that sounds like a product of cis-shoed privilege. I'm not saying you're hoofphobic, just that that comment could contribute to anti-hoof bigotry.
posted by amorphatist at 7:04 AM on June 17, 2015
There is also a reasonable middle ground: recognizing the difference between (1) hurtful comments made out of ignorance that they are hurtful and (2) hurtful comments made out of contempt in order to hurt. My point is that it's not constructive to characterize the former as the latter by using loaded words like transphobic and bigoted that lump them in with the very real people who actively hate -- it just puts people on the defensive and causes unnecessarily nasty fights.
But 'transphobic' doesn't necessarily mean 'actively intended to cause harm to trans people'. A statement can be sexist without being ill-intentioned. Similarly for transphobia. Someone can bring up a bigoted talking-point without realising that's what they're doing. Nobody is calling anyone a stormfront channer or anything - the very real people who actively hate - but they're pointing out that things people are saying are bigoted and transphobic. Those are not words reserved only for the most evil of intentions.
posted by Dysk at 7:05 AM on June 17, 2015 [13 favorites]
But 'transphobic' doesn't necessarily mean 'actively intended to cause harm to trans people'. A statement can be sexist without being ill-intentioned. Similarly for transphobia. Someone can bring up a bigoted talking-point without realising that's what they're doing. Nobody is calling anyone a stormfront channer or anything - the very real people who actively hate - but they're pointing out that things people are saying are bigoted and transphobic. Those are not words reserved only for the most evil of intentions.
posted by Dysk at 7:05 AM on June 17, 2015 [13 favorites]
The contentiousness of this meta thread is evidence enough that the mods made the right decision.
posted by grumpybear69 at 7:05 AM on June 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by grumpybear69 at 7:05 AM on June 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
buddy, you thought the afternoon of a faun was about bambi
I am in tears now. I hope you are happy and satisfied with your life-wrecking comments. Do not tell me about Red Riding Hood. I did not eat her grandmother.
posted by Wolof at 7:05 AM on June 17, 2015
I am in tears now. I hope you are happy and satisfied with your life-wrecking comments. Do not tell me about Red Riding Hood. I did not eat her grandmother.
posted by Wolof at 7:05 AM on June 17, 2015
amorphatist is that really necessary?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:05 AM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:05 AM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Hey now, that sounds like a product of cis-shoed privilege. I'm not saying you're hoofphobic, just that that comment could contribute to anti-hoof bigotry.
buddy, you thought you were funny
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 7:06 AM on June 17, 2015 [18 favorites]
buddy, you thought you were funny
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 7:06 AM on June 17, 2015 [18 favorites]
Yeah, let's just use absurd analogising to mock trans people, that's cool.
posted by Dysk at 7:08 AM on June 17, 2015 [11 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 7:08 AM on June 17, 2015 [11 favorites]
Another example for the[...]
or an example of why people saying what they mean is preferred to analogies which are easy to misunderstand.
posted by nadawi at 7:08 AM on June 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
or an example of why people saying what they mean is preferred to analogies which are easy to misunderstand.
posted by nadawi at 7:08 AM on June 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
For those of us who are genuinely interested in the tension between forum ideals and practices that is the subject of this thread, all the little snippy comments are just tiring shit we have to filter out. Maybe don't contribute to the noise or shout over people who are actually making comments of substance?
I think there is really a valid concern from multiple different groups of posters with different perspectives, but when you come into this thread with the attitude of "I'm here to score my point!" it makes it really hard to have any kind of fruitful discussion.
posted by selfnoise at 7:09 AM on June 17, 2015 [8 favorites]
I think there is really a valid concern from multiple different groups of posters with different perspectives, but when you come into this thread with the attitude of "I'm here to score my point!" it makes it really hard to have any kind of fruitful discussion.
posted by selfnoise at 7:09 AM on June 17, 2015 [8 favorites]
Imperfect analogies are like coffee cups on office tables.
posted by Bugbread at 7:11 AM on June 17, 2015 [10 favorites]
posted by Bugbread at 7:11 AM on June 17, 2015 [10 favorites]
amorphatist, I wrote a long comment to you in another difficult metatalk thread just a few weeks ago asking you to work on improving the way you engage on the site. Your behavior in this one doesn't really seem like an improvement; give this thread a pass starting now and please work harder on it, because we're not gonna keep saying "hey, you need to work on this" indefinitely.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:12 AM on June 17, 2015 [12 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:12 AM on June 17, 2015 [12 favorites]
or an example of why people saying what they mean is preferred to analogies which are easy to misunderstand.
That's what I deserve, I suppose. I figured a well-worn analogy would be foolproof, but better minds than mine have made that mistake.
posted by GenjiandProust at 7:18 AM on June 17, 2015
That's what I deserve, I suppose. I figured a well-worn analogy would be foolproof, but better minds than mine have made that mistake.
posted by GenjiandProust at 7:18 AM on June 17, 2015
Google tells me a typical novel has 80,000 - 100,000 words. This thread is over 120,000 words.
YAY WE'VE WON NANOWRIMO!
posted by Jacqueline at 7:21 AM on June 17, 2015 [22 favorites]
YAY WE'VE WON NANOWRIMO!
posted by Jacqueline at 7:21 AM on June 17, 2015 [22 favorites]
I've been through my fair share of these types of threads on MetaTalk, and I'm pretty surprised at the way this one has gone. It's been much more contentious than it seems like it should have been. While bad readings have been fairly rampant, on all sides, I have found that the bad motives imputed to those who are concerned about excessive moderation (I don't really class myself among them) have been pretty hyperbolic. At the same time, the down pedaling of the reasons and consequences of some of the changes has been quite strange to me.
The notion that the new moderation policies boil down to "don't be an asshole" seems patently false. And it strangely thins out both the success and the importance of the moderation changes. Similarly, the weird insistence that TERF is not an insult or smear because it is "a factual description" is one of the strangest dodges I can think of in a thread (partly) about how language and usage have affects that exceed the ability of people to simply disclaim responsibility by resorting to quibbley literalism. I've felt the same way about the repeated insistence that we shouldn't expect to talk about the particular case that sparked the deleted threads right now because "we don't know all the facts," as if that has been a serious consideration in most other contexts.
My own take is that we need to find a middle ground in this community between allowing open bigotry and allowing people who don't understand the stakes or reasoning, and are trying to learn, a space to do that, even if their comments and questions cause distress to some members. I understand that cost of that, and the privilege that allows me to argue for that, but this is a general interest website, and I think right now the needle is a bit too far into "if you don't already get this stuff at a pretty high level, then please don't talk about it," although not always that civilly. Again, I'm not saying that blatantly transphobic, racist, homophobic, sexist, or anti-Semitic comments need to stand, but there is space between those comments and comments made out of ignorance that represent teachable moments. I understand that bigots put on a false front of misunderstanding some times, or that conversations get framed in ways that some folks are able to see as inherently -phobic (the transracialism thing, e.g.), but I feel like the community would be better for finding a way through those things rather than treating them the same as spewing slurs or dismissing the humanity of people. As a for instance, I've educated quite a few people here about why saying that "anti-Semitism" is a word coopted by Jews and should more properly be applied to all Semites, is actually an anti-Semitic canard and dog whistle. That doesn't mean it isn't anti-Semitic, it is. But it's actually a pretty nuanced and historical piece of anti-Semitism that has face validity as a legitimate and non-hateful criticism.
Ultimately, and I am just one ultra-privileged motherfucker who also happens to have spent a fair amount of social capital in other situations to promote social justice (and not always to good effect), I think that we as a community need to make sure that our expectations are the expectations that we want and that will lead to the community that we want over time. I favor more leeway for people with privilege to learn where they are wrong and where their privilege protects them, because I think people do learn from Metafilter and do change, just as I think this website has changed. I don't think the lack of "I'd hit it" comments is predominantly a result of moderation, and I know that moderation around misogyny did not start with nuking those comments. I'm actually fine with nuking comments like those, but there are other comments born of misunderstanding, that I understand that people from the affected groups experience as micro-aggressions, that I think should be talked through. And I don't think "google it" is a good response to people engaging in good faith. It should go without saying, but of course will not, that were this a different sort of website, I would think the bar should be set differently.
posted by OmieWise at 7:24 AM on June 17, 2015 [36 favorites]
The notion that the new moderation policies boil down to "don't be an asshole" seems patently false. And it strangely thins out both the success and the importance of the moderation changes. Similarly, the weird insistence that TERF is not an insult or smear because it is "a factual description" is one of the strangest dodges I can think of in a thread (partly) about how language and usage have affects that exceed the ability of people to simply disclaim responsibility by resorting to quibbley literalism. I've felt the same way about the repeated insistence that we shouldn't expect to talk about the particular case that sparked the deleted threads right now because "we don't know all the facts," as if that has been a serious consideration in most other contexts.
My own take is that we need to find a middle ground in this community between allowing open bigotry and allowing people who don't understand the stakes or reasoning, and are trying to learn, a space to do that, even if their comments and questions cause distress to some members. I understand that cost of that, and the privilege that allows me to argue for that, but this is a general interest website, and I think right now the needle is a bit too far into "if you don't already get this stuff at a pretty high level, then please don't talk about it," although not always that civilly. Again, I'm not saying that blatantly transphobic, racist, homophobic, sexist, or anti-Semitic comments need to stand, but there is space between those comments and comments made out of ignorance that represent teachable moments. I understand that bigots put on a false front of misunderstanding some times, or that conversations get framed in ways that some folks are able to see as inherently -phobic (the transracialism thing, e.g.), but I feel like the community would be better for finding a way through those things rather than treating them the same as spewing slurs or dismissing the humanity of people. As a for instance, I've educated quite a few people here about why saying that "anti-Semitism" is a word coopted by Jews and should more properly be applied to all Semites, is actually an anti-Semitic canard and dog whistle. That doesn't mean it isn't anti-Semitic, it is. But it's actually a pretty nuanced and historical piece of anti-Semitism that has face validity as a legitimate and non-hateful criticism.
Ultimately, and I am just one ultra-privileged motherfucker who also happens to have spent a fair amount of social capital in other situations to promote social justice (and not always to good effect), I think that we as a community need to make sure that our expectations are the expectations that we want and that will lead to the community that we want over time. I favor more leeway for people with privilege to learn where they are wrong and where their privilege protects them, because I think people do learn from Metafilter and do change, just as I think this website has changed. I don't think the lack of "I'd hit it" comments is predominantly a result of moderation, and I know that moderation around misogyny did not start with nuking those comments. I'm actually fine with nuking comments like those, but there are other comments born of misunderstanding, that I understand that people from the affected groups experience as micro-aggressions, that I think should be talked through. And I don't think "google it" is a good response to people engaging in good faith. It should go without saying, but of course will not, that were this a different sort of website, I would think the bar should be set differently.
posted by OmieWise at 7:24 AM on June 17, 2015 [36 favorites]
So, without analogy or metaphor:
My trip from ignorant to somewhat-less-ignorant has largely been through reading threads on MeFi where ignorant but well meaning behavior has been called out and handled. As much as I don't want to cause anyone needless pain, I also want for other ignorant people to have the opportunity to become less so, and MeFi is pretty awesome for that.
posted by Mooski at 7:30 AM on June 17, 2015 [15 favorites]
My trip from ignorant to somewhat-less-ignorant has largely been through reading threads on MeFi where ignorant but well meaning behavior has been called out and handled. As much as I don't want to cause anyone needless pain, I also want for other ignorant people to have the opportunity to become less so, and MeFi is pretty awesome for that.
posted by Mooski at 7:30 AM on June 17, 2015 [15 favorites]
I've felt the same way about the repeated insistence that we shouldn't expect to talk about the particular case that sparked the deleted threads right now because "we don't know all the facts," as if that has been a serious consideration in most other contexts.
deleting breaking newsfilter is something that metafilter has always done (and when people aren't fighting the sjw strawwoman it's actually something that has a lot of support 'round these parts). it's not done every single time, but it's a very common thing. i still don't understand the brave defenders of days gone by insisting we have to discuss it now or this site is an echo chamber skating on thin ice destined to be a hollow shell of itself.
posted by nadawi at 7:30 AM on June 17, 2015 [16 favorites]
deleting breaking newsfilter is something that metafilter has always done (and when people aren't fighting the sjw strawwoman it's actually something that has a lot of support 'round these parts). it's not done every single time, but it's a very common thing. i still don't understand the brave defenders of days gone by insisting we have to discuss it now or this site is an echo chamber skating on thin ice destined to be a hollow shell of itself.
posted by nadawi at 7:30 AM on June 17, 2015 [16 favorites]
also - i don't understand a recent uptick of trying to rewrite history about "i'd hit it" - we got rid of that pretty much solely on jessamyn's efforts. it was strongly discouraged by moderation in general and she took up the mantle to try to eradicate it. it really couldn't be more down to moderation than it was.
posted by nadawi at 7:33 AM on June 17, 2015 [24 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 7:33 AM on June 17, 2015 [24 favorites]
I get what you're saying, OmieWise, but I think people are looking at this deletion as some sweeping policy change, and I don't think it is one. Maybe it's a new thing that wasn't done in the past, but until it becomes a pattern, it's an exception, not a rule. And this wasn't a preemptive deletion, this was a "okay, this thread has already proven to be unmanageable, let's close it down" decision. The kinds of informative discussions you're talking about still happen on MeFi, this deletion hasn't changed it and I don't see any signs that it will change it.
nadawi: "deleting breaking newsfilter is something that metafilter has always done"
Hahaha! Haha! You've been here for two years longer than I. Have you already forgotten the Dark Decade of Newsfilter? (So glad it's over...so glad)
posted by Bugbread at 7:40 AM on June 17, 2015
nadawi: "deleting breaking newsfilter is something that metafilter has always done"
Hahaha! Haha! You've been here for two years longer than I. Have you already forgotten the Dark Decade of Newsfilter? (So glad it's over...so glad)
posted by Bugbread at 7:40 AM on June 17, 2015
I've felt the same way about the repeated insistence that we shouldn't expect to talk about the particular case that sparked the deleted threads right now because "we don't know all the facts," as if that has been a serious consideration in most other contexts.
In similarly heated contexts, that has often been a serious consideration. There are countless threads deleted with some variation of 'this is hot-button issue and there is no substance here to do anything with other than bemoan an awful thing that has happened or start fights'.
posted by Dysk at 7:40 AM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
In similarly heated contexts, that has often been a serious consideration. There are countless threads deleted with some variation of 'this is hot-button issue and there is no substance here to do anything with other than bemoan an awful thing that has happened or start fights'.
posted by Dysk at 7:40 AM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
Yeah, the context we're specifically talking about is "we don't know all the facts" with relation to "this thread which is extremely contentious". No, not knowing the facts has not been a serious consideration when the resulting discussion has been chill. But for trainwrecks, it has been a serious consideration.
posted by Bugbread at 7:43 AM on June 17, 2015
posted by Bugbread at 7:43 AM on June 17, 2015
lol not forgotten, remembering all the fights about how newfilter is destroying mefi - it'd be interesting to match up the "i've been here since rocks were formed and mefi is ruined now" complaints with those who fought against newsfilter back in the day... not something i'm going to undertake of course, but it'd still be interesting.
posted by nadawi at 7:43 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by nadawi at 7:43 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
I've felt the same way about the repeated insistence that we shouldn't expect to talk about the particular case that sparked the deleted threads right now because "we don't know all the facts," as if that has been a serious consideration in most other contexts.
I'm still catching up on this thread after a week of travel, so if there's a specific subtle wrinkle I'm missing here let me know, but my impression of what has been said in this thread by mods and non-mods has been more that the issue is that the story itself is still (and certainly was three days ago when this thread started) deeply inchoate as anything other than A Very Odd Thing Seems To Have Happened. Not that we e.g. need "all the facts", but that it's early and weird and unclear sort of what is even going on with the various principals in the story, and that that's a good argument for holding off a bit on a post to let that problem work itself out a little over time.
And that's not a new idea; it certainly has been a consideration many times in deletions and in metatalk discussions of same where the issue was a post about newly-broken or still-breaking news. Because for all Metafilter can do a good job of digging into and discussing substantially a complicated story, it rarely does so at its best when the story is so new that nobody really knows what is going on. That rush to get down to it abets speculation and arguing-about-abstracts in a way that giving something a few days or a couple of weeks or longer depending on the nature of the specific situation helps avoid.
The time pressure on starting a discussion about the Dolezal situation is external and, in that sense, fundamentally artificial in the context of how Metafilter works. That's not to say that I don't understand people wanting to talk about it here—I understand that very much, and Metafilter is one of the few places I'd actually want to read a discussion about it myself—but that desire to talk about it is not, itself, an overwhelming argument for letting it rip if there's other stuff pushing it towards the "hey, let's hold off a bit" side.
And there are those things. LobsterMitten did a great job of laying some of that out in the first comment. The stuff she talks about there is not some newly invented thing, some unprecedented line of moderation thinking; a whole lot of it is of a piece with the kind of decision-making that's gone into trying to resolve or at least mitigate this long-standing tension between the understandable desire of folks on Metafilter to talk about The Thing Everyone's Talking About and the need to avoid some of the worst problems that come with a heedless insistence on immediacy, of Right Now-ness, in what gets posted and how.
"Wait" is not "no, never", and it's important for folks to be willing to recognize and abide by that here. Even for big, media-rattling spectacles. A post about something in the news right now will still be worth posting a week from now or a month from now, if it was ever worth posting at all, and it'll benefit at that point from more thought and substantial reflection, criticism, revelation, etc. in the interim. It's a pain in the ass if what you want is a discussion Right Now, but that's ultimately not a very big deal.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:43 AM on June 17, 2015 [17 favorites]
I'm still catching up on this thread after a week of travel, so if there's a specific subtle wrinkle I'm missing here let me know, but my impression of what has been said in this thread by mods and non-mods has been more that the issue is that the story itself is still (and certainly was three days ago when this thread started) deeply inchoate as anything other than A Very Odd Thing Seems To Have Happened. Not that we e.g. need "all the facts", but that it's early and weird and unclear sort of what is even going on with the various principals in the story, and that that's a good argument for holding off a bit on a post to let that problem work itself out a little over time.
And that's not a new idea; it certainly has been a consideration many times in deletions and in metatalk discussions of same where the issue was a post about newly-broken or still-breaking news. Because for all Metafilter can do a good job of digging into and discussing substantially a complicated story, it rarely does so at its best when the story is so new that nobody really knows what is going on. That rush to get down to it abets speculation and arguing-about-abstracts in a way that giving something a few days or a couple of weeks or longer depending on the nature of the specific situation helps avoid.
The time pressure on starting a discussion about the Dolezal situation is external and, in that sense, fundamentally artificial in the context of how Metafilter works. That's not to say that I don't understand people wanting to talk about it here—I understand that very much, and Metafilter is one of the few places I'd actually want to read a discussion about it myself—but that desire to talk about it is not, itself, an overwhelming argument for letting it rip if there's other stuff pushing it towards the "hey, let's hold off a bit" side.
And there are those things. LobsterMitten did a great job of laying some of that out in the first comment. The stuff she talks about there is not some newly invented thing, some unprecedented line of moderation thinking; a whole lot of it is of a piece with the kind of decision-making that's gone into trying to resolve or at least mitigate this long-standing tension between the understandable desire of folks on Metafilter to talk about The Thing Everyone's Talking About and the need to avoid some of the worst problems that come with a heedless insistence on immediacy, of Right Now-ness, in what gets posted and how.
"Wait" is not "no, never", and it's important for folks to be willing to recognize and abide by that here. Even for big, media-rattling spectacles. A post about something in the news right now will still be worth posting a week from now or a month from now, if it was ever worth posting at all, and it'll benefit at that point from more thought and substantial reflection, criticism, revelation, etc. in the interim. It's a pain in the ass if what you want is a discussion Right Now, but that's ultimately not a very big deal.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:43 AM on June 17, 2015 [17 favorites]
we need to find a middle ground in this community between allowing open bigotry and allowing people who don't understand the stakes or reasoning, and are trying to learn, a space to do that, even if their comments and questions cause distress to some members
Even if a perfect kind of middle ground is achievable and desirable (opinions obviously different on the latter), it'd also require a lot of mod resources (time-wise, mentally, etc). With limited resources, difficult subjects probably should be placed on hold at least until it can be managed without either burning the mods out or pulling them away from everything else on the site. In this case in particular, that also has the benefit of putting a subject off until a fuller picture is available, which I think could only improve any dialogue to be had about it.
posted by ghost phoneme at 7:51 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Even if a perfect kind of middle ground is achievable and desirable (opinions obviously different on the latter), it'd also require a lot of mod resources (time-wise, mentally, etc). With limited resources, difficult subjects probably should be placed on hold at least until it can be managed without either burning the mods out or pulling them away from everything else on the site. In this case in particular, that also has the benefit of putting a subject off until a fuller picture is available, which I think could only improve any dialogue to be had about it.
posted by ghost phoneme at 7:51 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
There have to be enough of these "teachable moments" in various threads to compile a Sensitive Topics 101 page which addresses do's and dont's as well as answers to sort-of-well-meaning-but-completely-offensive questions for those MeFites who come to these discussions in good faith. This site is a treasure trove of well-articulated viewpoints.
posted by grumpybear69 at 7:56 AM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by grumpybear69 at 7:56 AM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
Those MeFites who come to these discussions in good faith but without the requisite knowledge to substantively participate, I mean.
posted by grumpybear69 at 7:58 AM on June 17, 2015
posted by grumpybear69 at 7:58 AM on June 17, 2015
In my view the best defence against newsfilter is to demand that the links be worth linking to. It's not enough to have a single link to a sketchy news report.
A good single link will be to a longer-form, well written piece. There' no length guideline, but anything under 1000 words looks kind of thin, IMO. Another approach is a well-chosen collection of links that offer further context, more viewpoints, better analysis, what have you. Most of us posting here know this already.
That requirement is why it's hard to do a good breaking news piece on metafilter. Long-form journalism doesn't happen on a 24-hour news cycle. Journalists get caught up in the excitement and a mini-consensus viewpoint and multiple sources will all report the same information (often wrong or exaggerated). There's little point looking for multiple sources in many developing news stories; they'll all say the same thing.
Metafilter is at its best, I feel, when it works counter to the journalistic rush, as a place where second and third thought can happen.
Saying, "wait, not now," to a rush to be the first to post is perfectly ok with me, particularly for smaller stories where things aren't all clear.
posted by bonehead at 7:58 AM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
A good single link will be to a longer-form, well written piece. There' no length guideline, but anything under 1000 words looks kind of thin, IMO. Another approach is a well-chosen collection of links that offer further context, more viewpoints, better analysis, what have you. Most of us posting here know this already.
That requirement is why it's hard to do a good breaking news piece on metafilter. Long-form journalism doesn't happen on a 24-hour news cycle. Journalists get caught up in the excitement and a mini-consensus viewpoint and multiple sources will all report the same information (often wrong or exaggerated). There's little point looking for multiple sources in many developing news stories; they'll all say the same thing.
Metafilter is at its best, I feel, when it works counter to the journalistic rush, as a place where second and third thought can happen.
Saying, "wait, not now," to a rush to be the first to post is perfectly ok with me, particularly for smaller stories where things aren't all clear.
posted by bonehead at 7:58 AM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
Why do we have to caricature the views of people voicing disagreement with heavier moderation as "brave defenders of days gone by," etc.? The site has a long history with a lot of good stuff and some bad stuff - nobody is saying everything was perfect or that we should go back on 15 years of community-building and norm-setting. Nobody is saying we should have comments like "I'd hit it." I think most people are totally on board with insensitive/boorish/jerky comments being deleted - it's the idea that an entire topic is off-limits that rankles.
On preview of cortex's comment, I think the Newsfilter-type objection to the post is understandable and somewhat valid*, but it wasn't really the heart of Lobster Mitten's deletion explanation, which focused on the idea that the entire discussion of race and gender issues was hurtful to certain users. ("But in the last few years we've been hearing more and more from members that it's not fair, or good for community, for those of us on the advantaged side of some of these divides to insist on our right to have abstract thought-experimenty discussions when it ruins the day of the folks with more skin in the game.") I don't see how that concern changes a week from now or a month from now.
*Newsfilter as a catch-all reason for deletion of posts about fast moving stories with lots of outrage associated with them has been around a long time and has been applied in a totally unpredictable manner, but that's just part of the site as far as I am concerned and it does not bother me - especially because I don't think it has been applied in any pro- or anti-specific-viewpoint way.
posted by Mid at 8:05 AM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
On preview of cortex's comment, I think the Newsfilter-type objection to the post is understandable and somewhat valid*, but it wasn't really the heart of Lobster Mitten's deletion explanation, which focused on the idea that the entire discussion of race and gender issues was hurtful to certain users. ("But in the last few years we've been hearing more and more from members that it's not fair, or good for community, for those of us on the advantaged side of some of these divides to insist on our right to have abstract thought-experimenty discussions when it ruins the day of the folks with more skin in the game.") I don't see how that concern changes a week from now or a month from now.
*Newsfilter as a catch-all reason for deletion of posts about fast moving stories with lots of outrage associated with them has been around a long time and has been applied in a totally unpredictable manner, but that's just part of the site as far as I am concerned and it does not bother me - especially because I don't think it has been applied in any pro- or anti-specific-viewpoint way.
posted by Mid at 8:05 AM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
There have to be enough of these "teachable moments" in various threads to compile a Sensitive Topics 101 page which addresses do's and dont's as well as answers to sort-of-well-meaning-but-completely-offensive questions for those MeFites who come to these discussions in good faith.
That assumes people were around and read those posts. I don't think that's particularly true, and expecting everyone's reading history to be substantially the same as yours will not end well.
Metafilter has a memory problem. It can be quite hard to find older threads, let alone individual posts even if you know exactly what you're looking for. Such asks are common on metatalk. I'm never surprised when someone is unaware of a particular bit of history here. Unless you've been reading closely for a long time and have a very good memory, discovery can be a real problem. A post is topical only as long at it stays on the front page, then it's at the mercy of the of search engines.
Compilations have been tried before, on the wiki most prominently, but what's the fraction of the userbase that visits it? That even realises a site wiki exists? I would not be surprised if the number was in the single-digit percentages.
posted by bonehead at 8:05 AM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
That assumes people were around and read those posts. I don't think that's particularly true, and expecting everyone's reading history to be substantially the same as yours will not end well.
Metafilter has a memory problem. It can be quite hard to find older threads, let alone individual posts even if you know exactly what you're looking for. Such asks are common on metatalk. I'm never surprised when someone is unaware of a particular bit of history here. Unless you've been reading closely for a long time and have a very good memory, discovery can be a real problem. A post is topical only as long at it stays on the front page, then it's at the mercy of the of search engines.
Compilations have been tried before, on the wiki most prominently, but what's the fraction of the userbase that visits it? That even realises a site wiki exists? I would not be surprised if the number was in the single-digit percentages.
posted by bonehead at 8:05 AM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
we need to find a middle ground in this community between allowing open bigotry and allowing people who don't understand the stakes or reasoning, and are trying to learn, a space to do that, even if their comments and questions cause distress to some members
And generally, this is how it works when it works well. It's rare that the first time someone asks a mildly offensive question or makes an odious comparison that comments are deleted or fights started. There's generally a simple, to-the-point answer, and perhaps an explanation of why it was odious. The grar and deletions both start when people then double down on the odious position, or it keeps coming up again and again in a thread, or again and again from the same user across several threads.
posted by Dysk at 8:08 AM on June 17, 2015 [15 favorites]
And generally, this is how it works when it works well. It's rare that the first time someone asks a mildly offensive question or makes an odious comparison that comments are deleted or fights started. There's generally a simple, to-the-point answer, and perhaps an explanation of why it was odious. The grar and deletions both start when people then double down on the odious position, or it keeps coming up again and again in a thread, or again and again from the same user across several threads.
posted by Dysk at 8:08 AM on June 17, 2015 [15 favorites]
Is there a way to get a list of the most favorited MetaTalk comments of all time? That might be a good starting point for putting together such a compilation. But the final result would need to be prominently linked to be effective in preventing future shitshows.
posted by Jacqueline at 8:10 AM on June 17, 2015
posted by Jacqueline at 8:10 AM on June 17, 2015
On preview of cortex's comment, I think the Newsfilter-type objection to the post is understandable and somewhat valid*, but it wasn't really the heart of Lobster Mitten's deletion explanation, which focused on the idea that the entire discussion of race and gender issues was hurtful to certain users.
To be clear, my feeling is that both of those are important factors here; I agree basically 100% with what LobsterMitten wrote up top. I was just responding in particular to the ideas that needing-all-the-facts was the actual site position, rather than just seeing the value in waiting if something brand new and a mess, and that this sort of idea was anything new in how newsy stuff has been talked about from a moderation perspective.
I don't see how that concern changes a week from now or a month from now.
A week from now or a month from now, the gawking fever of the weirdness of the story right now so thoroughly exemplified by dumb media handling of the story will have hopefully abated, and the folks who want to discuss the case on Metafilter will hopefully have had a chance to do a little more reading and thinking about the fallout as it falls out and come to a discussion with more substance and less knee-jerk or rubbernecking commentary. And the mix of folks commenting will probably naturally trend at that point away from "oh yeah I just heard about this weird thing, here's my hot take" and more toward "man, yeah, I've been thinking about this all month and here are some of the thoughts I've worked out."
I don't know how well it will work, or what the practical timeline is, and ultimately I think tricky topics are a crapshoot there, but I definitely, definitely think removing the time pressure from the situation will help a lot.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:12 AM on June 17, 2015 [12 favorites]
To be clear, my feeling is that both of those are important factors here; I agree basically 100% with what LobsterMitten wrote up top. I was just responding in particular to the ideas that needing-all-the-facts was the actual site position, rather than just seeing the value in waiting if something brand new and a mess, and that this sort of idea was anything new in how newsy stuff has been talked about from a moderation perspective.
I don't see how that concern changes a week from now or a month from now.
A week from now or a month from now, the gawking fever of the weirdness of the story right now so thoroughly exemplified by dumb media handling of the story will have hopefully abated, and the folks who want to discuss the case on Metafilter will hopefully have had a chance to do a little more reading and thinking about the fallout as it falls out and come to a discussion with more substance and less knee-jerk or rubbernecking commentary. And the mix of folks commenting will probably naturally trend at that point away from "oh yeah I just heard about this weird thing, here's my hot take" and more toward "man, yeah, I've been thinking about this all month and here are some of the thoughts I've worked out."
I don't know how well it will work, or what the practical timeline is, and ultimately I think tricky topics are a crapshoot there, but I definitely, definitely think removing the time pressure from the situation will help a lot.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:12 AM on June 17, 2015 [12 favorites]
> Why do we have to caricature the views of people voicing disagreement with heavier moderation as "brave defenders of days gone by," etc.?
Some of them caricature themselves, in my view (e.g. claiming heavier moderation is "nerfing" the site and it was better back when the grey was a sewer, or that it's just a hollow shell only fit for fragile people).
posted by rtha at 8:24 AM on June 17, 2015 [19 favorites]
Some of them caricature themselves, in my view (e.g. claiming heavier moderation is "nerfing" the site and it was better back when the grey was a sewer, or that it's just a hollow shell only fit for fragile people).
posted by rtha at 8:24 AM on June 17, 2015 [19 favorites]
OK, fine, it's not hard to find extreme comments on any point of view in this thread. But ascribing the extreme position to users at large is a big part of the problem, I think.
posted by Mid at 8:32 AM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Mid at 8:32 AM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
I throw my hat in as adding that I support the original deletion and like Cortex's explanation a few comments above. This has been so fast moving that everytime I go to comment I have had another 100 or so comments to wade through. I have nothing new to add that hasn't been said by Dysk, Winna, NoraReed, and others (can no longer keep who said what straight but also love Kalessin's comment directly above). I am okay with the heavier moderation in this case and already feel super sorry for the mods having to watch this thread. I would have felt worse though for our trans* members having to read the [thankfully deleted] thread though.
posted by biggreenplant at 8:37 AM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by biggreenplant at 8:37 AM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
OK, fine, it's not hard to find extreme comments on any point of view in this thread. But ascribing the extreme position to users at large is a big part of the problem, I think.
and the people who are repeatedly bringing the argument back around to "but you can't call people bigots!" when folks have repeatedly clarified they meant "bigotry would be a likely unintended consequence" is, what, exactly?
posted by kagredon at 8:38 AM on June 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
and the people who are repeatedly bringing the argument back around to "but you can't call people bigots!" when folks have repeatedly clarified they meant "bigotry would be a likely unintended consequence" is, what, exactly?
posted by kagredon at 8:38 AM on June 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
But ascribing the extreme position to users at large is a big part of the problem, I think.
i didn't do that. i was speaking about the types of comments that rtha links to and specifically speaking about those arguments that rely on length of membership and wondering what their various positions on newsfilter were historically. i didn't say anything about the users at large.
posted by nadawi at 8:42 AM on June 17, 2015
i didn't do that. i was speaking about the types of comments that rtha links to and specifically speaking about those arguments that rely on length of membership and wondering what their various positions on newsfilter were historically. i didn't say anything about the users at large.
posted by nadawi at 8:42 AM on June 17, 2015
> I don't think the lack of "I'd hit it" comments is predominantly a result of moderation
I'm astonished anyone could write that with a straight face. As nadawi said, jessamyn went to heroic lengths to get people to stop making those comments. There's too much rewriting of MetaFilter history already in this misbegotten thread.
posted by languagehat at 8:42 AM on June 17, 2015 [45 favorites]
I'm astonished anyone could write that with a straight face. As nadawi said, jessamyn went to heroic lengths to get people to stop making those comments. There's too much rewriting of MetaFilter history already in this misbegotten thread.
posted by languagehat at 8:42 AM on June 17, 2015 [45 favorites]
"oh yeah I just heard about this weird thing, here's my hot take" and more toward "man, yeah, I've been thinking about this all month and here are some of the thoughts I've worked out."
Yeah, right after they RTFA I'm sure
posted by Hoopo at 8:47 AM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
Yeah, right after they RTFA I'm sure
posted by Hoopo at 8:47 AM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
Yeah the entire reason we no longer see posts about women front-loaded and/or derailed with comments about her appearance is mainly because of well-deserved comment deletions and some very firm mod notes to cut it the fuck out. Some incredibly recent threads have more than demonstrated that that sort of thing is alive and well, just not nearly as acceptable. As much as its nice to take credit as users for a change in culture, we'd still be having the kind of pushback-fights we still do about it if moderation hadn't made it clear that shit was unacceptable.
posted by griphus at 8:47 AM on June 17, 2015 [30 favorites]
posted by griphus at 8:47 AM on June 17, 2015 [30 favorites]
And, credit where credit is due, like languagehat said, jessamyn had an oversized role in making this place more civilized w/r/t that sort of thing.
posted by griphus at 8:51 AM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by griphus at 8:51 AM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Yeah, right after they RTFA I'm sure
One of the nice things about removing the OMG CURRENT EVENT CURRENTLY EVENTUATING time pressure from something is that people are, yes, somewhat more likely to read the link(s) instead of just going straight for the comment box. It's certainly not a binary thing where either they won't or the will, and that's a kind of unrelated metadiscussion, but there's definitely a difference of degree there driven in part by whether the abiding motivation is a sense of pop-news zeitgeist immediacy vs. an interest after the fact.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:54 AM on June 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
One of the nice things about removing the OMG CURRENT EVENT CURRENTLY EVENTUATING time pressure from something is that people are, yes, somewhat more likely to read the link(s) instead of just going straight for the comment box. It's certainly not a binary thing where either they won't or the will, and that's a kind of unrelated metadiscussion, but there's definitely a difference of degree there driven in part by whether the abiding motivation is a sense of pop-news zeitgeist immediacy vs. an interest after the fact.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:54 AM on June 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
There have been all kinds of derails in this MeTa that feel either like they're honestly unaware of an ugly context or disingenuously inviting an ugly context. They are like scabs I want to pick at with long posts adding in the ugly context, but also don't because picking scabs is gross, they have little to no relevance to this MeTa and I don't want to add more garbage to the modbox.
So, short version of longer thing I just wrote: if a whole bunch of people have told you that something you said was -ist/-phobic, it's worthwhile to step back, get quiet, listen and reflect on what's going on there. Doing that in real time requires superhuman humility that no one has, so it's okay if your immediate response is an angry, "But I'm not -ist/-phobic!" as long as you reflect on what's going on there. You probably did say something -ist/-phobic, and realizing that and altering your behavior in future is the best thing to do. -ism/-phobia isn't, as many mired in a particular socioeconomicultural context seem to believe, exclusively the domain of bad or malicious people. It's something that's just in the water.
Finally, I would like to add that I hope we can all at least agree that poop is funny.
posted by byanyothername at 8:55 AM on June 17, 2015 [9 favorites]
So, short version of longer thing I just wrote: if a whole bunch of people have told you that something you said was -ist/-phobic, it's worthwhile to step back, get quiet, listen and reflect on what's going on there. Doing that in real time requires superhuman humility that no one has, so it's okay if your immediate response is an angry, "But I'm not -ist/-phobic!" as long as you reflect on what's going on there. You probably did say something -ist/-phobic, and realizing that and altering your behavior in future is the best thing to do. -ism/-phobia isn't, as many mired in a particular socioeconomicultural context seem to believe, exclusively the domain of bad or malicious people. It's something that's just in the water.
Finally, I would like to add that I hope we can all at least agree that poop is funny.
posted by byanyothername at 8:55 AM on June 17, 2015 [9 favorites]
I totally agree that moderation improved the tone/culture. There's an important distinction for me, though, between moderation of bad comments versus moderation of topics. As many have said, moderation of bad comments has a teaching effect that is great. That's not true of closing off topics.
posted by Mid at 8:57 AM on June 17, 2015
posted by Mid at 8:57 AM on June 17, 2015
No topics are being closed off though.
posted by Dysk at 8:58 AM on June 17, 2015 [18 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 8:58 AM on June 17, 2015 [18 favorites]
there's in fact a fantastic thread about the perception of blackness on the front page that is really illuminating, if anyone wants to learn about the topic. now, if you want to swing around about a breaking news story, it's not the time yet.
posted by nadawi at 9:01 AM on June 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 9:01 AM on June 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
Hand-Solo?
That carries a whole other self-gratifying connotation, of course.
CHWD
Pronounced "choad"? I suppose that's reductively appropriate in a sad way.
posted by aught at 9:08 AM on June 17, 2015
That carries a whole other self-gratifying connotation, of course.
CHWD
Pronounced "choad"? I suppose that's reductively appropriate in a sad way.
posted by aught at 9:08 AM on June 17, 2015
I don't think the lack of "I'd hit it" comments is predominantly a result of moderation
It is. I try to share credit where credit is due as much as possibly but I single-handedly spearheaded that particular campaign and got the community behind it and now we have an "I'd hit it" free community. I know it's tough to remember this place when there was one female mod (who still received a bit of gender-based pushback which is nearly inconceivable now) but MetaFilter was a weird and different place then.
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 9:11 AM on June 17, 2015 [81 favorites]
It is. I try to share credit where credit is due as much as possibly but I single-handedly spearheaded that particular campaign and got the community behind it and now we have an "I'd hit it" free community. I know it's tough to remember this place when there was one female mod (who still received a bit of gender-based pushback which is nearly inconceivable now) but MetaFilter was a weird and different place then.
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 9:11 AM on June 17, 2015 [81 favorites]
An often disheartening place. I peeked back at that "hand" thread and felt sick to my stomach. Things are trending in a lovelier direction.
posted by agregoli at 9:13 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by agregoli at 9:13 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
also - i don't understand a recent uptick of trying to rewrite history about "i'd hit it" - we got rid of that pretty much solely on jessamyn's efforts. it was strongly discouraged by moderation in general and she took up the mantle to try to eradicate it. it really couldn't be more down to moderation than it was.
posted by nadawi at 10:33 AM on June 17 [9 favorites +] [!]
Has there been such an uptick? I am not aware of it if there is. But that what you would take away from my comment is that I'm some douchebag who wants to rewrite history makes me think that the possibility of us having a good conversation is pretty slim.
The way I remember things, jessamyn put a clock on her web page, and was very vocal about it, and only later started deleting comments. Obviously, jessamyn had the largest effect, both as a mod and as a user, I don't want to take that away at all. I am glad all the time that jessamyn was a mod here when she was. But in this thread, where moderation=deletion, that does not seem like exactly an example of the moderation we are talking about here.
It occurs to me now, and I would have been happy to revisit this with a gentle "I think you mis-remember it" rather than a SRLSY!?!?! or three, that I may well be mis-remembering things. Maybe the clock ran between deletions. That makes a lot of sense.
deleting breaking newsfilter is something that metafilter has always done (and when people aren't fighting the sjw strawwoman it's actually something that has a lot of support 'round these parts). it's not done every single time, but it's a very common thing. i still don't understand the brave defenders of days gone by insisting we have to discuss it now or this site is an echo chamber skating on thin ice destined to be a hollow shell of itself.
posted by nadawi at 10:30 AM on June 17 [+] [!]
No. You are being disingenuous, and I also don't really buy Cortex' comment, although I believe more that he believes it. Of course newsfilter gets deleted, but also, or course, it often does not. I think the newsfilter "explanation" is an after the fact justification for deleting something that people don't want to talk about for other reasons. That's not the worst thing in the world, but it's not really possible to have a conversation about reasons not to talk about D., when the reasons given are not germane to the real reasons.
And, again, you'll have to point me to the place in my comment where I'm acting the brave defender. This is part of why I wrote my comment, the discourse in this thread is really needlessly hostile.
posted by OmieWise at 9:16 AM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 10:33 AM on June 17 [9 favorites +] [!]
Has there been such an uptick? I am not aware of it if there is. But that what you would take away from my comment is that I'm some douchebag who wants to rewrite history makes me think that the possibility of us having a good conversation is pretty slim.
The way I remember things, jessamyn put a clock on her web page, and was very vocal about it, and only later started deleting comments. Obviously, jessamyn had the largest effect, both as a mod and as a user, I don't want to take that away at all. I am glad all the time that jessamyn was a mod here when she was. But in this thread, where moderation=deletion, that does not seem like exactly an example of the moderation we are talking about here.
It occurs to me now, and I would have been happy to revisit this with a gentle "I think you mis-remember it" rather than a SRLSY!?!?! or three, that I may well be mis-remembering things. Maybe the clock ran between deletions. That makes a lot of sense.
deleting breaking newsfilter is something that metafilter has always done (and when people aren't fighting the sjw strawwoman it's actually something that has a lot of support 'round these parts). it's not done every single time, but it's a very common thing. i still don't understand the brave defenders of days gone by insisting we have to discuss it now or this site is an echo chamber skating on thin ice destined to be a hollow shell of itself.
posted by nadawi at 10:30 AM on June 17 [+] [!]
No. You are being disingenuous, and I also don't really buy Cortex' comment, although I believe more that he believes it. Of course newsfilter gets deleted, but also, or course, it often does not. I think the newsfilter "explanation" is an after the fact justification for deleting something that people don't want to talk about for other reasons. That's not the worst thing in the world, but it's not really possible to have a conversation about reasons not to talk about D., when the reasons given are not germane to the real reasons.
And, again, you'll have to point me to the place in my comment where I'm acting the brave defender. This is part of why I wrote my comment, the discourse in this thread is really needlessly hostile.
posted by OmieWise at 9:16 AM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
And there is jessamyn to correct my memory. Thanks for the correction!
posted by OmieWise at 9:17 AM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by OmieWise at 9:17 AM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
But that what you would take away from my comment is that I'm some douchebag who wants to rewrite history
...i didn't say that. and i'm not being disingenuous. i'm not really sure how to respond to such a bad faith reading of my comments. good day.
posted by nadawi at 9:20 AM on June 17, 2015 [13 favorites]
...i didn't say that. and i'm not being disingenuous. i'm not really sure how to respond to such a bad faith reading of my comments. good day.
posted by nadawi at 9:20 AM on June 17, 2015 [13 favorites]
i'd also accept your apology.
posted by nadawi at 9:20 AM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 9:20 AM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
I did a google search for "I'd hit it" in meTa and came up with a lot of good results.
posted by rtha at 9:22 AM on June 17, 2015
posted by rtha at 9:22 AM on June 17, 2015
but it's not really possible to have a conversation about reasons not to talk about D., when the reasons given are not germane to the real reasons.
Whether or not those were the reasons given in the deletion note, those are the reasons why a thread on the issue is not a good idea at present. The notion that talking about the hasty note scrawled in the deletion reason box is more important than talking about the calm, more expansive notes the mods have left here explaining their position is a rather bizarre one.
posted by Dysk at 9:25 AM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
Whether or not those were the reasons given in the deletion note, those are the reasons why a thread on the issue is not a good idea at present. The notion that talking about the hasty note scrawled in the deletion reason box is more important than talking about the calm, more expansive notes the mods have left here explaining their position is a rather bizarre one.
posted by Dysk at 9:25 AM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
Aww, the Cooter Countdown. Now that brings up some nostalgia. That and the 'Microsoft hacked my Hotmail!' guy.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:30 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:30 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
For what, nadawi? You are the one who mischaracterized my comments. You seem to now be concerned that I have mischaracterized yours. I don't have some fight with you, at least I don't on my end, but I believe that I was responding to your bad faith reading. If mine was in bad faith, I do not know where. If you explain how I mischaracterized* you, and it seems like I crossed a line, I will apologize.
*I'm being relatively precise here. I know, as does everyone else, that I did not quote you. I paraphrased what I take to be the substance of your statements.
posted by OmieWise at 9:31 AM on June 17, 2015
*I'm being relatively precise here. I know, as does everyone else, that I did not quote you. I paraphrased what I take to be the substance of your statements.
posted by OmieWise at 9:31 AM on June 17, 2015
Huh, the Cooter Countdown seems to support at least some of my recollection.
posted by OmieWise at 9:33 AM on June 17, 2015
posted by OmieWise at 9:33 AM on June 17, 2015
But in this thread, where moderation=deletion, that does not seem like exactly an example of the moderation we are talking about here.
One of the important things that happened when jessamyn pursued the whole Cooter Clock thing is that the community started more actively recognizing as a recurring problem here the kind of casual sexism of which that was just one especially obvious example; partly as a result of that, people started to get more on board with the idea that, yeah, okay, that shit is problematic for the site and for the people on it. That it was worth pushing back on. That regardless of whether specific instances at that specific moment got deleted vs. called out, the idea of deleting that sort of thing was going to be part of keeping conversation less toxic and reinforcing the idea of a community norm of not tolerating casual sexism.
Deletion as part of moderation is a big part of why that situation didn't either stagnate as an unending argument about it or regress outright to how it had been before. It is not so easy to separate the idea of deleting shit that is going badly or is especially likely to go badly from some more idealistic picture of moderation as some sort of, I don't know, dwelling manifestation of a gentle suggestion to be nice. In practice moderation is and has been for a very long time more complicated and hands-on than that, even when we try to keep it from being something altogether more draconian and codified.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:34 AM on June 17, 2015 [12 favorites]
One of the important things that happened when jessamyn pursued the whole Cooter Clock thing is that the community started more actively recognizing as a recurring problem here the kind of casual sexism of which that was just one especially obvious example; partly as a result of that, people started to get more on board with the idea that, yeah, okay, that shit is problematic for the site and for the people on it. That it was worth pushing back on. That regardless of whether specific instances at that specific moment got deleted vs. called out, the idea of deleting that sort of thing was going to be part of keeping conversation less toxic and reinforcing the idea of a community norm of not tolerating casual sexism.
Deletion as part of moderation is a big part of why that situation didn't either stagnate as an unending argument about it or regress outright to how it had been before. It is not so easy to separate the idea of deleting shit that is going badly or is especially likely to go badly from some more idealistic picture of moderation as some sort of, I don't know, dwelling manifestation of a gentle suggestion to be nice. In practice moderation is and has been for a very long time more complicated and hands-on than that, even when we try to keep it from being something altogether more draconian and codified.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:34 AM on June 17, 2015 [12 favorites]
i never called or indicated that you are a douchebag. i was right about why "i'd hit it" stopped. i was not being disingenuous when discussing newsfilter, as has in fact been my position this entire thread. it's straight up insulting to say that you at least believe cortex believes what he's saying and i do not. my comments are very short and there's no need to rephrase them to make them more insulting so you can react to shit i didn't say.
posted by nadawi at 9:34 AM on June 17, 2015 [10 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 9:34 AM on June 17, 2015 [10 favorites]
> I think many of we adults don't like to think that we still need parenting, but I think we do need moderation to keep us on an even keel when inside our little weasel brains are freaking out!
I love this comment; when I hear and feel that squeaking and gibbering and flailing inside my cranium I will henceforth know it is my weasel brain freaking out.
posted by languagehat at 9:44 AM on June 17, 2015 [8 favorites]
I love this comment; when I hear and feel that squeaking and gibbering and flailing inside my cranium I will henceforth know it is my weasel brain freaking out.
posted by languagehat at 9:44 AM on June 17, 2015 [8 favorites]
I asked the mods to delete my last comment. nadawi, I am happy to talk with you via MeMail, but I'd rather just say sorry that I hit a nerve. You did too, which is why I responded as I did, which does not make it productive. Sorry.
posted by OmieWise at 9:49 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by OmieWise at 9:49 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yes, please do. MeMail is good.
posted by agregoli at 9:50 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by agregoli at 9:50 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Comments with most favorites(link)
Consider this my quarterly statement about how just because metafilter's public bookmarking system
(a) has a fucking horrible name [which should be changed] and
(2) is used by some people as a pseudo-reddit upvote button rather than a way to save links
doesn't mean that favorite counts should be used to gauge popularity of stated positions within comments.
posted by phearlez at 10:02 AM on June 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
Consider this my quarterly statement about how just because metafilter's public bookmarking system
(a) has a fucking horrible name [which should be changed] and
(2) is used by some people as a pseudo-reddit upvote button rather than a way to save links
doesn't mean that favorite counts should be used to gauge popularity of stated positions within comments.
posted by phearlez at 10:02 AM on June 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
Popular posts and comments marked as a favorite most often in the past seven days.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:05 AM on June 17, 2015
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:05 AM on June 17, 2015
I didn't realize we could ask for comments to be deleted. Neat.
posted by zarq at 10:06 AM on June 17, 2015
posted by zarq at 10:06 AM on June 17, 2015
(a) has a fucking horrible name [which should be changed] and
I vote for 'favourites'
(2) is used by some people as a pseudo-reddit upvote button rather than a way to save links
People deserve a pat on the head for making me laugh. A policy I feel is more justified than ever in this laugh riot.
posted by biffa at 10:17 AM on June 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
I vote for 'favourites'
(2) is used by some people as a pseudo-reddit upvote button rather than a way to save links
People deserve a pat on the head for making me laugh. A policy I feel is more justified than ever in this laugh riot.
posted by biffa at 10:17 AM on June 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
corb, cut it out, period.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:18 AM on June 17, 2015 [12 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:18 AM on June 17, 2015 [12 favorites]
Consider this my quarterly statement about how just because metafilter's public bookmarking system
Which, um, probably doesn't belong in this particularly placid and uncontentious thread.
posted by GenjiandProust at 10:19 AM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
Which, um, probably doesn't belong in this particularly placid and uncontentious thread.
posted by GenjiandProust at 10:19 AM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
https://www.metafilter.com/favorites/all
I really appreciated corb (and everybody else's) comments in the thread about vets and suicide.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:26 AM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
I really appreciated corb (and everybody else's) comments in the thread about vets and suicide.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:26 AM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
[Comment removed per request.]
which explains at least some of my confusion. And yeah, this is a little after the fact, but it still seems to ...
METAFILTER: I'm actually being annoyed at the English language right now
... ummm, what I mean I think is I'd wear that t-shirt.
posted by philip-random at 10:31 AM on June 17, 2015
which explains at least some of my confusion. And yeah, this is a little after the fact, but it still seems to ...
METAFILTER: I'm actually being annoyed at the English language right now
... ummm, what I mean I think is I'd wear that t-shirt.
posted by philip-random at 10:31 AM on June 17, 2015
Which, um, probably doesn't belong in this particularly placid and uncontentious thread.
Well, I don't think people trying to make points or assert member beliefs by favorite count belongs anywhere but it was done above so it was on point.
posted by phearlez at 10:55 AM on June 17, 2015
Well, I don't think people trying to make points or assert member beliefs by favorite count belongs anywhere but it was done above so it was on point.
posted by phearlez at 10:55 AM on June 17, 2015
But seriously, because they speak volumes toward my deepest concerns here, I feel a few of Rhaomi's recent words should be reiterated (bolding mine):
There's way too much assumption of bad faith and interpreting motives in the least charitable light. The heavy reliance on theory and jargon and meta-analysis (where the very act of talking about these issues impolitically is deemed offensive and even harmful) makes having any kind of constructive dialogue with the uninitiated even more difficult.
It would be really nice if we could all try to heed Jay Smooth's advice to criticize the behavior and not the person yt when it comes to sensitive issues like this, [...] I'm not saying ignorance of the burdens of trans issues is okay, but this tendency to attack both it and any attempt to bridge the gap is not healthy. And I worry about the long-term viability of the site if it develops a reputation as an unforgiving minefield of esoteric critical theory and identity politics that's unwelcoming not just for social conservatives but for people who are sympathetic to (or even members of) marginalized groups.
posted by philip-random at 10:57 AM on June 17, 2015 [15 favorites]
There's way too much assumption of bad faith and interpreting motives in the least charitable light. The heavy reliance on theory and jargon and meta-analysis (where the very act of talking about these issues impolitically is deemed offensive and even harmful) makes having any kind of constructive dialogue with the uninitiated even more difficult.
It would be really nice if we could all try to heed Jay Smooth's advice to criticize the behavior and not the person yt when it comes to sensitive issues like this, [...] I'm not saying ignorance of the burdens of trans issues is okay, but this tendency to attack both it and any attempt to bridge the gap is not healthy. And I worry about the long-term viability of the site if it develops a reputation as an unforgiving minefield of esoteric critical theory and identity politics that's unwelcoming not just for social conservatives but for people who are sympathetic to (or even members of) marginalized groups.
posted by philip-random at 10:57 AM on June 17, 2015 [15 favorites]
I'd prefer METAFILTER: the problem is a bunch of people wearing clown shoes
or maybe even METAFILTER: a bunch of people wearing clown shoes
if we're doing t-shirt orders
posted by phearlez at 10:57 AM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
or maybe even METAFILTER: a bunch of people wearing clown shoes
if we're doing t-shirt orders
posted by phearlez at 10:57 AM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
This metaphor again? Well, how about understanding that they may not all be wearing clown shoes. Some people just have bigger feet that are easier to step on, and that doesn't make ignorantly stepping on their feet any more excusable.
Which segues into this copy of a post. "Talking about these issues impolitically" and "bridging the gap" isn't the entirety of what's going on here. Some of it is pure vitriol and ignorance which, time and time again, has been detailed enough in various attempts to help people understand how to approach these discussions if they truly do want to bridge the gap (rather than filling it with bullshit).
posted by Johann Georg Faust at 11:07 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Which segues into this copy of a post. "Talking about these issues impolitically" and "bridging the gap" isn't the entirety of what's going on here. Some of it is pure vitriol and ignorance which, time and time again, has been detailed enough in various attempts to help people understand how to approach these discussions if they truly do want to bridge the gap (rather than filling it with bullshit).
posted by Johann Georg Faust at 11:07 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
maybe if i dress the strawman about topics being banned in these words, he'll look real
posted by kagredon at 11:09 AM on June 17, 2015 [13 favorites]
posted by kagredon at 11:09 AM on June 17, 2015 [13 favorites]
"Talking about these issues impolitically" and "bridging the gap" isn't the entirety of what's going on here.
agreed.
Some of it is pure vitriol and ignorance
But some of it is not pure vitriol and ignorance. Which I believe is where a lot of conflict comes from. Accuse me of something I didn't intend and well, if you do it well, it hurts but I'll try to assess what the hell I'm doing wrong. But it do it wrong (ie: assign intent and aggression) and my back is likely to go up.
maybe if i dress the strawman about topics being banned in these words, he'll look real
is this aimed at my last comment, kagredon? I'm confused.
posted by philip-random at 11:31 AM on June 17, 2015
agreed.
Some of it is pure vitriol and ignorance
But some of it is not pure vitriol and ignorance. Which I believe is where a lot of conflict comes from. Accuse me of something I didn't intend and well, if you do it well, it hurts but I'll try to assess what the hell I'm doing wrong. But it do it wrong (ie: assign intent and aggression) and my back is likely to go up.
maybe if i dress the strawman about topics being banned in these words, he'll look real
is this aimed at my last comment, kagredon? I'm confused.
posted by philip-random at 11:31 AM on June 17, 2015
we need to find a middle ground in this community between allowing open bigotry and allowing people who don't understand the stakes or reasoning, and are trying to learn, a space to do that, even if their comments and questions cause distress to some members
One tool that seems to help a lot with this dynamic in my real-life conversations about social justice issues is the word "ignorant". It neatly sidesteps a lot of the intentionality/motive questions, avoids the "is it outright bigoted or does it just entail bigoted outcomes" question, and usually provokes a lot less anger for the party being chastised because they aren't being told they're an outright bigot because they said something horribly ignorant. At the same time, they do get called out for their incomplete understanding of the world around them, their privileged assumptions, their hurtful words. We talk a lot about how important framing is to get a good post off the ground, and I think the same is true here, too; it doesn't mean that anybody is obligated to frame anything perfectly, just that things tend to go a little better when the framing is set up right.
"What you just said was hurtful and ignorant" is probably going to give the conversation a better trajectory than "you are a bigot" - and I want to be clear that when I say it will go over better, I mean that the conversation might be able to continue around this interaction without being derailed by the awful ignorant thing the person just said. I don't mean that nobody is hurt by the hurtfully ignorant thing that was said, only that the person being called out has a harder time arguing that they were misunderstood - while they can say "I'm not -ist!" all day and get increasingly defensive, couching things in terms of hurt and ignorance might give them a little more rhetorical space to consider that maybe the worldview that led them to that ignorant, hurtful statement might be narrower and more privileged than they thought. I want to be extra-clear that I'm not calling out anybody who's talked about bigotry in this thread at all or criticizing anyone else's approach, I'm just speaking generally about how we might be able to address Rhaomi's point without telling anyone to swallow the pain that these ignorant comments can cause.
I'm not saying it works in all cases, and a lot of times something really is -ist or -phobic and needs to be called out as such - but in some of the cases we've discussed here, I think "hurtful and ignorant" would have achieved the same ends while maybe generating a slightly better light-to-heat ratio. On preview, it looks like my point re: "ignorant" being a more neutral/acceptable term is being disproved anyway, although maybe the word "vitriol" is what's drawing fire there...
posted by dialetheia at 11:46 AM on June 17, 2015 [10 favorites]
One tool that seems to help a lot with this dynamic in my real-life conversations about social justice issues is the word "ignorant". It neatly sidesteps a lot of the intentionality/motive questions, avoids the "is it outright bigoted or does it just entail bigoted outcomes" question, and usually provokes a lot less anger for the party being chastised because they aren't being told they're an outright bigot because they said something horribly ignorant. At the same time, they do get called out for their incomplete understanding of the world around them, their privileged assumptions, their hurtful words. We talk a lot about how important framing is to get a good post off the ground, and I think the same is true here, too; it doesn't mean that anybody is obligated to frame anything perfectly, just that things tend to go a little better when the framing is set up right.
"What you just said was hurtful and ignorant" is probably going to give the conversation a better trajectory than "you are a bigot" - and I want to be clear that when I say it will go over better, I mean that the conversation might be able to continue around this interaction without being derailed by the awful ignorant thing the person just said. I don't mean that nobody is hurt by the hurtfully ignorant thing that was said, only that the person being called out has a harder time arguing that they were misunderstood - while they can say "I'm not -ist!" all day and get increasingly defensive, couching things in terms of hurt and ignorance might give them a little more rhetorical space to consider that maybe the worldview that led them to that ignorant, hurtful statement might be narrower and more privileged than they thought. I want to be extra-clear that I'm not calling out anybody who's talked about bigotry in this thread at all or criticizing anyone else's approach, I'm just speaking generally about how we might be able to address Rhaomi's point without telling anyone to swallow the pain that these ignorant comments can cause.
I'm not saying it works in all cases, and a lot of times something really is -ist or -phobic and needs to be called out as such - but in some of the cases we've discussed here, I think "hurtful and ignorant" would have achieved the same ends while maybe generating a slightly better light-to-heat ratio. On preview, it looks like my point re: "ignorant" being a more neutral/acceptable term is being disproved anyway, although maybe the word "vitriol" is what's drawing fire there...
posted by dialetheia at 11:46 AM on June 17, 2015 [10 favorites]
worry about the long-term viability of the site if it develops a reputation as an unforgiving minefield of esoteric critical theory and identity politics that's unwelcoming not just for social conservatives but for people who are sympathetic to (or even members of) marginalized groups.
I want to address this worry. It is not directed at Rhaomi in particular as other people have expressed similar sentiments.
I really dislike the term "identity politics". It is a rhetorical device similar to "politically correct" and does nothing to illuminate or further discussion. And too: it is phrase too often thrown about by those who have never had identities forced upon them.
To have an identity in the world means you are a political being. You can't escape "identity politics", especially if you are a member of a marginalized race or gender. You can pretend to, if you belong to some majority &/or dominant population, but ultimately it is just a pretense. As we've seen here - when folks get called on their majority-based identities, their pretense about it not existing or not mattering melts away pretty quick, despite their most fervent efforts to prevent it.
White people often don't get this because they don't see being white as a being a political identity - it's just normal. Straight people often don't get this because they don't see being heterosexual as a being a political identity - it's just normal. Cisgender people often don't get this because they don't see being cisgender as a being a political identity - it's just normal.
Here's the thing: People of color, queer, transgender and other marginalized people have been walking through an unforgiving (and literally murderous) minefield of white, straight, cisgender identity politics for decades, for centuries.
Metafilter isn't becoming a minefield. It has always been a minefield, especially on certain topics and especially for certain people. What I hear many reasonable folks asking for here is for everyone to, so to speak, not put down any more mines and also help clear the mines that still exist.
This is about as basic as it gets:
a) Do no harm
b) Help (if you can)
posted by jammy at 11:51 AM on June 17, 2015 [39 favorites]
I want to address this worry. It is not directed at Rhaomi in particular as other people have expressed similar sentiments.
I really dislike the term "identity politics". It is a rhetorical device similar to "politically correct" and does nothing to illuminate or further discussion. And too: it is phrase too often thrown about by those who have never had identities forced upon them.
To have an identity in the world means you are a political being. You can't escape "identity politics", especially if you are a member of a marginalized race or gender. You can pretend to, if you belong to some majority &/or dominant population, but ultimately it is just a pretense. As we've seen here - when folks get called on their majority-based identities, their pretense about it not existing or not mattering melts away pretty quick, despite their most fervent efforts to prevent it.
White people often don't get this because they don't see being white as a being a political identity - it's just normal. Straight people often don't get this because they don't see being heterosexual as a being a political identity - it's just normal. Cisgender people often don't get this because they don't see being cisgender as a being a political identity - it's just normal.
Here's the thing: People of color, queer, transgender and other marginalized people have been walking through an unforgiving (and literally murderous) minefield of white, straight, cisgender identity politics for decades, for centuries.
Metafilter isn't becoming a minefield. It has always been a minefield, especially on certain topics and especially for certain people. What I hear many reasonable folks asking for here is for everyone to, so to speak, not put down any more mines and also help clear the mines that still exist.
This is about as basic as it gets:
a) Do no harm
b) Help (if you can)
posted by jammy at 11:51 AM on June 17, 2015 [39 favorites]
I don't mean that nobody is hurt by the hurtfully ignorant thing that was said...
posted by dialetheia at 2:46 PM on June 17 [4 favorites +] [!]
eponysterical!
posted by Xavier Xavier at 11:56 AM on June 17, 2015
posted by dialetheia at 2:46 PM on June 17 [4 favorites +] [!]
eponysterical!
posted by Xavier Xavier at 11:56 AM on June 17, 2015
Metafilter isn't becoming a minefield. It has always been a minefield, especially on certain topics and especially for certain people. What I hear many reasonable folks asking for here is for everyone to, so to speak, not put down any more mines and also help clear the mines that still exist.
Yup. The one thing I've learned since 2004 is that when you get a leg blown off (and you will), it's better to acknowlege that you screwed up and drag yourself back to the trench rather than decide you can get your limb back if you win a fistfight with the rest of the mines.
posted by selfnoise at 11:59 AM on June 17, 2015 [10 favorites]
Yup. The one thing I've learned since 2004 is that when you get a leg blown off (and you will), it's better to acknowlege that you screwed up and drag yourself back to the trench rather than decide you can get your limb back if you win a fistfight with the rest of the mines.
posted by selfnoise at 11:59 AM on June 17, 2015 [10 favorites]
In another forum in which I've participated in contentious discussions, some people have found the idea of "calling in" rather than "calling out" to be useful. I'm not sure that I'm entirely convinced, but I figured I'd throw it out here in case anyone else finds it useful.
posted by klausness at 12:03 PM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by klausness at 12:03 PM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
This metaphor again?
I just think it's a funny description; it was not my intention to indicate I thought it applied well here. Though for what it's worth I always thought of it as being applied to the people doing the stepping, and indicating they they had deliberately opted for an unfriendly footwear that was likely to trod thoughtlessly on others.
posted by phearlez at 12:24 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
I just think it's a funny description; it was not my intention to indicate I thought it applied well here. Though for what it's worth I always thought of it as being applied to the people doing the stepping, and indicating they they had deliberately opted for an unfriendly footwear that was likely to trod thoughtlessly on others.
posted by phearlez at 12:24 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
dialetheia: the word "ignorant". It neatly sidesteps a lot of the intentionality/motive questions
Yes...and, personally, I find that "uninformed" works better for me. I've found that some people consider "ignorant" an insult, period. "Uninformed" or "less / suboptimally informed" or "Your information strikes me as incomplete" seem to be more neutral. YYMV. Just throwing this out there for others trying to have these kinds of conversations. The more tools in the toolbox, the better.
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 12:26 PM on June 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
Yes...and, personally, I find that "uninformed" works better for me. I've found that some people consider "ignorant" an insult, period. "Uninformed" or "less / suboptimally informed" or "Your information strikes me as incomplete" seem to be more neutral. YYMV. Just throwing this out there for others trying to have these kinds of conversations. The more tools in the toolbox, the better.
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 12:26 PM on June 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
Yes...and, personally, I find that "uninformed" works better for me. I've found that some people consider "ignorant" an insult, period.
Yet somehow you rarely see these people told that they are "very fragile" or that they are the ones preventing honest discourse by derailing over the slightest inelegances in phrasing. Funny, that.
posted by kagredon at 12:31 PM on June 17, 2015 [23 favorites]
Yet somehow you rarely see these people told that they are "very fragile" or that they are the ones preventing honest discourse by derailing over the slightest inelegances in phrasing. Funny, that.
posted by kagredon at 12:31 PM on June 17, 2015 [23 favorites]
Metafilter isn't becoming a minefield. It has always been a minefield, especially on certain topics and especially for certain people. What I hear many reasonable folks asking for here is for everyone to, so to speak, not put down any more mines and also help clear the mines that still exist.
I actually find it less of a minefield these days. I took a couple years off after triggering angry white guy rage too many times, and often for things I found innocuous - like not caring for a particular canonical author or musician.
posted by kanewai at 12:34 PM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
I actually find it less of a minefield these days. I took a couple years off after triggering angry white guy rage too many times, and often for things I found innocuous - like not caring for a particular canonical author or musician.
posted by kanewai at 12:34 PM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
Clearly people consider "fragile" to be an insult just like "ignorant".
posted by smackfu at 12:35 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by smackfu at 12:35 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Clearly people consider "fragile" to be an insult just like "ignorant".
It evokes for me someone in need of a fainting couch. So, for all that that implies, yeah, I find it insulting.
posted by mudpuppie at 12:37 PM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
It evokes for me someone in need of a fainting couch. So, for all that that implies, yeah, I find it insulting.
posted by mudpuppie at 12:37 PM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
The inability of this site to actually discuss an issue with these considerations is emblematic of why this site is a hollow shell of its former self. This is a discussion board for very fragile people now. What a waste.
not exactly a mystery why people took that as an insult.
posted by nadawi at 12:38 PM on June 17, 2015 [20 favorites]
not exactly a mystery why people took that as an insult.
posted by nadawi at 12:38 PM on June 17, 2015 [20 favorites]
"What you just said was hurtful and ignorant" is probably going to give the conversation a better trajectory than "you are a bigot" - and I want to be clear that when I say it will go over better, I mean that the conversation might be able to continue around this interaction without being derailed by the awful ignorant thing the person just said.
This isn't at all my experience, either on MeFi or IRL, unfortunately.
Clearly people consider "fragile" to be an insult just like "ignorant".
Given the way it's used, the context, and the implications behind it, yes. To be honest, so is ignorant/ill-informed, sometimes, maybe even often.
posted by The Master and Margarita Mix at 12:38 PM on June 17, 2015
This isn't at all my experience, either on MeFi or IRL, unfortunately.
Clearly people consider "fragile" to be an insult just like "ignorant".
Given the way it's used, the context, and the implications behind it, yes. To be honest, so is ignorant/ill-informed, sometimes, maybe even often.
posted by The Master and Margarita Mix at 12:38 PM on June 17, 2015
I haven't really seen that using "gentler" wording does much of a good job of keeping the privileged from screaming their heads off when their privilege is pointed out. The reason for using "the thing you said is [racist/sexist/transphobic/etc]" over "you are [racist/sexist/transphobic/etc]" is to avoid giving someone a rhetorical out because we can't ~prove what is in their soul~, not to preserve them from lashing out over their feelings being hurt when they hear they're being oppressive.
posted by NoraReed at 12:43 PM on June 17, 2015 [14 favorites]
posted by NoraReed at 12:43 PM on June 17, 2015 [14 favorites]
It's a problem - and it is worth noting that Jay Smooth later noted that his advice actually tends not to work on racists, because they immediately _make_ it personal. So, it is a way to identify racists, but not a useful way to engage with them.
posted by running order squabble fest at 12:47 PM on June 17, 2015 [11 favorites]
posted by running order squabble fest at 12:47 PM on June 17, 2015 [11 favorites]
Tone arguments are just so much goalpost moving anyway, as we've seen. Someone out to deliberately project, mischaracterize and assume the worst about you is going to do it anyway, even if you bookend your post with hearts and flowers.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 12:47 PM on June 17, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 12:47 PM on June 17, 2015 [8 favorites]
Smackfu: I never said that "fragile" was an insult, just that it's curious that this particular behavior is rarely called fragile by those who seem quite concerned about Metafilter being a place for "very fragile people".
posted by kagredon at 12:49 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by kagredon at 12:49 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
I would like to see privilegeyowling handled like traffic infractions. Like you make some comment that collects N+1 flags for some species of bigotry and you get stopped and given a "ticket." (In my world your comment would not get deleted but it would get marked somehow so that everybody driving by would see you sitting slumped dejectedly in your car on the side of the road with the whirly lights going behind you.) You get kicked out of the thread. You can get back in and comment further, but not until you complete "traffic school." Additionally, you get "points on your license" (also avoidable via traffic school). Too many points and you're banned from the site. (This wouldn't be automatic; tickets would be at the discretion of the moderator, so you can get off with a warning.)
Traffic school would be very awesome. Traffic school would be a whole separate page with a whole new color in which these "these don't go well here" topics would get discussed, but in a new way. Some richly rewarded someone or someones would act as instructors, which would mean they'd write an essay prompt or a few based on the preponderance of ticketed comments. The prompts wouldn't be hard to write; they'd be some permutation of "Here is a thing that keeps getting said about this topic. It's offending many people, for reasons they've discussed in the thread. What would be a not-terrible, good comment about this topic that would demonstrate sensitivity and understanding on the part of the commenter? Useful information with sources is always welcome. New viewpoints that don't prompt anguish, rage, or vomiting make Metafilter a good place and are encouraged at Metafilter traffic school. Don't be afraid to try and fail--you can keep trying until you succeed!" Then the instructors would read submitted (SHORT) essays to try to detect evidence of learning/research/effort on the part of the students. The best part would be grading. As a grader, you'd read until you got to something enraging and then you'd stop reading and stamp a failing grade ("D+ -- try again, this part you wrote here demonstrates clear failure to even try to listen for a single second;" "F- -- I can tell by your first sentence that this is going to be sixteen paragraphs on why you were not wrong in the first place, so you know what? You fail, bra! You fail, fail, faiiiiiaiaiaiaiaiaiaaaaail!") on the offending bit and send it back. If somebody showed promise and the instructor felt inclined, they might provide some pointers rather than just stamping on a failing grade. In the event somebody actually did figure out why their comment was noxious and sent in a decent essay providing evidence that they figured it out, the passing essay would get posted to the traffic school page for the benefit of all students and popcorn noshers in the thread. And if they liked they could get the original comment deleted. And, having passed traffic school, the points would be removed from their license and they'd be welcomed back to the thread.
This would kill two birds: one, it would mean fewer shut-down threads (after all, you don't close the highway because people are driving like jackasses. You get the jackasses off the highway), fewer banned people, and fewer left-the-site-because-demoralized people. It would render these metatalk threads shorter and less of a headache to moderate. But wait. There's a third bird: it would delight adjuncts everywhere, who would probably volunteer to write essay prompts and grade for free, just for the heady joy of stopping reading at the first insufferable, hubris-related reading comprehension failure and flunking somebody omg please can I do this*.
Oooh. You know what else, too... Bird number four. These long, argumentative metatalk threads are very compelling. If all the contentious posters got nuked early and shunted off to another sector of metafilter, leaving nothing but polite people calmly chatting for ~100 comments, the popcorn lurkers would feel the lack, and, I am here to tell you, feel it strongly. Why not make Traffic School pay-to-enter for lurkers who want to get their nosy on? I sent in money after a few particularly fabulous moderator comments/actions in the trampstamps'n'boyzone thread. I'd be willing to fund traffic school.
*No, probably not, because I wrote this comment after having the idea at just a couple hundred comments in and skipped the whole rest of the thread since I was all afire to post my idea. I am therefore part of the problem and should get a ticket, myself.
posted by Don Pepino at 12:54 PM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
Traffic school would be very awesome. Traffic school would be a whole separate page with a whole new color in which these "these don't go well here" topics would get discussed, but in a new way. Some richly rewarded someone or someones would act as instructors, which would mean they'd write an essay prompt or a few based on the preponderance of ticketed comments. The prompts wouldn't be hard to write; they'd be some permutation of "Here is a thing that keeps getting said about this topic. It's offending many people, for reasons they've discussed in the thread. What would be a not-terrible, good comment about this topic that would demonstrate sensitivity and understanding on the part of the commenter? Useful information with sources is always welcome. New viewpoints that don't prompt anguish, rage, or vomiting make Metafilter a good place and are encouraged at Metafilter traffic school. Don't be afraid to try and fail--you can keep trying until you succeed!" Then the instructors would read submitted (SHORT) essays to try to detect evidence of learning/research/effort on the part of the students. The best part would be grading. As a grader, you'd read until you got to something enraging and then you'd stop reading and stamp a failing grade ("D+ -- try again, this part you wrote here demonstrates clear failure to even try to listen for a single second;" "F- -- I can tell by your first sentence that this is going to be sixteen paragraphs on why you were not wrong in the first place, so you know what? You fail, bra! You fail, fail, faiiiiiaiaiaiaiaiaiaaaaail!") on the offending bit and send it back. If somebody showed promise and the instructor felt inclined, they might provide some pointers rather than just stamping on a failing grade. In the event somebody actually did figure out why their comment was noxious and sent in a decent essay providing evidence that they figured it out, the passing essay would get posted to the traffic school page for the benefit of all students and popcorn noshers in the thread. And if they liked they could get the original comment deleted. And, having passed traffic school, the points would be removed from their license and they'd be welcomed back to the thread.
This would kill two birds: one, it would mean fewer shut-down threads (after all, you don't close the highway because people are driving like jackasses. You get the jackasses off the highway), fewer banned people, and fewer left-the-site-because-demoralized people. It would render these metatalk threads shorter and less of a headache to moderate. But wait. There's a third bird: it would delight adjuncts everywhere, who would probably volunteer to write essay prompts and grade for free, just for the heady joy of stopping reading at the first insufferable, hubris-related reading comprehension failure and flunking somebody omg please can I do this*.
Oooh. You know what else, too... Bird number four. These long, argumentative metatalk threads are very compelling. If all the contentious posters got nuked early and shunted off to another sector of metafilter, leaving nothing but polite people calmly chatting for ~100 comments, the popcorn lurkers would feel the lack, and, I am here to tell you, feel it strongly. Why not make Traffic School pay-to-enter for lurkers who want to get their nosy on? I sent in money after a few particularly fabulous moderator comments/actions in the trampstamps'n'boyzone thread. I'd be willing to fund traffic school.
*No, probably not, because I wrote this comment after having the idea at just a couple hundred comments in and skipped the whole rest of the thread since I was all afire to post my idea. I am therefore part of the problem and should get a ticket, myself.
posted by Don Pepino at 12:54 PM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
It's a problem - and it is worth noting that Jay Smooth later noted that his advice actually tends not to work on racists, because they immediately _make_ it personal. So, it is a way to identify racists, but not a useful way to engage with them.
Right, the gentle language has a better track record with people who are just screwing up, not committed haters. It's also beneficial because sometimes there are good explanations for why people say what they say and you may find out the callout wasn't warranted if you listen. Can make you feel like a jackass if you are in that situation and realize you were wrong to go more aggressive.
I've found that trying to moderate my tone helps me be less angry in general, even on issues of personal importance. It helps me make better comments sometimes. YMMV on that, personalities and circumstances differ.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:55 PM on June 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
Right, the gentle language has a better track record with people who are just screwing up, not committed haters. It's also beneficial because sometimes there are good explanations for why people say what they say and you may find out the callout wasn't warranted if you listen. Can make you feel like a jackass if you are in that situation and realize you were wrong to go more aggressive.
I've found that trying to moderate my tone helps me be less angry in general, even on issues of personal importance. It helps me make better comments sometimes. YMMV on that, personalities and circumstances differ.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:55 PM on June 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
Of course "fragile" is meant as an insult, along with "infantile," references to nerf padding, etc.
So much of this anti-SJW backlash horseshit is just lame old internet tough guy posturing. "Trigger warnings? I'm too mentally tough to need those! I better make sure everybody knows it, but how? I know, I'll take a giant crap on the very concept and anybody who finds value in it!"
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:55 PM on June 17, 2015 [23 favorites]
So much of this anti-SJW backlash horseshit is just lame old internet tough guy posturing. "Trigger warnings? I'm too mentally tough to need those! I better make sure everybody knows it, but how? I know, I'll take a giant crap on the very concept and anybody who finds value in it!"
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:55 PM on June 17, 2015 [23 favorites]
I've found that trying to moderate my tone helps me be less angry in general, even on issues of personal importance. It helps me make better comments sometimes. YMMV on that, personalities and circumstances differ.
For the record, I don't think that assuming good faith first/being careful about how you respond to poorly-informedness is mutually exclusive with thinking tone arguments are cudgels and criticism shields.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 1:18 PM on June 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
For the record, I don't think that assuming good faith first/being careful about how you respond to poorly-informedness is mutually exclusive with thinking tone arguments are cudgels and criticism shields.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 1:18 PM on June 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
Tone arguments are just so much goalpost moving anyway, as we've seen.
I completely agree about actual tone arguments. But what I'm talking about isn't a tone argument at all, it's a content argument. There is a content difference between saying "you said something very hurtful and ignorant" vs. "you must be bigoted because that is the logical outcome of your opinion" - I don't think it's really a tone question at all. Yes, absolutely, bad actors will still misinterpret things and be dicks about it until the sun burns out, no question, and I don't think anybody should be softening their language just because it's "nicer" or because they could convince the usual suspects - but there are some people who are genuinely ignorant (including all the silent bystanders who are reading and learning along) and I think we end up with a better sitewide dynamic if we can be just a little more precise with our callout language to be clear that there is some distinction, however slight, between ignorance and malice. Again, I'm not responding to the way anyone has behaved in this thread, I'm just responding to Rhaomi's point and trying to think about how we could improve that dynamic here in general.
I like the "calling-in" vs calling-out article that klausness posted, but that practice is predicated on wanting to remain in community with the people that are being called-in for problematic stuff, and I think that's still a little bit of an open question in this context, which is part of our problem here. How do we see other members of the community? Are they people we would like to remain in community with and "bring back to the fold", to use the terminology from that post, or are they obnoxious debate-club interlocutors? We end up with muddled conversations on these topics because some people are the former, others are the latter; so often somebody is talking about one group while somebody else is talking about the other and it superficially appears that they disagree when they're just talking about two different things. So to be super clear, I'm talking about how we can address this stuff with people we want to remain in-community with, who we want to bring back 'into the fold' -- and I'm explicitly not talking about how we should talk to e.g. people who come into every gender thread and promptly crap all over the floor.
To people who are worried about moderation leading to more shut-down conversations, I actually hope we'll see the opposite dynamic, where fewer usual-suspect jerks in threads will actually mean more gentle correction of well-meaning ignorance, not less. That's one big reason I'm so happy about the mods doing more to address the "usual suspects" in these threads, is that those usual-suspect folks poison the well so thoroughly; since people already know these people have no desire to be in-community with them, they (rightfully!) feel no compunction about calling them out. Then bystanders, who don't know any of the history of why the called-out person clearly has no interest in having a real conversation and don't understand the context, only see the fighty pushback and think that same presumption of 'guilt' is applied to everyone who makes ignorant comments. To me, it's not that at all - it's that those people have burned through close to a decade's worth of benefit of the doubt already.
In this 'in-community' framing, those usual suspect folks are problematic because they have no desire to reach any compromise and be in-community with people here. But the flip side of that dynamic is that if the perennial bad actors are taken out of the mix, which is where we appear to be heading (hooray!), I hope that one benefit of that is that we can assume a little less hostility from the truly-ignorant. If every "I truly don't mean to cause offense, but what about ...?" post from someone without a history of saying awful things isn't followed by a bunch of point-scoring gloating from the usual suspects ("YEAH, QED YOU SJWs!"), maybe the temperature will go down enough for some of us to have more energy to say "well, here's why that thing you said is hurtful and ignorant". That's what I hope for, anyway.
posted by dialetheia at 1:22 PM on June 17, 2015 [36 favorites]
I completely agree about actual tone arguments. But what I'm talking about isn't a tone argument at all, it's a content argument. There is a content difference between saying "you said something very hurtful and ignorant" vs. "you must be bigoted because that is the logical outcome of your opinion" - I don't think it's really a tone question at all. Yes, absolutely, bad actors will still misinterpret things and be dicks about it until the sun burns out, no question, and I don't think anybody should be softening their language just because it's "nicer" or because they could convince the usual suspects - but there are some people who are genuinely ignorant (including all the silent bystanders who are reading and learning along) and I think we end up with a better sitewide dynamic if we can be just a little more precise with our callout language to be clear that there is some distinction, however slight, between ignorance and malice. Again, I'm not responding to the way anyone has behaved in this thread, I'm just responding to Rhaomi's point and trying to think about how we could improve that dynamic here in general.
I like the "calling-in" vs calling-out article that klausness posted, but that practice is predicated on wanting to remain in community with the people that are being called-in for problematic stuff, and I think that's still a little bit of an open question in this context, which is part of our problem here. How do we see other members of the community? Are they people we would like to remain in community with and "bring back to the fold", to use the terminology from that post, or are they obnoxious debate-club interlocutors? We end up with muddled conversations on these topics because some people are the former, others are the latter; so often somebody is talking about one group while somebody else is talking about the other and it superficially appears that they disagree when they're just talking about two different things. So to be super clear, I'm talking about how we can address this stuff with people we want to remain in-community with, who we want to bring back 'into the fold' -- and I'm explicitly not talking about how we should talk to e.g. people who come into every gender thread and promptly crap all over the floor.
To people who are worried about moderation leading to more shut-down conversations, I actually hope we'll see the opposite dynamic, where fewer usual-suspect jerks in threads will actually mean more gentle correction of well-meaning ignorance, not less. That's one big reason I'm so happy about the mods doing more to address the "usual suspects" in these threads, is that those usual-suspect folks poison the well so thoroughly; since people already know these people have no desire to be in-community with them, they (rightfully!) feel no compunction about calling them out. Then bystanders, who don't know any of the history of why the called-out person clearly has no interest in having a real conversation and don't understand the context, only see the fighty pushback and think that same presumption of 'guilt' is applied to everyone who makes ignorant comments. To me, it's not that at all - it's that those people have burned through close to a decade's worth of benefit of the doubt already.
In this 'in-community' framing, those usual suspect folks are problematic because they have no desire to reach any compromise and be in-community with people here. But the flip side of that dynamic is that if the perennial bad actors are taken out of the mix, which is where we appear to be heading (hooray!), I hope that one benefit of that is that we can assume a little less hostility from the truly-ignorant. If every "I truly don't mean to cause offense, but what about ...?" post from someone without a history of saying awful things isn't followed by a bunch of point-scoring gloating from the usual suspects ("YEAH, QED YOU SJWs!"), maybe the temperature will go down enough for some of us to have more energy to say "well, here's why that thing you said is hurtful and ignorant". That's what I hope for, anyway.
posted by dialetheia at 1:22 PM on June 17, 2015 [36 favorites]
Right, the gentle language has a better track record with people who are just screwing up, not committed haters.
I would have assumed that all but the most strident "never silence me evar" folks take it as a given that offending/driving away those who are deliberately hurtful/overt racists wasn't something to lose a second of sleep over.
If Metafilter wishes to walk a path between THUNDERDOME and an actual Safe Space then it would seem reasonable to have some allowance and use of techniques meant for the well-intentioned but innocently (and open to learning) ignorant.
posted by phearlez at 1:28 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
I would have assumed that all but the most strident "never silence me evar" folks take it as a given that offending/driving away those who are deliberately hurtful/overt racists wasn't something to lose a second of sleep over.
If Metafilter wishes to walk a path between THUNDERDOME and an actual Safe Space then it would seem reasonable to have some allowance and use of techniques meant for the well-intentioned but innocently (and open to learning) ignorant.
posted by phearlez at 1:28 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
I completely agree about actual tone arguments. But what I'm talking about isn't a tone argument at all, it's a content argument. There is a content difference between saying "you said something very hurtful and ignorant" vs. "you must be bigoted because that is the logical outcome of your opinion" - I don't think it's really a tone question at all.
Yes, I absolutely agree that precision in language about what you are addressing is totally an asset and should be aimed for at all times. But really, there is no way to prevent others from trying their version of amateur telepathy and project what they think you REALLY meant between the lines - or just ignore what you said entirely. Take, for example, just how many times and in how many ways people have been talking about the desire to curb dickish behavior, and how regardless, that is still being taken as "you want us to shut up altogether". Or how "let's not post about Subject X for a while" is taken to mean "this subject has been banned".
There's a couple of regular shit-stirrers who engage in this kind of content argument; decontextualizing, projecting, sometimes straight up ignoring the most clear language. Tone arguments and content arguments spring from the same motivation to strawman perceived opponents, and like you said, the determined are going to have at it no matter how nice or precise you are.
But I totally agree that clarity is essential in contentious discussions, and that the dialogue would be better served by aiming for it.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 1:33 PM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
Yes, I absolutely agree that precision in language about what you are addressing is totally an asset and should be aimed for at all times. But really, there is no way to prevent others from trying their version of amateur telepathy and project what they think you REALLY meant between the lines - or just ignore what you said entirely. Take, for example, just how many times and in how many ways people have been talking about the desire to curb dickish behavior, and how regardless, that is still being taken as "you want us to shut up altogether". Or how "let's not post about Subject X for a while" is taken to mean "this subject has been banned".
There's a couple of regular shit-stirrers who engage in this kind of content argument; decontextualizing, projecting, sometimes straight up ignoring the most clear language. Tone arguments and content arguments spring from the same motivation to strawman perceived opponents, and like you said, the determined are going to have at it no matter how nice or precise you are.
But I totally agree that clarity is essential in contentious discussions, and that the dialogue would be better served by aiming for it.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 1:33 PM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
As I've many times here, we know this:
So much of this anti-SJW backlash horseshit is just lame old internet tough guy posturing. "Trigger warnings? I'm too mentally tough to need those! I better make sure everybody knows it, but how? I know, I'll take a giant crap on the very concept and anybody who finds value in it!"
to be true because none of the anti-trigger warning people EVER have the guts to shame war veterans for their desire to have triggers for war-induced PTSD. Its always, always shaming women for being weak.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:42 PM on June 17, 2015 [34 favorites]
So much of this anti-SJW backlash horseshit is just lame old internet tough guy posturing. "Trigger warnings? I'm too mentally tough to need those! I better make sure everybody knows it, but how? I know, I'll take a giant crap on the very concept and anybody who finds value in it!"
to be true because none of the anti-trigger warning people EVER have the guts to shame war veterans for their desire to have triggers for war-induced PTSD. Its always, always shaming women for being weak.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:42 PM on June 17, 2015 [34 favorites]
I don't like to do fake trigger warnings on stuff because they can reduce the efficacy of actual trigger warnings, but I'm always tempted to tag for stuff like "women having opinions" and "taking basic sociological principles as given"
posted by NoraReed at 1:58 PM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by NoraReed at 1:58 PM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
NEVER<-EVER
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 2:03 PM on June 17, 2015
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 2:03 PM on June 17, 2015
to be true because none of the anti-trigger warning people EVER have the guts to shame war veterans for their desire to have triggers for war-induced PTSD. Its always, always shaming women for being weak.
Wait, has anyone ever either asked for that or even offered such warnings here? It's not like I have every post memorized but I'm not sure that anyone has ever actually asked to have war-induced trigger warnings around here.
posted by GuyZero at 2:04 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Wait, has anyone ever either asked for that or even offered such warnings here? It's not like I have every post memorized but I'm not sure that anyone has ever actually asked to have war-induced trigger warnings around here.
posted by GuyZero at 2:04 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
I like the "calling-in" vs calling-out article that klausness posted, but that practice is predicated on wanting to remain in community with the people that are being called-in for problematic stuff, and I think that's still a little bit of an open question in this context, which is part of our problem here. How do we see other members of the community?
I agree with everything you said, especially in terms of tone versus content, and I see this as being the hard part to solve. A couple of things that have been rumbling around in my head: there are people I give the benefit of the doubt to a lot more because they have a trusted history with the site. For example, I could list off a bunch of names of people I'd never take a harsh tone with initially because it would hurt relationships, although I'm not opposed to people who know each other being very direct with each other within the context of a known relationship. NoraReed, who I think is certainly a proponent of taking a strong approach when necessary, has gained my trust in large part because she has been honest and transparent about places she has the occasional blind-spot, as we all do. So it gives me a context for understanding that her approach, in part, is informed by us "we all having blind spots, but let's be uncompromisingly direct about it."
Those kinds of things build trust for me. I would not assume for a second that it's my job to parent or instruct strongly if I disagree, rather than gently come alongside and discuss blind-spots or something in a context of mutual understanding, because it's actually more effective for community learning where trust has been happening. There are also people on the site who have not earned trust for good reasons, and I'm not sure that it's our job to be as gentle in those cases. In general, perhaps earned history either way is big in how we respond to people who are in flux and learning.
I'm also a big proponent of framing, although I'm not sure everyone is, because I think it really works in a peacemaking-justice hybrid approach. Like, "x person, you have a history of not doing well on this, so I'm going to say this as directly as I can: you are being a bigot." Conversely, "x person, I really appreciate all of your contributions in this area, and we all have our blindspots, but I think that you wording can be perceived as racist because..." I think a bit of wisdom in interrelation dynamics and wording can do a whole lot more good at the end of the day than a sledgehammer that uses a one-size-fits-all response. Or even starting with the sledgehammer to suss out what side of things a person is on. Assuming good intentions until trust is broken isn't a bad way to go about it, but there is admittedly some relational risk.
posted by SpacemanStix at 2:07 PM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
I agree with everything you said, especially in terms of tone versus content, and I see this as being the hard part to solve. A couple of things that have been rumbling around in my head: there are people I give the benefit of the doubt to a lot more because they have a trusted history with the site. For example, I could list off a bunch of names of people I'd never take a harsh tone with initially because it would hurt relationships, although I'm not opposed to people who know each other being very direct with each other within the context of a known relationship. NoraReed, who I think is certainly a proponent of taking a strong approach when necessary, has gained my trust in large part because she has been honest and transparent about places she has the occasional blind-spot, as we all do. So it gives me a context for understanding that her approach, in part, is informed by us "we all having blind spots, but let's be uncompromisingly direct about it."
Those kinds of things build trust for me. I would not assume for a second that it's my job to parent or instruct strongly if I disagree, rather than gently come alongside and discuss blind-spots or something in a context of mutual understanding, because it's actually more effective for community learning where trust has been happening. There are also people on the site who have not earned trust for good reasons, and I'm not sure that it's our job to be as gentle in those cases. In general, perhaps earned history either way is big in how we respond to people who are in flux and learning.
I'm also a big proponent of framing, although I'm not sure everyone is, because I think it really works in a peacemaking-justice hybrid approach. Like, "x person, you have a history of not doing well on this, so I'm going to say this as directly as I can: you are being a bigot." Conversely, "x person, I really appreciate all of your contributions in this area, and we all have our blindspots, but I think that you wording can be perceived as racist because..." I think a bit of wisdom in interrelation dynamics and wording can do a whole lot more good at the end of the day than a sledgehammer that uses a one-size-fits-all response. Or even starting with the sledgehammer to suss out what side of things a person is on. Assuming good intentions until trust is broken isn't a bad way to go about it, but there is admittedly some relational risk.
posted by SpacemanStix at 2:07 PM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
Some folks have opined that "ignorant" and "ill-informed" don't produce any better results than "bigoted" or "racist" or the like. Maybe I'm just weird, then, but those words work a lot better on me. I took "ignorant" to be a fancy word for "stupid" until my mid-20s, when my dad and I got into a fight based on me misunderstanding his use of the word "ignorant". So I learned the difference, and it has stuck with me, but, yeah, I'm not surprised that some people take "ignorant" as an insult. I did, for half my life. "Ill-informed", though, doesn't have that baggage. It's great.
No, using it doesn't mean that you'll magically win your side of the argument, that scales will instantly fall from the other person's eyes. But it makes them more receptive to your argument, and after further back and forth, scales may fall from their eyes. I've seen it in MeTa, and it's happened to me.
posted by Bugbread at 3:00 PM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
No, using it doesn't mean that you'll magically win your side of the argument, that scales will instantly fall from the other person's eyes. But it makes them more receptive to your argument, and after further back and forth, scales may fall from their eyes. I've seen it in MeTa, and it's happened to me.
posted by Bugbread at 3:00 PM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
to be true because none of the anti-trigger warning people EVER have the guts to shame war veterans for their desire to have triggers for war-induced PTSD. Its always, always shaming women for being weak.
Just as a reminder, women can be and frequently are war veterans (with PTSD) as well. So if people are shaming women as a class, they are already shaming war veterans.
posted by corb at 3:11 PM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
Just as a reminder, women can be and frequently are war veterans (with PTSD) as well. So if people are shaming women as a class, they are already shaming war veterans.
posted by corb at 3:11 PM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
No, using it doesn't mean that you'll magically win your side of the argument, that scales will instantly fall from the other person's eyes. But it makes them more receptive to your argument, and after further back and forth, scales may fall from their eyes. I've seen it in MeTa, and it's happened to me.
I think it's almost a truism that people change more in the context of relationships in which they feel respected and wanted, rather than because of spoken propositions that are meant to shock or get your butt moving. I understand that there are people who differ and see it as a battle of ideas that have practical consequences, but some of the biggest change regarding social issues in my own life and what I've seen elsewhere is because I started hanging out with people I liked who were able to let me see their stories (including here). I see room for stronger and harsher language at the macro or public level, and room for a gentler approach at the micro level, where micro assumes good faith between relationships. Micro doesn't mean one-on-one where people don't know each other well, or have disearned trust.
posted by SpacemanStix at 3:12 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
I think it's almost a truism that people change more in the context of relationships in which they feel respected and wanted, rather than because of spoken propositions that are meant to shock or get your butt moving. I understand that there are people who differ and see it as a battle of ideas that have practical consequences, but some of the biggest change regarding social issues in my own life and what I've seen elsewhere is because I started hanging out with people I liked who were able to let me see their stories (including here). I see room for stronger and harsher language at the macro or public level, and room for a gentler approach at the micro level, where micro assumes good faith between relationships. Micro doesn't mean one-on-one where people don't know each other well, or have disearned trust.
posted by SpacemanStix at 3:12 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Wait, has anyone ever either asked for that or even offered such warnings here?
I teach war. Often there are students who are veterans. Trigger warnings are offered because the last thing we want is to trigger someone who is adjusting to civilian life and we know it can be hard material. No one sneers.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 3:12 PM on June 17, 2015 [25 favorites]
I teach war. Often there are students who are veterans. Trigger warnings are offered because the last thing we want is to trigger someone who is adjusting to civilian life and we know it can be hard material. No one sneers.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 3:12 PM on June 17, 2015 [25 favorites]
it's interesting to me that people argue for a more rough and tumble mefi experience and that people in marginalized communities are often given advice on how to be nicer here. probably different people advocating for each position, but it still gives me pause.
posted by nadawi at 3:16 PM on June 17, 2015 [29 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 3:16 PM on June 17, 2015 [29 favorites]
The logic is that it's not really a decision. The energy is sapped because that's what microaggressions do; they wear on your patience. And then when people tell you to be more patient…
posted by polymodus at 3:17 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by polymodus at 3:17 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Speaking of...
I think this latter reason is part of why there's such an effort to educate/inform the ignorant, as some people have a mindset to replace the word "enemy" with "potential ally" and some don't. But I'm not even going to venture a guess at what possibly affects how such a mindset is adopted. (Okay, one guess: "lived experience.")
posted by Johann Georg Faust at 3:25 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
> That's one big reason I'm so happy about the mods doing more to address the "usual suspects" in these threads, is that those usual-suspect folks poison the well so thoroughly; since people already know these people have no desire to be in-community with them, they (rightfully!) feel no compunction about calling them out. Then bystanders, who don't know any of the history of why the called-out person clearly has no interest in having a real conversation and don't understand the context, only see the fighty pushback and think that same presumption of 'guilt' is applied to everyone who makes ignorant comments. To me, it's not that at all - it's that those people have burned through close to a decade's worth of benefit of the doubt already.This is a fairly keen insight that gets lost in a lot of heated arguments, I think. Another one being that many users actually are experts about something and can be meaningful contributors, even if they do occasionally run headlong into minefields they have no business in.
I think this latter reason is part of why there's such an effort to educate/inform the ignorant, as some people have a mindset to replace the word "enemy" with "potential ally" and some don't. But I'm not even going to venture a guess at what possibly affects how such a mindset is adopted. (Okay, one guess: "lived experience.")
posted by Johann Georg Faust at 3:25 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
it's interesting to me that people argue for a more rough and tumble mefi experience and that people in marginalized communities are often given advice on how to be nicer here. probably different people advocating for each position, but it still gives me pause.
Yeah, some people want rough and tumble for their own comments but are very much not the types who can stand the heat if it gets aimed back their way. They will constantly insult or stereotype people based on race, gender, or orientation and then immediately be the first to make a big deal of it if someone does it back to them. I don't think that's really a particularly big group of people here though.
Mostly I argue for assuming good faith and posting with good faith here because it just seems like the best way not to be a trouble to the moderators while at the same time being able to express myself as fully as possible. There are times where I would rather go more flame warrior, and I do so on other sites, but it's just not a good fit for this place.
As always though, there are times where there isn't really any other option but to be upset and to clearly express it, even if it isn't polite.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:32 PM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
Yeah, some people want rough and tumble for their own comments but are very much not the types who can stand the heat if it gets aimed back their way. They will constantly insult or stereotype people based on race, gender, or orientation and then immediately be the first to make a big deal of it if someone does it back to them. I don't think that's really a particularly big group of people here though.
Mostly I argue for assuming good faith and posting with good faith here because it just seems like the best way not to be a trouble to the moderators while at the same time being able to express myself as fully as possible. There are times where I would rather go more flame warrior, and I do so on other sites, but it's just not a good fit for this place.
As always though, there are times where there isn't really any other option but to be upset and to clearly express it, even if it isn't polite.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:32 PM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
We have limited human bandwidth, and it's stretched mighty thin at the moment. Please, if you are going to comment here, try to make it productive and useful.
I don't envy you, Taz. But considering your history of heavy-handed deletions I don't have much sympathy, either.
We literally cannot keep up with this thread.
It sounds like your job description is open-ended and has led to overwork. Have you ever considered unionizing?
posted by clarknova at 3:35 PM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
I don't envy you, Taz. But considering your history of heavy-handed deletions I don't have much sympathy, either.
We literally cannot keep up with this thread.
It sounds like your job description is open-ended and has led to overwork. Have you ever considered unionizing?
posted by clarknova at 3:35 PM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
Let me know if you need scab moderators, Cortex.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:37 PM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 3:37 PM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
RE: Good question. Have you ever considered that, if you are going to comment here, you should try to make it productive and useful?
posted by Johann Georg Faust at 3:38 PM on June 17, 2015 [11 favorites]
posted by Johann Georg Faust at 3:38 PM on June 17, 2015 [11 favorites]
clarknova: “I don't envy you, Taz. But considering your history of heavy-handed deletions I don't have much sympathy, either... It sounds like your job description is open-ended and has led to overwork. Have you ever considered unionizing?”
Man, you are being a dick. Try harder.
posted by koeselitz at 3:40 PM on June 17, 2015 [35 favorites]
Man, you are being a dick. Try harder.
posted by koeselitz at 3:40 PM on June 17, 2015 [35 favorites]
Obviously, I'm not helping, either. But here's a thought: everyone should be a scab moderator all the time. Otherwise, why have a flagging system or the like?
Be the change you want to see on the Internet.
posted by Johann Georg Faust at 3:41 PM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
Be the change you want to see on the Internet.
posted by Johann Georg Faust at 3:41 PM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
considering your history of heavy-handed deletions I don't have much sympathy, either.
I'm trying to figure out what a good faith interpretation of this comment might be and I am coming up short. I am also trying to think of any internet forum discussion where professing lack of sympathy for someone who has said they are (or can be seen to be) having a hard time does anything but degrade the quality of discourse.
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 3:41 PM on June 17, 2015 [57 favorites]
I'm trying to figure out what a good faith interpretation of this comment might be and I am coming up short. I am also trying to think of any internet forum discussion where professing lack of sympathy for someone who has said they are (or can be seen to be) having a hard time does anything but degrade the quality of discourse.
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 3:41 PM on June 17, 2015 [57 favorites]
nadawi: "it's interesting to me that people argue for a more rough and tumble mefi experience and that people in marginalized communities are often given advice on how to be nicer here. probably different people advocating for each position, but it still gives me pause."
Yeah, I strongly suspect it is. And anyone who is in both of those camps simultaneously is an asshole.
posted by Bugbread at 3:46 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I strongly suspect it is. And anyone who is in both of those camps simultaneously is an asshole.
posted by Bugbread at 3:46 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
"I don't envy you, Taz. But considering your history of heavy-handed deletions I don't have much sympathy, either. "
Do you want fewer reactive, heavy-handed deletions?
posted by klangklangston at 3:50 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Do you want fewer reactive, heavy-handed deletions?
posted by klangklangston at 3:50 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
I think clarknova succeeded in raising my blood pressure more than just about anything else in this thread.
posted by SpacemanStix at 3:50 PM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by SpacemanStix at 3:50 PM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
To be super clear, I aired my distinction between "ignorant" and "uninformed" with no intent whatsoever to imply, "Everybody should do it MY way because my way is better." It was rather, "That one word hasn't worked for me for this reason. This other word has often worked better for me. Some people, who are new to these sorts of conversations, may or may not be interested in trying it out. Sometimes it's effective to have the same idea phrased in different ways by different people."
MoonOrb, I really didn't mean it as advice for the old hands at this. I've dialed back my own participation in these sorts of threads for conservation of energy and inclination reasons, so it's not my place to judge others' possibly exhaustion-inspired sharp edges. (Not that "ignorant" is sharp, lol.) Sorry if it came across as advice to people who know this shit forwards, backwards and sideways.
And yes, bending over backwards with one's language fails with diehard assholes. Fuck 'em. I'm interested in the ones who want to reject their own complacency as much as they want to help me do the same with mine.
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 3:55 PM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
MoonOrb, I really didn't mean it as advice for the old hands at this. I've dialed back my own participation in these sorts of threads for conservation of energy and inclination reasons, so it's not my place to judge others' possibly exhaustion-inspired sharp edges. (Not that "ignorant" is sharp, lol.) Sorry if it came across as advice to people who know this shit forwards, backwards and sideways.
And yes, bending over backwards with one's language fails with diehard assholes. Fuck 'em. I'm interested in the ones who want to reject their own complacency as much as they want to help me do the same with mine.
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 3:55 PM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
It sounds like your job description is open-ended and has led to overwork. Have you ever considered unionizing?
If you think this website is a media-tool controlled by capitalist-bourgeois class values then please actually build the case, instead of providing unsolicited advice of this sort.
posted by polymodus at 3:56 PM on June 17, 2015
If you think this website is a media-tool controlled by capitalist-bourgeois class values then please actually build the case, instead of providing unsolicited advice of this sort.
posted by polymodus at 3:56 PM on June 17, 2015
it's interesting to me that people argue for a more rough and tumble mefi experience and that people in marginalized communities are often given advice on how to be nicer here.
Right, there's an obvious kind of hypocritical fragility to it. I think the recent discussion has been different people, but there's plenty in evidence from the same people. Some of it in the inherent stances, the flouncing and guilt trips and vague grumbling along with a strange sensitivity. Whenever there's this thing with free speech, it seems like some new call for stricter politeness is coming along hand in hand.
IMHO, it's not simply some folks who want to dish it out but not take it, as Drinkie Die says. There's an awfully large component of banner waving, of claims that MeFi is under some kind of existential threat. And it keeps coming back.
I think it's more about wanting conversations to be a safe place for privileged people. They want to be able to say just about anything about minority issues without having to even acknowledge or care about whatever discomfort it causes to minorities. This is "free speech".
At the same time, they want to be completely shielded from any attempt by minorities to fight back or claim part of the discussion. Hence the calls for more politeness, the attack on lingo, the criticisms that minorities do things that make privileged people "defensive" and its their job to manage privileged folks' emotions as well as their own. The only acceptable response is a smile and patient, polite education.
In other words, if it's something that upsets privileged people, it is to be forbidden. If it's something that only upsets minorities, it should be ignorable. People should not be asked to necesssarily show respect, or ever made to feel bad if they blunder into things accidentally. It's basically never okay for privileged people to be made to feel bad, in any way, ever.
I don't even think it is a conscious thing. It's just how privileged people unconsciously want things to be set up, what feels right to them. Sometimes I'm in that group when it's along some axis of privilege I have, I'm sure.
posted by nom de poop at 3:56 PM on June 17, 2015 [24 favorites]
Right, there's an obvious kind of hypocritical fragility to it. I think the recent discussion has been different people, but there's plenty in evidence from the same people. Some of it in the inherent stances, the flouncing and guilt trips and vague grumbling along with a strange sensitivity. Whenever there's this thing with free speech, it seems like some new call for stricter politeness is coming along hand in hand.
IMHO, it's not simply some folks who want to dish it out but not take it, as Drinkie Die says. There's an awfully large component of banner waving, of claims that MeFi is under some kind of existential threat. And it keeps coming back.
I think it's more about wanting conversations to be a safe place for privileged people. They want to be able to say just about anything about minority issues without having to even acknowledge or care about whatever discomfort it causes to minorities. This is "free speech".
At the same time, they want to be completely shielded from any attempt by minorities to fight back or claim part of the discussion. Hence the calls for more politeness, the attack on lingo, the criticisms that minorities do things that make privileged people "defensive" and its their job to manage privileged folks' emotions as well as their own. The only acceptable response is a smile and patient, polite education.
In other words, if it's something that upsets privileged people, it is to be forbidden. If it's something that only upsets minorities, it should be ignorable. People should not be asked to necesssarily show respect, or ever made to feel bad if they blunder into things accidentally. It's basically never okay for privileged people to be made to feel bad, in any way, ever.
I don't even think it is a conscious thing. It's just how privileged people unconsciously want things to be set up, what feels right to them. Sometimes I'm in that group when it's along some axis of privilege I have, I'm sure.
posted by nom de poop at 3:56 PM on June 17, 2015 [24 favorites]
It sounds like your job description is open-ended and has led to overwork. Have you ever considered unionizing?
Dude, that was pathetic. If you're going to concern troll at least have the self-respect to do it well.
SMH. Kids today.
posted by zarq at 4:05 PM on June 17, 2015 [13 favorites]
Dude, that was pathetic. If you're going to concern troll at least have the self-respect to do it well.
SMH. Kids today.
posted by zarq at 4:05 PM on June 17, 2015 [13 favorites]
I was gonna say it wasn't subtle enough to rise to the level of "concern" trolling but was rather just straight trolling, but now I'm not sure it was even advanced enough to be called trolling in the first place.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:08 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 4:08 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Do you want fewer reactive, heavy-handed deletions?
Politely ignoring it did nothing. At this point I don't even mind.
but now I'm not sure it was even advanced enough to be called trolling in the first place.
It was about fifty percent genuine. The other half was schadenfreude.
posted by clarknova at 4:11 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Politely ignoring it did nothing. At this point I don't even mind.
but now I'm not sure it was even advanced enough to be called trolling in the first place.
It was about fifty percent genuine. The other half was schadenfreude.
posted by clarknova at 4:11 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Taz and Lobstermitten, if either of you are ever in New York, I will buy you drinks. Or pastries. Or both. Because you deserve far more kindness, appreciation, respect and consideration than you have received in this thread.
posted by zarq at 4:12 PM on June 17, 2015 [31 favorites]
posted by zarq at 4:12 PM on June 17, 2015 [31 favorites]
maybe this needs to go in the merchandising thread but I will pay $20 cash money if 1% of the time the line above the post/preview buttons on the grey were to read "Note: No one gives a shit about your personal grudge against the mods."
posted by kagredon at 4:15 PM on June 17, 2015 [47 favorites]
posted by kagredon at 4:15 PM on June 17, 2015 [47 favorites]
"Politely ignoring it did nothing. At this point I don't even mind."
So this is the strategy you've settled on?
posted by klangklangston at 4:18 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
So this is the strategy you've settled on?
posted by klangklangston at 4:18 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Note: Everyone gives a shrug.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:22 PM on June 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:22 PM on June 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
One that comes to mind with all of this is "calling out" vs. "tone policing". IMHO there's no real difference between the two other than which side of the argument you're on. If you're on what's perceived to be the right side and someone calls you an "obnoxious asshole" they're tone policing (and that's bad). OTOH if you're on what's perceived to be the wrong side of the argument and calls you an "obnoxious asshole" they're just calling you out on your bullshit (and that's good). I can't be the only that see this can I? Pretty soon I'm going to have to make a flowchart to follow before commenting just to be sure I'm using the right jargon in the right context. Hmmm...be back in few hours.
posted by MikeMc at 4:27 PM on June 17, 2015 [15 favorites]
posted by MikeMc at 4:27 PM on June 17, 2015 [15 favorites]
So this is the strategy you've settled on?
I don't give Metafilter enough of my time anymore to warrant strategies.
Although I did remind Taz that people don't like censorship regardless of the motive, and they remember it.
And DrinkyDie, flippant as his intent might have been, did remind her that under the current economic system she is an entirely replaceable part.
So in that sense I'd say the 'strategy' was a success.
posted by clarknova at 4:31 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
I don't give Metafilter enough of my time anymore to warrant strategies.
Although I did remind Taz that people don't like censorship regardless of the motive, and they remember it.
And DrinkyDie, flippant as his intent might have been, did remind her that under the current economic system she is an entirely replaceable part.
So in that sense I'd say the 'strategy' was a success.
posted by clarknova at 4:31 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
I also did notice that the conversation looked like it might steer itself in a direction where some folks might feel as if it was their responsibility to be nicer to people who were saying hurtful things,
Yes, now that you point that out, I see that that would be an entirely predictable way for it to have gone
and that idea has caused a lot of friction here in the past.
As it should. Fuck that.
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 4:32 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yes, now that you point that out, I see that that would be an entirely predictable way for it to have gone
and that idea has caused a lot of friction here in the past.
As it should. Fuck that.
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 4:32 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
I don't give Metafilter enough of my time anymore to warrant strategies.
And yet here you are, being a Grade A jerk.
posted by Kitteh at 4:34 PM on June 17, 2015 [16 favorites]
And yet here you are, being a Grade A jerk.
posted by Kitteh at 4:34 PM on June 17, 2015 [16 favorites]
is this like the internet equivalent of hanging out in the parking lot of your old high school to let the current students know this place sucks and the teachers are total fascists, man
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:36 PM on June 17, 2015 [46 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:36 PM on June 17, 2015 [46 favorites]
Here's a little question to ponder. On an Internet community made up of (a) solid, dedicated moderators who work their butts off to keep the site running, and (b) users, some of whom turn out to be ungrateful and at turns downright nasty - which of these is more replaceable? Hint: it isn't (a).
posted by koeselitz at 4:36 PM on June 17, 2015 [31 favorites]
posted by koeselitz at 4:36 PM on June 17, 2015 [31 favorites]
clarknova: "I don't give Metafilter enough of my time anymore to warrant strategies."
You're participating in a thread which is longer than the average novel.
posted by Bugbread at 4:37 PM on June 17, 2015 [18 favorites]
You're participating in a thread which is longer than the average novel.
posted by Bugbread at 4:37 PM on June 17, 2015 [18 favorites]
is this like the internet equivalent of hanging out in the parking lot of your old high school to let the current students know this place sucks and the teachers are total fascists, man
Q: I got a question. If you guys know so much about online communities, how come you're here at like the Gas 'n' Sip dot com on a Wednesday night completely alone drinking beers with no community anywhere?
A: By choice, man.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:43 PM on June 17, 2015 [14 favorites]
Q: I got a question. If you guys know so much about online communities, how come you're here at like the Gas 'n' Sip dot com on a Wednesday night completely alone drinking beers with no community anywhere?
A: By choice, man.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:43 PM on June 17, 2015 [14 favorites]
You're participating in a thread which is longer than the average novel.
You are awfully generous in your definition of participating, Bugbread. I admire generosity, but it can go too far.
posted by GenjiandProust at 4:43 PM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
You are awfully generous in your definition of participating, Bugbread. I admire generosity, but it can go too far.
posted by GenjiandProust at 4:43 PM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
One of the peculiar things about banning people for hostility to the mods is that we all - we've been talking about it behind the scenes - basically have the same instinct to pull back, think it over, and make sure it's not done out of pique or because it's hot and we're tired or whatever. This can lead to people anklebiting for years longer than we probably should allow, but it seems like the better practice.
On the unionizing front, I actually feel quite strongly that white-collar workers in general, and community managers in specific, should consider it, but this place is a little odd in that there isn't anyone in "management" per se - cortex is my boss *and* does basically exactly the same job as me, so I don't really have a conceptual model of how that would matter internally. The game industry, now...
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 4:44 PM on June 17, 2015 [14 favorites]
On the unionizing front, I actually feel quite strongly that white-collar workers in general, and community managers in specific, should consider it, but this place is a little odd in that there isn't anyone in "management" per se - cortex is my boss *and* does basically exactly the same job as me, so I don't really have a conceptual model of how that would matter internally. The game industry, now...
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 4:44 PM on June 17, 2015 [14 favorites]
On the upside, it looks like this was one thing that could bring this contentious thread together for at least a brief moment of harmony.
I mean, it beats poop-throwing.
posted by GenjiandProust at 4:50 PM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
I mean, it beats poop-throwing.
posted by GenjiandProust at 4:50 PM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
I was actually very sorry that I was away during the jazz portion of the program.
Scat.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:53 PM on June 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
Scat.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:53 PM on June 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
seems to me that if someone is so concerned about the working conditions of the mods that he attacks them, the kind thing to do would be to ban him. then he gets what he wants, a better working environment for the mods...
posted by nadawi at 4:53 PM on June 17, 2015 [13 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 4:53 PM on June 17, 2015 [13 favorites]
I don't know if there's any room in this clusterfuck to ride a pony through, but has there ever been a proposal to have the site UI treat deleted comments more similarly to deleted threads-- i.e. some way of making them fairly irritating to access, but still theoretically available to those who seek them out?
This would functionally remove the comments from conversation about as effectively as they currently are, and prevent community members from being exposed to hurtful or destructive language unless they (for some reason) actively sought them out-- while also taking a lot of the wind out of the "silenced all my life" brigade's sails, and preserving an unedited record of site discourse (because I think there are multiple legitimate reasons to want to be able to have some form of access to this).
posted by threeants at 4:55 PM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
This would functionally remove the comments from conversation about as effectively as they currently are, and prevent community members from being exposed to hurtful or destructive language unless they (for some reason) actively sought them out-- while also taking a lot of the wind out of the "silenced all my life" brigade's sails, and preserving an unedited record of site discourse (because I think there are multiple legitimate reasons to want to be able to have some form of access to this).
posted by threeants at 4:55 PM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
But I also did notice that the conversation looked like it might steer itself in a direction where some folks might feel as if it was their responsibility to be nicer to people who were saying hurtful things, and that idea has caused a lot of friction here in the past.
If any of this is about my comments, I tried to be super clear that it had nothing to do with being "nicer" and that I don't think anybody has any such responsibility; I was explicitly responding to Rhaomi's points about the virtues of preserving some space for well-meaning ignorance in our conversations, and thinking about what sorts of tools help with that goal. I disagree with a lot of his comment, but he's a well-respected community member and I thought that point was worth responding to.
I think that recent steps like mods being quicker to ban folks who are repeatedly poisoning the well of good faith (...) and to delete more hurtful, derailing comments will actually help with that, even if it seems kind of counterintuitive from the usual "free speech" framing - and that when those chronic site issues have stopped being so constant and urgent, hopefully folks (myself included) will have more time and energy for patiently addressing well-meaning ignorance. Honestly, I think we usually do a pretty great job of this already except when threads are being totally overwhelmed by shitty comments from the usual folks who've exhausted their benefit of the doubt and are using others' ignorance as rhetorical ammo, but I still don't think it hurts anyone to be explicit about the fact that yes, the ideal should probably still be to maintain some veneer of separation between telling someone they're saying ignorant things vs. calling someone an actual bigot.
posted by dialetheia at 5:00 PM on June 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
If any of this is about my comments, I tried to be super clear that it had nothing to do with being "nicer" and that I don't think anybody has any such responsibility; I was explicitly responding to Rhaomi's points about the virtues of preserving some space for well-meaning ignorance in our conversations, and thinking about what sorts of tools help with that goal. I disagree with a lot of his comment, but he's a well-respected community member and I thought that point was worth responding to.
I think that recent steps like mods being quicker to ban folks who are repeatedly poisoning the well of good faith (...) and to delete more hurtful, derailing comments will actually help with that, even if it seems kind of counterintuitive from the usual "free speech" framing - and that when those chronic site issues have stopped being so constant and urgent, hopefully folks (myself included) will have more time and energy for patiently addressing well-meaning ignorance. Honestly, I think we usually do a pretty great job of this already except when threads are being totally overwhelmed by shitty comments from the usual folks who've exhausted their benefit of the doubt and are using others' ignorance as rhetorical ammo, but I still don't think it hurts anyone to be explicit about the fact that yes, the ideal should probably still be to maintain some veneer of separation between telling someone they're saying ignorant things vs. calling someone an actual bigot.
posted by dialetheia at 5:00 PM on June 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
I think if anyone is genuinely concerned about the mods and wants to do something about it and has the technical chops to do it, then they should write a script that automatically deletes stupid mean bullshit comments like the one MikeMc just dropped. It shouldn't be that hard--those types of comments are just so goddamn predictable. Its like that twitter account that automatically rebuts climate-change deniers--you know EXACTLY what they are going to say, so why entertain it at all?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:01 PM on June 17, 2015
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:01 PM on June 17, 2015
I can't believe people took clarknova's bait. Come on.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:04 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by five fresh fish at 5:04 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Taz and Lobstermitten, if either of you are ever in New York, I will buy you drinks. Or pastries. Or both.
I have a half a keg of Fat Tire that needs to be drunk. Anyone who makes it to the Pacific Northwest and has made it through this entire thread is welcome to come drink it. Seriously. Let me know.
posted by corb at 5:08 PM on June 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
I have a half a keg of Fat Tire that needs to be drunk. Anyone who makes it to the Pacific Northwest and has made it through this entire thread is welcome to come drink it. Seriously. Let me know.
posted by corb at 5:08 PM on June 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
This can lead to people anklebiting for years longer than we probably should allow, but it seems like the better practice.
That's fine if they're just anklebiting you, but in this case we have someone who, in at least one recent MeTa, admitted to engaging in bad faith, which seems like as much a headache for mods as it is for other members.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:08 PM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
That's fine if they're just anklebiting you, but in this case we have someone who, in at least one recent MeTa, admitted to engaging in bad faith, which seems like as much a headache for mods as it is for other members.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:08 PM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
On the unionizing front, I actually feel quite strongly that white-collar workers in general, and community managers in specific, should consider it, but this place is a little odd in that there isn't anyone in "management" per se - cortex is my boss *and* does basically exactly the same job as me, so I don't really have a conceptual model of how that would matter internally. The game industry, now...
In the context of the information economy many jobs are now "a little odd". Many workers in your position don't feel unionization can apply to thier context.
The question is, who owns the company assets and infrastructure? How much profit does it make? Do you have any say in the workload demanded of you versus the compensation vis a vis profit share? Do you have the choice to be compensated well for extended hours or to be paid less so new workers can share the load? Do you collectively bargain for which jobs receive what pay-scale?
Cortex may be a senior moderator with task authority over you, and be doing the same job as you, but Matt Haughey didn't hand him MetaFilter Network Inc when he 'retired'. Cortex almost certainly doesn't have carte blanche to change major employment and revenue polices as he sees fit. Especially when it comes to regulating your compensation vs workload. In reality, does Cortex have the ability to give you a raise if you asked for it? If not, he's your manager, not your boss. And you do have a boss.
It only takes a little mental flexibility to see that the "new economy" is essentially the old economy. There is nothing incredibly unique about working remotely as a mod for this site. Despite IT-community hype and enthusiastic applause at industry conferences, Metafilter is a buisness like any other.
posted by clarknova at 5:08 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
In the context of the information economy many jobs are now "a little odd". Many workers in your position don't feel unionization can apply to thier context.
The question is, who owns the company assets and infrastructure? How much profit does it make? Do you have any say in the workload demanded of you versus the compensation vis a vis profit share? Do you have the choice to be compensated well for extended hours or to be paid less so new workers can share the load? Do you collectively bargain for which jobs receive what pay-scale?
Cortex may be a senior moderator with task authority over you, and be doing the same job as you, but Matt Haughey didn't hand him MetaFilter Network Inc when he 'retired'. Cortex almost certainly doesn't have carte blanche to change major employment and revenue polices as he sees fit. Especially when it comes to regulating your compensation vs workload. In reality, does Cortex have the ability to give you a raise if you asked for it? If not, he's your manager, not your boss. And you do have a boss.
It only takes a little mental flexibility to see that the "new economy" is essentially the old economy. There is nothing incredibly unique about working remotely as a mod for this site. Despite IT-community hype and enthusiastic applause at industry conferences, Metafilter is a buisness like any other.
posted by clarknova at 5:08 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yeah, it's an interesting and complex topic that needs to not derail this thread.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 5:10 PM on June 17, 2015 [10 favorites]
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 5:10 PM on June 17, 2015 [10 favorites]
And a comment deleted. NoraReed, you need to knock it off with the namecalling, period.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 5:12 PM on June 17, 2015 [15 favorites]
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 5:12 PM on June 17, 2015 [15 favorites]
Treat deleted comments more similarly to deleted threads-- i.e. some way of making them somewhat irritating to access, but still theoretically available to those who seek them out?
I've thought this too. Thanks to time zone differences I come in late to most of the hot threads, and sometimes I can't figure out what all the anger is about. I'll eventually figure out that there were deleted comments, but that the overall temperature of the thread remains high. It's nice to see the note "a couple comments deleted."
I'd have some concerns to this approach, though. I think truly hateful comments - whether about a class of people or an individual ad-hominem attack - really should simply be eliminated. They don't need to survive. And we really would create a sewer on MetaFilter full of racist, misogynist, and phobic comments.
And - I'm projecting here - I suspect that there are people who might regret some of the personal attacks they made in the heat of the argument, and be greatfull that the mods have made those comments disappear.
posted by kanewai at 5:12 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
I've thought this too. Thanks to time zone differences I come in late to most of the hot threads, and sometimes I can't figure out what all the anger is about. I'll eventually figure out that there were deleted comments, but that the overall temperature of the thread remains high. It's nice to see the note "a couple comments deleted."
I'd have some concerns to this approach, though. I think truly hateful comments - whether about a class of people or an individual ad-hominem attack - really should simply be eliminated. They don't need to survive. And we really would create a sewer on MetaFilter full of racist, misogynist, and phobic comments.
And - I'm projecting here - I suspect that there are people who might regret some of the personal attacks they made in the heat of the argument, and be greatfull that the mods have made those comments disappear.
posted by kanewai at 5:12 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
And a comment deleted. NoraReed, you need to knock it off with the namecalling, period.
Seriously? She's the problem member here?
posted by zombieflanders at 5:13 PM on June 17, 2015 [16 favorites]
Seriously? She's the problem member here?
posted by zombieflanders at 5:13 PM on June 17, 2015 [16 favorites]
wow.
posted by nadawi at 5:14 PM on June 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 5:14 PM on June 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
Seriously? She's the problem member here?
She's the one calling names. If you respect the mods, you should give them the benefit of the doubt that they know how to handle someone like clarknova.
posted by OmieWise at 5:15 PM on June 17, 2015 [14 favorites]
She's the one calling names. If you respect the mods, you should give them the benefit of the doubt that they know how to handle someone like clarknova.
posted by OmieWise at 5:15 PM on June 17, 2015 [14 favorites]
zombieflanders: "Seriously? She's the problem member here?"
What, this is Highlander now, "there can be only one"?
posted by Bugbread at 5:17 PM on June 17, 2015 [12 favorites]
What, this is Highlander now, "there can be only one"?
posted by Bugbread at 5:17 PM on June 17, 2015 [12 favorites]
Seriously? She's the problem member here?
It's not like there's a single slot for "problem member" that can only be filled by one person at a time. More's the pity.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 5:17 PM on June 17, 2015 [17 favorites]
It's not like there's a single slot for "problem member" that can only be filled by one person at a time. More's the pity.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 5:17 PM on June 17, 2015 [17 favorites]
lbr, he's still here, taking massive elephant dumps, so i think maybe they're doing something wrong
posted by NoraReed at 5:18 PM on June 17, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by NoraReed at 5:18 PM on June 17, 2015 [8 favorites]
I also think (SINCE Y'ALL ASKED) that the site would benefit from a more liberal approach to user banning, balanced (consequently) by a more conservative approach to comment deletion.
I feel like there's a lot of-- often suuuuuuuper protracted-- agonizing over whether someone is "really" a troll. After a certain point, who cares what their intentionality is? If they're recurrently damaging the community, it doesn't matter whether they're a cackling troll or an obtuse dolt or a misunderstood genius-- they're causing more badness than is worth dealing with, and MetaFilter membership isn't a constitutional right.
posted by threeants at 5:19 PM on June 17, 2015 [12 favorites]
I feel like there's a lot of-- often suuuuuuuper protracted-- agonizing over whether someone is "really" a troll. After a certain point, who cares what their intentionality is? If they're recurrently damaging the community, it doesn't matter whether they're a cackling troll or an obtuse dolt or a misunderstood genius-- they're causing more badness than is worth dealing with, and MetaFilter membership isn't a constitutional right.
posted by threeants at 5:19 PM on June 17, 2015 [12 favorites]
An interesting book to read that's related to this:
"Your Face in Mine" by Jess Row.
His sales have probably gone up 9 million percent in the last week.
posted by crazylegs at 5:22 PM on June 17, 2015
"Your Face in Mine" by Jess Row.
His sales have probably gone up 9 million percent in the last week.
posted by crazylegs at 5:22 PM on June 17, 2015
lbr, it's weird to think clarknova should not disrespect the mods in his particular way, but that second guessing them about clarknova is somehow more respectful.
posted by OmieWise at 5:24 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by OmieWise at 5:24 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
has there ever been a proposal to have the site UI treat deleted comments more similarly to deleted threads-- i.e. some way of making them fairly irritating to access, but still theoretically available to those who seek them out?
Hacker News distinguishes between deleted comments, which are gone for good, and dead comments, which can still be seen if you enable showdead in your profile. (They also gray out posts with negative karma so they're barely legible, but Metafilter's favorites only go up.) I don't know how well this would adapt to Metafilter, where posts are sorted by date instead of threaded by votes.
It would be nice to avoid viewing comments that are hurtful but not quite worthy of deletion. But if they're not deleted, members who choose to see them will be replying to them, and possibly quoting them. Threads might end up splitting into two parallel conversations, one including controversial comments and one not. That works for Hacker News because conversations are threaded anyway, but in a chronological discussion it could get confusing.
posted by Rangi at 5:27 PM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
Hacker News distinguishes between deleted comments, which are gone for good, and dead comments, which can still be seen if you enable showdead in your profile. (They also gray out posts with negative karma so they're barely legible, but Metafilter's favorites only go up.) I don't know how well this would adapt to Metafilter, where posts are sorted by date instead of threaded by votes.
It would be nice to avoid viewing comments that are hurtful but not quite worthy of deletion. But if they're not deleted, members who choose to see them will be replying to them, and possibly quoting them. Threads might end up splitting into two parallel conversations, one including controversial comments and one not. That works for Hacker News because conversations are threaded anyway, but in a chronological discussion it could get confusing.
posted by Rangi at 5:27 PM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
lbr, Luigi's Beef Ravioli is life's best recipe.
posted by Xavier Xavier at 5:27 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Xavier Xavier at 5:27 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Would somebody please give a respectful, concise, balanced, good-faith summary of the thread so far?
posted by Sir Rinse at 5:27 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Sir Rinse at 5:27 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
it's weird that insulting the mods isn't an insta delete in the way that saying asshole is.
posted by nadawi at 5:27 PM on June 17, 2015 [10 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 5:27 PM on June 17, 2015 [10 favorites]
I also think (SINCE Y'ALL ASKED) that the site would benefit from a more liberal approach to user banning, partnered (consequently) with a more conservative approach to deletion.
Seconding this, actually. When we talk about educating people being exhausting, the real issue is that too much of "education" is just an emotional black hole in the form of JAQing off and sealioning. Honestly, some questions are fine, but folks are going to take a lot more reactive approach to questions if they sense that the emotional effort that they put into answering questions in good faith is just going to be sucked away because too often, questions are a means for bad agents to play crappy "Socratic" games and gotchas. That impacts the people who geninuely have questions. I'd be more willing to entertain questions if I knew people were actually listening to me.
And we talk about Metafilter not being a space where minorities can talk about themselves and their experiences, but a large part of that is because every time a thread on racism or whatnot goes up, I basically roll my eyes and go "well, I COULD share my experience in here but then the usual suspects will come in, gaslight me, and cherrypick what I say to start crappy arguments, so why bother?"
posted by Conspire at 5:27 PM on June 17, 2015 [21 favorites]
Seconding this, actually. When we talk about educating people being exhausting, the real issue is that too much of "education" is just an emotional black hole in the form of JAQing off and sealioning. Honestly, some questions are fine, but folks are going to take a lot more reactive approach to questions if they sense that the emotional effort that they put into answering questions in good faith is just going to be sucked away because too often, questions are a means for bad agents to play crappy "Socratic" games and gotchas. That impacts the people who geninuely have questions. I'd be more willing to entertain questions if I knew people were actually listening to me.
And we talk about Metafilter not being a space where minorities can talk about themselves and their experiences, but a large part of that is because every time a thread on racism or whatnot goes up, I basically roll my eyes and go "well, I COULD share my experience in here but then the usual suspects will come in, gaslight me, and cherrypick what I say to start crappy arguments, so why bother?"
posted by Conspire at 5:27 PM on June 17, 2015 [21 favorites]
it's weird that insulting the mods isn't an insta delete in the way that saying asshole is.
I think the mods are trying to be transparent and allow criticism of them and their policies, which is a laudable aim. There does need to have a line drawn between thoughtful criticism and rampant insult though. If anyone is calling the mods shitty names that comment should also be deleted.
posted by corb at 5:32 PM on June 17, 2015 [9 favorites]
I think the mods are trying to be transparent and allow criticism of them and their policies, which is a laudable aim. There does need to have a line drawn between thoughtful criticism and rampant insult though. If anyone is calling the mods shitty names that comment should also be deleted.
posted by corb at 5:32 PM on June 17, 2015 [9 favorites]
I can't believe people took clarknova's bait. Come on.
While I understand the concept of not rewarding poor behavior with attention, I also feel like being supportive of the targeted party should take precedence. It could just be my years in retai/customer service coloring my perception, but even when you know that everyone probably agrees someone is being a pill, its still nice to actually hear that from others.
posted by ghost phoneme at 5:34 PM on June 17, 2015 [10 favorites]
While I understand the concept of not rewarding poor behavior with attention, I also feel like being supportive of the targeted party should take precedence. It could just be my years in retai/customer service coloring my perception, but even when you know that everyone probably agrees someone is being a pill, its still nice to actually hear that from others.
posted by ghost phoneme at 5:34 PM on June 17, 2015 [10 favorites]
i think if a grudge has been held for a significant amount of time and a user has admitted acting in bad faith, the strength of the language should matter a lot less than the repeated and dug in nature.
posted by nadawi at 5:35 PM on June 17, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 5:35 PM on June 17, 2015 [8 favorites]
If a flowchart helps you avoid making hurtful comments you should totally do that if that's what it takes you, you know? You're sounding all put upon and you were clearly being sarcastic,
I did actually make a flowchart. Like the person who suspended their account I do at times have trouble keeping up with the shifting social landscape. That being said as someone who knows where they stand privilege-wise I can weather being called a bad name on occasion (but I do reserve the right to reply in-kind if I feel it's unwarranted).
posted by MikeMc at 5:38 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
I did actually make a flowchart. Like the person who suspended their account I do at times have trouble keeping up with the shifting social landscape. That being said as someone who knows where they stand privilege-wise I can weather being called a bad name on occasion (but I do reserve the right to reply in-kind if I feel it's unwarranted).
posted by MikeMc at 5:38 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
It would be nice to avoid viewing comments that are hurtful but not quite worthy of deletion. But if they're not deleted, members who choose to see them will be replying to them, and possibly quoting them. Threads might end up splitting into two parallel conversations, one including controversial comments and one not.
I'm not talking about a half-measure "prefer not to see" type of thing-- definitely not a click-through or anything like that-- but a genuine barrier that makes comments theoretically accessible and part of the public record in a tucked-away manner, but functionally deleted from any normal, useful purposes (just like deleted threads!). If this was done right, to engage a deleted comment in real-time you'd have to be really committed to defying the moderation, at which point they could just step in and lay down the law anyway.
posted by threeants at 5:38 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'm not talking about a half-measure "prefer not to see" type of thing-- definitely not a click-through or anything like that-- but a genuine barrier that makes comments theoretically accessible and part of the public record in a tucked-away manner, but functionally deleted from any normal, useful purposes (just like deleted threads!). If this was done right, to engage a deleted comment in real-time you'd have to be really committed to defying the moderation, at which point they could just step in and lay down the law anyway.
posted by threeants at 5:38 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
lbr, he's still here, taking massive elephant dumps, so i think maybe they're doing something wrong
posted by NoraReed at 5:18 PM on June 17
[4 favorites +] [!]
This reads, to me, as directly insulting to the mods, unlike clarknova's comment which really wasn't insulting at all.
And she's insulting them after it's been made clear that they are struggling with this thread.
posted by jayder at 5:38 PM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by NoraReed at 5:18 PM on June 17
[4 favorites +] [!]
This reads, to me, as directly insulting to the mods, unlike clarknova's comment which really wasn't insulting at all.
And she's insulting them after it's been made clear that they are struggling with this thread.
posted by jayder at 5:38 PM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
It's not necessarily insulting to argue they are doing something wrong, sometimes it's just feedback.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:40 PM on June 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 5:40 PM on June 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
clarknova saying he has no sympathy for taz and that her job is highly expendable is not insulting? this thread is insane.
posted by nadawi at 5:42 PM on June 17, 2015 [31 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 5:42 PM on June 17, 2015 [31 favorites]
And she's insulting them after it's been made clear that they are struggling with this thread.
Bwah! That's rich, considering his response to them saying that was that he had no sympathy for them.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:43 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Bwah! That's rich, considering his response to them saying that was that he had no sympathy for them.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:43 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Someone once threatened cortex with physical violence and the comment (and I believe the user) survived.
posted by cjorgensen at 5:44 PM on June 17, 2015
posted by cjorgensen at 5:44 PM on June 17, 2015
An FPP was just posted (not by me) and summarily deleted that was a single link to this article.
I fail to see how an article written by an African-American academic for a staunchly progressive website is not worthy of discussion.
I've never seen this level of moderation on this website about anything.
posted by R.F.Simpson at 5:44 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
I fail to see how an article written by an African-American academic for a staunchly progressive website is not worthy of discussion.
I've never seen this level of moderation on this website about anything.
posted by R.F.Simpson at 5:44 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
I did actually make a flowchart.
That's embarassing, really. And you completely miss the point.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:45 PM on June 17, 2015 [16 favorites]
That's embarassing, really. And you completely miss the point.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:45 PM on June 17, 2015 [16 favorites]
It's not necessarily insulting to argue they are doing something wrong, sometimes it's just feedback.
(And to be clear, I do not agree with jayder that clarknova should be read as not insulting in this situation.)
posted by Drinky Die at 5:45 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
(And to be clear, I do not agree with jayder that clarknova should be read as not insulting in this situation.)
posted by Drinky Die at 5:45 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
R.F.Simpson - might i suggest reading the first comment in this thread if you're confused?
posted by nadawi at 5:48 PM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 5:48 PM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
> An FPP was just posted (not by me) and summarily deleted that was a single link to this article.
I fail to see how an article written by an African-American academic for a staunchly progressive website is not worthy of discussion.
Have you not been reading this thread, or are you completely unable to assimilate and understand what you read?
posted by languagehat at 5:48 PM on June 17, 2015 [13 favorites]
I fail to see how an article written by an African-American academic for a staunchly progressive website is not worthy of discussion.
Have you not been reading this thread, or are you completely unable to assimilate and understand what you read?
posted by languagehat at 5:48 PM on June 17, 2015 [13 favorites]
R.F. Simpson, scroll on up. The MeTa gets weird once folks start veering off into out-thread comment quoting and the Real Definition of TERF and poop recipes and whatever, but the earlier parts are clear enough. The quality of the links and posts don't matter; this has proven to be a conversation that's too intensive and upsetting to have until things cool off.
posted by byanyothername at 5:49 PM on June 17, 2015
posted by byanyothername at 5:49 PM on June 17, 2015
I've never seen this level of moderation on this website about anything.
I don't even think that's the first single-link, no-context newsfilter FPP deleted this week. That it's on a subject already under discussion in a MeTa is practically secondary.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:49 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
I don't even think that's the first single-link, no-context newsfilter FPP deleted this week. That it's on a subject already under discussion in a MeTa is practically secondary.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:49 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
That's embarassing, really. And you completely miss the point.
Um, yeah...maybe my next chart will be better?
posted by MikeMc at 5:51 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Um, yeah...maybe my next chart will be better?
posted by MikeMc at 5:51 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Just to touch obliquely on R.F.Simpson's comment, I'd be in favor *not* of banned topics or whatever but a small banner at the top of the blue page saying "we are not accepting threads on [current example: Dolezar] at the moment, thanks. try again later."
posted by uosuaq at 5:51 PM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by uosuaq at 5:51 PM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
There really are a ton of non-silencedallmylife reasons to strongly dislike aggressive comment deletion.
--it creates weird information disparities / parallel conversations where some of the participants, who saw the comment(s) before deletion, can refer obliquely to something that the other half has literally no access to
--it's a double-edged sword...sometimes deletions do good things like protect community members from bigotry, but while the mods are intelligent and good-intentioned, other times they straight up make a bad call
--it creates the false illusion of a safe space, when actually the same bigots who posted shitty stuff in the first place didn't magically disappear along with the offending comments
--it prevents obtuse but potentially redeemable members from understanding and learning from what a comment that is unacceptable to the community actually looks like
--it whitewashes the records of consistent problem users; it's really hard to demonstrate someone's recurrent bad faith when all the evidence is deleted
--etc.
posted by threeants at 5:52 PM on June 17, 2015 [17 favorites]
--it creates weird information disparities / parallel conversations where some of the participants, who saw the comment(s) before deletion, can refer obliquely to something that the other half has literally no access to
--it's a double-edged sword...sometimes deletions do good things like protect community members from bigotry, but while the mods are intelligent and good-intentioned, other times they straight up make a bad call
--it creates the false illusion of a safe space, when actually the same bigots who posted shitty stuff in the first place didn't magically disappear along with the offending comments
--it prevents obtuse but potentially redeemable members from understanding and learning from what a comment that is unacceptable to the community actually looks like
--it whitewashes the records of consistent problem users; it's really hard to demonstrate someone's recurrent bad faith when all the evidence is deleted
--etc.
posted by threeants at 5:52 PM on June 17, 2015 [17 favorites]
To distill this thread to its essence: It's not that that "article written by an African-American academic for a staunchly progressive website is not worthy of discussion." [My emphasis]
It's that the ensuing discussion is not a good fit for MetaFilter at this time. As evidence, I present: this thread.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:52 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
It's that the ensuing discussion is not a good fit for MetaFilter at this time. As evidence, I present: this thread.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:52 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
>
I think the thing is that'd be too much work for what are pretty rare and exceptional cases.
posted by byanyothername at 5:56 PM on June 17, 2015
I think the thing is that'd be too much work for what are pretty rare and exceptional cases.
posted by byanyothername at 5:56 PM on June 17, 2015
If such a thing were done I think it would make more sense to have it on the post submission page and not the front page.
posted by Jacqueline at 5:59 PM on June 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by Jacqueline at 5:59 PM on June 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
The 1000+ comments in this MeTa seem to demonstrate the wisdom of the mods in removing the posts. Maybe we can't have nice things, or maybe it is just that the thing isn't that nice.
posted by humanfont at 5:59 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by humanfont at 5:59 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
I think the thing is that'd be too much work for what are pretty rare and exceptional cases.
I dunno, blanket topical bans are clearly pretty rare-- but thinking beyond this Dolezal clusterfuck, since we seem to be having a conversation about broader site policies now, it is actually very common for topics to be functionally banned for a period of time because a thread deemed to be on the same topic was already posted recently.
However, it can be really frustrating that the period of time that constitutes "recently" is completely opaque and that what constitutes a thematic double is completely subjective. Personally I think it would be super cool and helpful for there to be something that says plainly "we are not accepting a new thread about Hillary Clinton until July 6" (or whatever), though of course I recognize that there are a lot of details for this devil to hide out in.
posted by threeants at 6:05 PM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
I dunno, blanket topical bans are clearly pretty rare-- but thinking beyond this Dolezal clusterfuck, since we seem to be having a conversation about broader site policies now, it is actually very common for topics to be functionally banned for a period of time because a thread deemed to be on the same topic was already posted recently.
However, it can be really frustrating that the period of time that constitutes "recently" is completely opaque and that what constitutes a thematic double is completely subjective. Personally I think it would be super cool and helpful for there to be something that says plainly "we are not accepting a new thread about Hillary Clinton until July 6" (or whatever), though of course I recognize that there are a lot of details for this devil to hide out in.
posted by threeants at 6:05 PM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
One of the peculiar things about banning people for hostility to the mods is that we all - we've been talking about it behind the scenes - basically have the same instinct to pull back, think it over, and make sure it's not done out of pique or because it's hot and we're tired or whatever. This can lead to people anklebiting for years longer than we probably should allow, but it seems like the better practice.
The thing that bothers me is that this seems to assume there's no significant cost to the community of taking this tack, as if it's a matter of the mods alone enduring this hostility if it's only directly aimed at them. Looking at how many people have responded to it, though, I don't think that's accurate (and yes, of course people could have avoided taking the bait, but clarknova could also have avoided laying this 'bait' in the first place). The whole derail seems to have generated a lot of unnecessary bad will, and the way it's been handled leaves something of a bad taste in my mouth.
It's absolutely admirable that the mods don't ban or otherwise react to people in anything like a kneejerk fashion, but I also think that "anklebiting for years longer than we probably should allow" is something that negatively impacts the community as a whole, and not just those who are directly targeted. I would hope that there's some reasonable ground between the "kneejerk" and "years overdue" extremes.
posted by DingoMutt at 6:05 PM on June 17, 2015 [13 favorites]
The thing that bothers me is that this seems to assume there's no significant cost to the community of taking this tack, as if it's a matter of the mods alone enduring this hostility if it's only directly aimed at them. Looking at how many people have responded to it, though, I don't think that's accurate (and yes, of course people could have avoided taking the bait, but clarknova could also have avoided laying this 'bait' in the first place). The whole derail seems to have generated a lot of unnecessary bad will, and the way it's been handled leaves something of a bad taste in my mouth.
It's absolutely admirable that the mods don't ban or otherwise react to people in anything like a kneejerk fashion, but I also think that "anklebiting for years longer than we probably should allow" is something that negatively impacts the community as a whole, and not just those who are directly targeted. I would hope that there's some reasonable ground between the "kneejerk" and "years overdue" extremes.
posted by DingoMutt at 6:05 PM on June 17, 2015 [13 favorites]
"Google tells me a typical novel has 80,000 - 100,000 words. This thread is over 120,000 words. We have limited human bandwidth, and it's stretched mighty thin at the moment. Please, if you are going to comment here, try to make it productive and useful."
I was curious about this, and because I wanted to compare apples-to-apples as much as possible, I removed everything but the actual post and comment text (so no attribution or other stuff) up to this comment forty-five minutes ago and did a character and word count (664,953 and 116,008). Then I took an average, well-known recent novel, Anne Leckie's Ancillary Justice, and removed everything but the actual text of the book, converted it to plain text, and then did a character and word count (620,284 and 108,783). Leckie's books is variously listed as being about 410 pages.
So as of forty-five minutes ago this thread was already about 7% larger than a somewhat longer-than-average novel, about 440 pages.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 6:05 PM on June 17, 2015 [11 favorites]
I was curious about this, and because I wanted to compare apples-to-apples as much as possible, I removed everything but the actual post and comment text (so no attribution or other stuff) up to this comment forty-five minutes ago and did a character and word count (664,953 and 116,008). Then I took an average, well-known recent novel, Anne Leckie's Ancillary Justice, and removed everything but the actual text of the book, converted it to plain text, and then did a character and word count (620,284 and 108,783). Leckie's books is variously listed as being about 410 pages.
So as of forty-five minutes ago this thread was already about 7% larger than a somewhat longer-than-average novel, about 440 pages.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 6:05 PM on June 17, 2015 [11 favorites]
anyway, sorry, this is a reminder to spay and neuter your horses lest you end up with a small pack of ponies
posted by threeants at 6:08 PM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by threeants at 6:08 PM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
> I fail to see how an article written by an African-American academic for a staunchly progressive
> website is not worthy of discussion
Well, I understand it. Consider that jfuller thought the linked essay was absolutely wonderful, and that it a) was written by a well known Black academic from a big name institution and b) for extra piquancy it appeared on commondreams, I can barely imagine the...immoderate...thread our moderators would confront if the post had been allowed to stand. I would not expect any of them to jump down a volcano like that. (Though what Prof. Reed has to say would be highly soul-improving for anyone of the "It's All 8Chan" school of thought.)
Thanks v. much for the linkie.
posted by jfuller at 6:09 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
> website is not worthy of discussion
Well, I understand it. Consider that jfuller thought the linked essay was absolutely wonderful, and that it a) was written by a well known Black academic from a big name institution and b) for extra piquancy it appeared on commondreams, I can barely imagine the...immoderate...thread our moderators would confront if the post had been allowed to stand. I would not expect any of them to jump down a volcano like that. (Though what Prof. Reed has to say would be highly soul-improving for anyone of the "It's All 8Chan" school of thought.)
Thanks v. much for the linkie.
posted by jfuller at 6:09 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
I think the background should turn red and start flashing when we reach the number of words in a Neal Stephenson novel.
posted by uosuaq at 6:09 PM on June 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by uosuaq at 6:09 PM on June 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
This conversation, and the deletion of my post, which, as another commenter notes, is "an article written by an African-American academic for a staunchly progressive website", is proof that the so-called 'heckler's veto' really does exist. I know Metafilter has no obligation whatsoever to protect my viewpoint--hey, mods can do what they want. But this whole "it's not censorship but..." is just ridiculous. The mods are tying themselves in knots to justify themselves when it's clear that either (a) they are unwilling to do their job--i.e., delete inappropriate comments, or (b) they have actually just laid down a marker and told users that indeed, there are topics that are clearly not against any articulable community guideline that will still be deleted because, well, who knows?
posted by anewnadir at 6:11 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by anewnadir at 6:11 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Yeah, the timeframe for "until this all blows over" is necessarily going to be vague, though. None of the mods have future vision. Some of them may at some point acquire future vision, but that's a one-way arrow.
posted by byanyothername at 6:11 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by byanyothername at 6:11 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Consider that jfuller thought the linked essay was absolutely wonderful,
Are you trying to talk about yourself in the third person or did you mean someone else?
posted by corb at 6:14 PM on June 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
Are you trying to talk about yourself in the third person or did you mean someone else?
posted by corb at 6:14 PM on June 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
Also, the linked article is very ignorant and would have been like throwing an atom bomb into an active volcano. It would have been a lot worse than the 100+ comment thread, which 25 Helens have agreed was super bad. Three Helens thought it was better in the old days when we took knives to FPPs. Two Helens could not be reached for comment.
posted by byanyothername at 6:14 PM on June 17, 2015 [11 favorites]
posted by byanyothername at 6:14 PM on June 17, 2015 [11 favorites]
there are topics that are clearly not against any articulable community guideline that will still be deleted because, well, who knows?
The mods have been very clear about why the deletions happened. You, apparently, either didn't read this meta, or you chose to ignore what they have clearly stated.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 6:16 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
The mods have been very clear about why the deletions happened. You, apparently, either didn't read this meta, or you chose to ignore what they have clearly stated.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 6:16 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
anewnadir, I think that (a) the mods' job goes beyond deleting inappropriate comments, and (b) this topic hasn't been declared verboten but has been judged all too likely to lead to threads which are not only going to be very hard to moderate well, but will also be unacceptably painful to a bunch of people, and therefore just not worth it. It's also been said repeatedly that the topic might become viable at some point in the future.
posted by uosuaq at 6:17 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by uosuaq at 6:17 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
uosuaq: I won't hold my breath.
posted by anewnadir at 6:18 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by anewnadir at 6:18 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Would somebody please give a respectful, concise, balanced, good-faith summary of the thread so far?
I actually tried to map out and graph the flow of conversation, just out of curiosity. It got overwhelming fast. and it was overwhelming. I think it would be fascinating to see this charted out, but I'm not the man to do it.
So sorry, you're just going to have to read the novel yourself.
posted by kanewai at 6:19 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
I actually tried to map out and graph the flow of conversation, just out of curiosity. It got overwhelming fast. and it was overwhelming. I think it would be fascinating to see this charted out, but I'm not the man to do it.
So sorry, you're just going to have to read the novel yourself.
posted by kanewai at 6:19 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
I fail to see how an article written by an African-American academic for a staunchly progressive website is not worthy of discussion.
The linked article goes out of its way to misgender Caitlyn Jenner for no reason starting with the very first paragraph. Being written by an African-American academic for a staunchly progressive website does not make it less transphobic.
posted by en forme de poire at 6:22 PM on June 17, 2015 [33 favorites]
The linked article goes out of its way to misgender Caitlyn Jenner for no reason starting with the very first paragraph. Being written by an African-American academic for a staunchly progressive website does not make it less transphobic.
posted by en forme de poire at 6:22 PM on June 17, 2015 [33 favorites]
Most of the topics raised by a hypothetical Dolezal post are still viable and discussable, too, as one of the current FPPs demonstrates.
posted by byanyothername at 6:23 PM on June 17, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by byanyothername at 6:23 PM on June 17, 2015 [8 favorites]
> It's also been said repeatedly that the topic might become viable at some point in the future.
So just put that link of yours on ice until you can detonate it. If that day ever comes. (I saved it offline, just in case commondreams has second thoughts.)
posted by jfuller at 6:24 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
So just put that link of yours on ice until you can detonate it. If that day ever comes. (I saved it offline, just in case commondreams has second thoughts.)
posted by jfuller at 6:24 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
AElfwine Evenstar: I read the first ten or twenty comments and skimmed after that. You'll have to forgive me for not reading every word in a thread that is now longer than your average novel, as the emponilarious'ly named Ivan Fyodorovich just pointed out.
Everyone also concedes that the Dolezal topic is indisputably a topic that can and should be discussed on MeFi. Let's just assume that everyone is able to have a polite conversation about it, or that the mods are able to ensure that that is the case.
Given these two premises, I would love to hear how it follows that the rule excluding posts on this topic could be motivated by anything other than out of concern that it is the topic (and the concededly legitimate areas of debate that surround it) which hurts the feelings of a large contingent of MeFi users.
posted by anewnadir at 6:25 PM on June 17, 2015
Everyone also concedes that the Dolezal topic is indisputably a topic that can and should be discussed on MeFi. Let's just assume that everyone is able to have a polite conversation about it, or that the mods are able to ensure that that is the case.
Given these two premises, I would love to hear how it follows that the rule excluding posts on this topic could be motivated by anything other than out of concern that it is the topic (and the concededly legitimate areas of debate that surround it) which hurts the feelings of a large contingent of MeFi users.
posted by anewnadir at 6:25 PM on June 17, 2015
Most of the topics raised by a hypothetical Dolezal post are still viable and discussable, too, as one of the current FPPs demonstrates.
More than one or two, actually.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:26 PM on June 17, 2015
More than one or two, actually.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:26 PM on June 17, 2015
that's assuming all sorts of facts not in evidence. besides that, of all the posts that have been tried, yours certainly wasn't on the top of the heap.
posted by nadawi at 6:27 PM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 6:27 PM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
Let's just assume that everyone is able to have a polite conversation about it...
And let's also just assume that monkeys will fly out of my butt, as long as we're making crazy assumptions with no basis in observed reality.
posted by Jacqueline at 6:27 PM on June 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
And let's also just assume that monkeys will fly out of my butt, as long as we're making crazy assumptions with no basis in observed reality.
posted by Jacqueline at 6:27 PM on June 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
Let's just assume that everyone is able to have a polite conversation about it,
Ok *continues reading*
which hurts the feelings of a large contingent of MeFi users.
BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO BE
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:27 PM on June 17, 2015
Ok *continues reading*
which hurts the feelings of a large contingent of MeFi users.
BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO BE
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:27 PM on June 17, 2015
anewnadir: "Everyone also concedes that the Dolezal topic is indisputably a topic that can and should be discussed on MeFi. Let's just assume that everyone is able to have a polite conversation about it, or that the mods are able to ensure that that is the case.
Given these two premises, I would love to hear how it follows that the rule excluding posts on this topic could be motivated by anything other than out of concern that it is the topic"
Well, your second premise is totally wrong. That's like saying "Apples are tasty. They are also highly explosive. Given these two premises, I would love to hear how it follows that giving a teacher an apple is anything other than a felony-worthy murder attempt."
posted by Bugbread at 6:29 PM on June 17, 2015 [8 favorites]
Given these two premises, I would love to hear how it follows that the rule excluding posts on this topic could be motivated by anything other than out of concern that it is the topic"
Well, your second premise is totally wrong. That's like saying "Apples are tasty. They are also highly explosive. Given these two premises, I would love to hear how it follows that giving a teacher an apple is anything other than a felony-worthy murder attempt."
posted by Bugbread at 6:29 PM on June 17, 2015 [8 favorites]
You know what pony I think would be awesome, once AI technology has come along far enough? Some sort of automated metaphor counter. Up in the top right corner of the screen it could show you how many analogies have been presented in a thread.
posted by Bugbread at 6:30 PM on June 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by Bugbread at 6:30 PM on June 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
Like an odometer in a car!
posted by Drinky Die at 6:32 PM on June 17, 2015 [10 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 6:32 PM on June 17, 2015 [10 favorites]
anewnadir, I understand your disappointment at having a post deleted, but both of your two premises are false. As Bugbread (sort of) points out, technically speaking anything can follow from false premises. But you're right in a sense that the mods don't want to hurt people's feelings, it's just that this is a really severe kind of hurt that being able to discuss Dolezal or anything else right here right now doesn't outweigh, in their judgment and that of many many other members. So that's what's happening. As I've said, I think it would be neat if you could have been warned not to bother posting in the first place, because I *am* truly sorry that you went to the effort only to have it denied.
posted by uosuaq at 6:33 PM on June 17, 2015
posted by uosuaq at 6:33 PM on June 17, 2015
> Are you trying to talk about yourself in the third person or did you mean someone else?
Third Person Imperial. (But always first person to you, c.)
posted by jfuller at 6:35 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Third Person Imperial. (But always first person to you, c.)
posted by jfuller at 6:35 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
You know what pony I think would be awesome, once AI technology has come along far enough? Some sort of automated metaphor counter. Up in the top right corner of the screen it could show you how many analogies have been presented in a thread.
That would not be hard given a well-curated library file of English metaphors and some simple heuristics. It wouldn't take you an AI to get 90% of what you're asking for. I've written similar tools.
You might also be shocked at how well that could run in-page. Your browser is now vastly overpowered for the majority of sites you visit.
posted by clarknova at 6:36 PM on June 17, 2015
That would not be hard given a well-curated library file of English metaphors and some simple heuristics. It wouldn't take you an AI to get 90% of what you're asking for. I've written similar tools.
You might also be shocked at how well that could run in-page. Your browser is now vastly overpowered for the majority of sites you visit.
posted by clarknova at 6:36 PM on June 17, 2015
Adolph Reed Jr. (the author of the Common Dreams article) describes the language of transgender people's lived experience, and their critique of Dolezal, as "identitarian twaddle" and discussions of cultural appropriation as "puerile," and asserts that if Rachel Dolezal has been lying, then so has Caitlyn Jenner (who he will not address as Caitlyn). How is this a novel argument? How is it different from any of the transphobic noise that seems to turn up in almost every thread about trans* issues? Why do trans* MeFites have to rebut this argument over and over and over again?
posted by bakerina at 6:38 PM on June 17, 2015 [36 favorites]
posted by bakerina at 6:38 PM on June 17, 2015 [36 favorites]
The fact that it's a single-link post, coming after much more detailed posts, doesn't make it look all that valuable.
Neither does the fact that it manages to centre mostly around the part of the previous Dolezal posts that was most offensive.
posted by sagc at 6:38 PM on June 17, 2015 [12 favorites]
Neither does the fact that it manages to centre mostly around the part of the previous Dolezal posts that was most offensive.
posted by sagc at 6:38 PM on June 17, 2015 [12 favorites]
Commenting as a fairly casual user of this site, and reading the reasons for deletion, it's not hard to trust that the moderators are doing the best they can- considering that they are dealing with a potentially hurtful situation for some vulnerable people.
That the thread went this long is something, and my comment probable will be irrelevant. But I really just think that we should accept the deletion and move on. Future discussions will be better for it. It's not a big deal.
posted by beau jackson at 6:43 PM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
That the thread went this long is something, and my comment probable will be irrelevant. But I really just think that we should accept the deletion and move on. Future discussions will be better for it. It's not a big deal.
posted by beau jackson at 6:43 PM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
If any of this is about my comments, I tried to be super clear that it had nothing to do with being "nicer" and that I don't think anybody has any such responsibility; I was explicitly responding to Rhaomi's points about the virtues of preserving some space for well-meaning ignorance in our conversations, and thinking about what sorts of tools help with that goal. I disagree with a lot of his comment, but he's a well-respected community member and I thought that point was worth responding to.
I think "nicer" is not quite the right word either. I think it would be a major failure for others to have to take more responsibility for taking on the mantle of niceness in a way that further contributes to their burden. I forget to do this sometimes, but when I think about certain ideals for discourse, I'm pretty much speaking for myself (as an overly privileged individual), who probably needs to think about my responses and the way that they come across more than I would insist on them for anyone else. I like the mantra of "taking care of your own stuff, and let other people work on theirs." I like to think about how ideals might be universalized, but I feel like I need to learn to roll with it when people aren't achieving what I might consider an ideal for myself, and on some level, we all should be able to do at least some of that. I also like the saying that healthy people should be able to sit with others in their pain without always needing to judge it or run away from it. That's a hard one its own right, even before we ask how it fits into some theoretical rhetorical dynamic.
All that to say, I'm sometimes conflicted on how two ideals, which both contribute to human flourishing on some level, come together: namely, 1) courteous discourse that can create relationships that sometimes have a dramatic way of changing culture, and 2) letting people have their pain and speak honestly and directly and sometimes angrily against injustice, and this being effective for change, as well. It's a bit of a mystery to me at times how and when to mesh those, and I lean towards the first, with a more selective and careful use of the second. I know others think differently, and I think the best thing I can do is to roll with that and keep working on my stuff. I know that it sometimes feels as if when we talk about tone or approach or content, it has the potential to further disadvantage those who need to not have their voices silenced. I hope anything I said previously didn't contribute to that possibility.
posted by SpacemanStix at 6:43 PM on June 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
I think "nicer" is not quite the right word either. I think it would be a major failure for others to have to take more responsibility for taking on the mantle of niceness in a way that further contributes to their burden. I forget to do this sometimes, but when I think about certain ideals for discourse, I'm pretty much speaking for myself (as an overly privileged individual), who probably needs to think about my responses and the way that they come across more than I would insist on them for anyone else. I like the mantra of "taking care of your own stuff, and let other people work on theirs." I like to think about how ideals might be universalized, but I feel like I need to learn to roll with it when people aren't achieving what I might consider an ideal for myself, and on some level, we all should be able to do at least some of that. I also like the saying that healthy people should be able to sit with others in their pain without always needing to judge it or run away from it. That's a hard one its own right, even before we ask how it fits into some theoretical rhetorical dynamic.
All that to say, I'm sometimes conflicted on how two ideals, which both contribute to human flourishing on some level, come together: namely, 1) courteous discourse that can create relationships that sometimes have a dramatic way of changing culture, and 2) letting people have their pain and speak honestly and directly and sometimes angrily against injustice, and this being effective for change, as well. It's a bit of a mystery to me at times how and when to mesh those, and I lean towards the first, with a more selective and careful use of the second. I know others think differently, and I think the best thing I can do is to roll with that and keep working on my stuff. I know that it sometimes feels as if when we talk about tone or approach or content, it has the potential to further disadvantage those who need to not have their voices silenced. I hope anything I said previously didn't contribute to that possibility.
posted by SpacemanStix at 6:43 PM on June 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
Everyone also concedes that the Dolezal topic is indisputably a topic that can and should be discussed on MeFi.
Nope, wrong.
I mean, speaking personally here: she's crazy. Seriously, whatever anodyne, condescendeningly theoretical discussion of the intersection between transsexuality and race that Team Freeze Peach wants to have, from start to finish she is clearly not at all a valid locus for those discussions, regardless of the value of those kind of discussions themselves, because she is completely nuts.
It's like trying to use threads about the Unabomber as a launching platform to discuss ecology and conservation and industrialism: those are fine subjects in isolation, but the dude was crazy.
It really is "crazy lady filter".
posted by The Master and Margarita Mix at 6:48 PM on June 17, 2015 [12 favorites]
Nope, wrong.
I mean, speaking personally here: she's crazy. Seriously, whatever anodyne, condescendeningly theoretical discussion of the intersection between transsexuality and race that Team Freeze Peach wants to have, from start to finish she is clearly not at all a valid locus for those discussions, regardless of the value of those kind of discussions themselves, because she is completely nuts.
It's like trying to use threads about the Unabomber as a launching platform to discuss ecology and conservation and industrialism: those are fine subjects in isolation, but the dude was crazy.
It really is "crazy lady filter".
posted by The Master and Margarita Mix at 6:48 PM on June 17, 2015 [12 favorites]
because she is completely nuts
This characterization makes me uncomfortable, and I don't think it's necessarily a very helpful angle, here. Plenty (and I mean plenty) of folks, above, have articulated why they think the original deletion was a good idea for this site, without throwing out diagnoses of mental illness.
posted by Xavier Xavier at 6:53 PM on June 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
This characterization makes me uncomfortable, and I don't think it's necessarily a very helpful angle, here. Plenty (and I mean plenty) of folks, above, have articulated why they think the original deletion was a good idea for this site, without throwing out diagnoses of mental illness.
posted by Xavier Xavier at 6:53 PM on June 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
This characterization makes me uncomfortable, and I don't think it's necessarily a very helpful angle, here. Plenty (and I mean plenty) of folks, above, have articulated why they think the original deletion was a good idea for this site, without throwing out diagnoses of mental illness.
I believe a diagnosis of mental illness was made fairly early in this thread.
posted by jayder at 6:56 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
I believe a diagnosis of mental illness was made fairly early in this thread.
posted by jayder at 6:56 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
"...maybe she’s got some mental illness issues..." was in comment #1, by LobsterMitten
posted by Jacqueline at 6:58 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Jacqueline at 6:58 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
I really want to argue this point but we're not supposed to be discussing her. Can we stop, please?
posted by gingerest at 6:59 PM on June 17, 2015 [17 favorites]
posted by gingerest at 6:59 PM on June 17, 2015 [17 favorites]
Apologies. I didn't express myself clearly. I object to language that trivializes mental illness or dehumanizes those with mental illness. That's all. Lalex put it much better than I did.
posted by Xavier Xavier at 7:00 PM on June 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by Xavier Xavier at 7:00 PM on June 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
LobsterMitten's "maybe she's got some mental illness issues" was in the context of a larger comment stating that it's not appropriate for us to be discussing it here at this point. Even if people think ableism is fine and dandy in general, it's off topic here and now.
posted by Lexica at 7:03 PM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Lexica at 7:03 PM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
I agree. Bowing out. Sorry if that contributed to a derail.
posted by Xavier Xavier at 7:04 PM on June 17, 2015
posted by Xavier Xavier at 7:04 PM on June 17, 2015
How about this?
This individual is atypical and extreme in some of their life choices to a degree that a reasonable person may feel it is most likely that they are acting in an unusual, irrational manner and so should not be used as a model in any more general thought experiments.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:04 PM on June 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
This individual is atypical and extreme in some of their life choices to a degree that a reasonable person may feel it is most likely that they are acting in an unusual, irrational manner and so should not be used as a model in any more general thought experiments.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:04 PM on June 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
I object to language that trivializes mental illness or dehumanizes the mentally ill. That's all. Lalex put it much better than I.
Some mental illnesses are accompanied by horrible personalities. Psychopaths and compulsive liars who victimize others are mentally ill, and we can and should characterize them in a less than favorable light. Not every mentally ill person is your benighted loved one struggling with depression or bipolar disorder.
posted by clarknova at 7:06 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Some mental illnesses are accompanied by horrible personalities. Psychopaths and compulsive liars who victimize others are mentally ill, and we can and should characterize them in a less than favorable light. Not every mentally ill person is your benighted loved one struggling with depression or bipolar disorder.
posted by clarknova at 7:06 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Oops. Ha, cross-posting and no preview makes me look self congratulatory. Doh.
posted by Xavier Xavier at 7:06 PM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Xavier Xavier at 7:06 PM on June 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
How about just not using words like crazy and nuts?
posted by futz at 7:06 PM on June 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by futz at 7:06 PM on June 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
In theory I agree, but it's a good shorthand for someone who has proven they're undeserving of nuanced consideration.
posted by clarknova at 7:08 PM on June 17, 2015
posted by clarknova at 7:08 PM on June 17, 2015
My saying she's nuts/crazy has nothing to do with any kind of mental illness and isn't intended as a diagnosis. It's "she's nuts" or "he's crazy", the way that people in AskMe threads will describe some very disturbing and beyond-the-pale behavior that isn't actually harmful or threatening or illegal, but really really really weird, and in answer we get a whole thread of "wtf, your sibling/parent/cousin/love interest/dog is nuts, the behavior you are writing about is really strange, inappropriate, and not at all normal or acceptable".
Basically, not to get too bogged down into discussing that stuff again, but I think there's a very big difference between what Dolezal did, which could have any number of origins, mental illness being one but certainly not the only possibility, and trans people going through transition and living out their lives, and for me personally in terms of "whether we agree that this is a subject fit for discussion on MeFi", I want to categorically reject any attempt at discussion that tries to equivocate them.
posted by The Master and Margarita Mix at 7:09 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Basically, not to get too bogged down into discussing that stuff again, but I think there's a very big difference between what Dolezal did, which could have any number of origins, mental illness being one but certainly not the only possibility, and trans people going through transition and living out their lives, and for me personally in terms of "whether we agree that this is a subject fit for discussion on MeFi", I want to categorically reject any attempt at discussion that tries to equivocate them.
posted by The Master and Margarita Mix at 7:09 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
> This conversation, and the deletion of my post, which, as another commenter notes, is "an article written by an African-American academic for a staunchly progressive website", is proof that the so-called 'heckler's veto' really does exist. I know Metafilter has no obligation whatsoever to protect my viewpoint-
It's your viewpoint, I gather, that the article you linked to was valuable in some way? Would contribute to some understanding of the issues at hand, or bring a previously undiscussed point to light?
Having read it, I'm going to adopt some language suggested upthread and say that I think you are ignorant around transgender issues in particular, and, more broadly, issues of gender identity and presentation, because that piece was full of shit. We have had bunch of threads here (in the blue and the grey) in which people displayed their transmisogyny and transphobia and we just don't need more.
Brandon Blatcher made a really interesting post with interesting links about racial identity(ies) - specifically about black identities - so if that's something you're genuinely interested in, you could go read the links and discussion in that post.
posted by rtha at 7:10 PM on June 17, 2015 [36 favorites]
It's your viewpoint, I gather, that the article you linked to was valuable in some way? Would contribute to some understanding of the issues at hand, or bring a previously undiscussed point to light?
Having read it, I'm going to adopt some language suggested upthread and say that I think you are ignorant around transgender issues in particular, and, more broadly, issues of gender identity and presentation, because that piece was full of shit. We have had bunch of threads here (in the blue and the grey) in which people displayed their transmisogyny and transphobia and we just don't need more.
Brandon Blatcher made a really interesting post with interesting links about racial identity(ies) - specifically about black identities - so if that's something you're genuinely interested in, you could go read the links and discussion in that post.
posted by rtha at 7:10 PM on June 17, 2015 [36 favorites]
Am I crazy, or are the last twenty comments or so basically talking about the post?
posted by corb at 7:15 PM on June 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by corb at 7:15 PM on June 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
Well, yes, because people keep bringing it up, or also-deleted posts like it. That's still probably preferable, in my opinion, to sort of a free-range "let us gather round once more to decry the echo chamber and air our running grievances with the mods!" grar-fest that these sorts of threads tend to turn into, since at least the specific appropriateness of Dolezal-adjacent threads is actually talking about something with an independent existence outside of "lol taz u sux mods r fascists".
posted by The Master and Margarita Mix at 7:19 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by The Master and Margarita Mix at 7:19 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Am I crazy, or are the last twenty comments or so basically talking about the post?
posted by corb
Yeah, looks like those over-moderating moderators have gone amok!
posted by futz at 7:20 PM on June 17, 2015
posted by corb
Yeah, looks like those over-moderating moderators have gone amok!
posted by futz at 7:20 PM on June 17, 2015
Clarknova, you're not participating in good faith here, and this is not new. It's over.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 7:21 PM on June 17, 2015 [41 favorites]
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 7:21 PM on June 17, 2015 [41 favorites]
In theory I agree, but it's a good shorthand for someone who has proven they're undeserving of nuanced consideration.
And that's pretty much nobody.
posted by SpacemanStix at 7:24 PM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
And that's pretty much nobody.
posted by SpacemanStix at 7:24 PM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
I hope it's okay to say that it was nice to see so many people studiously ignoring clarknova (after the first bit) without having to explicitly agree on it. Well done.
posted by uosuaq at 7:26 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by uosuaq at 7:26 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Am I crazy, or are the last twenty comments or so basically talking about the post?
Yes?
But seriously, I think the world has reached what I like to call "Peak Dolezal" and there probably won't be an FPP when this cools down because most people will have moved on after the media freak show has ended. Now, back to the semi-annual Airing of the Grievances...
posted by MikeMc at 7:27 PM on June 17, 2015
Yes?
But seriously, I think the world has reached what I like to call "Peak Dolezal" and there probably won't be an FPP when this cools down because most people will have moved on after the media freak show has ended. Now, back to the semi-annual Airing of the Grievances...
posted by MikeMc at 7:27 PM on June 17, 2015
Someday she will write a book and we will have another opportunity.
posted by gingerest at 7:32 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by gingerest at 7:32 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
just a reminder from way up top :
First note: this thread is not a place to discuss the Dolezal situation itself, or our theories on race or gender. This thread is for meta discussion, discussion about Metafilter policies, site issues etc.
it's of course tempting to slip into comments about dolezal or the surrounding media storm, but it really doesn't help this thread.
posted by nadawi at 7:34 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
First note: this thread is not a place to discuss the Dolezal situation itself, or our theories on race or gender. This thread is for meta discussion, discussion about Metafilter policies, site issues etc.
it's of course tempting to slip into comments about dolezal or the surrounding media storm, but it really doesn't help this thread.
posted by nadawi at 7:34 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
An alarming thing missing from the discussion about how to approach calling-out problematic stuff and the focus on intentions, is how these framings affect our understanding of our own thoughts and behaviors.
Frankly, these days I don't much care about the most effective way to lead people away from -isms and I very much don't care about sparing feelings. I do generally assume good-faith but that assumption is naturally modified by longer-term observed behavior. In my view, the importance of the discussion about how to think about -isms and problematic behavior is really about changing institutions and changing how we, ourselves, think.
Because none of us are free of this stuff. That's the nature of them, they're endemic, they're institutionalized, they're baked into our lives and our default perspectives. Not just the folks who, like me, are relatively privileged across numerous axes, but everyone native to a culture that embeds these beliefs. Including the people these beliefs oppress.
When the emphasis is on thinking in terms of malice, then yes it's the case that this means that the determining quality is intent. Which is obviously a deeply flawed analysis. It's not that intent doesn't matter, because it does matter. But it's certainly never the only thing that matters and it's almost without fail less important than actual harm. And we can't reliably ascertain other people's intent, at least not easily and not extemporaneously, so it's of very little utility when we're dealing with things like live conversations. In this context, talking about other people's behavior, I am strongly in agreement with GenjiandProust -- it's best to just focus on behavior.
But, again, my larger concern is that the focus on malice and character is that not only does it make it difficult to deal with other people's problematic behavior without putting them on the defensive, it's that it's absolutely not the case that we're not subject to the same framing and defensiveness about our own problematic behavior. And unlike the case of other people, we do have access to our own inner-states, our intentions. We do know when we mean well. We do know when we're genuinely anti-racist or whatever. So the framing that emphasizes malice or anything that implies a defect of character is something that we're naturally going to be resistant to diagnosing as a problem in our own thoughts and behaviors.
And I see this all the time. Not only is it common with relatively privileged people like straight, white, cisgendered progressive men like myself who are inclined to respond to a complaint about something with "but I'm not that way, look at all my history, it's obvious that I'm not...", it's just as common among people who are less privileged along one axis when they're called-out for something along another axis where they are more privileged.
Hand-in-hand with this is that, society-wide, the emphasis on malice and defects of individual character mean that we're constantly defining these oppressive systems in terms of individually malicious bad actors who are just the tiny, miniscule tip of the iceberg. We'll never totally eliminate those villains because they'll keep being replaced from the structure below, which includes us and all the institutions we belong to. The emphasis on the villains takes attention away from the much greater and, in the long-term, more important structural problems. And I don't think that's a coincidence. I think that's very close to being by design. It ends up protecting the interests of those who explicitly prefer the status quo, and it also protects the interests and sensibilities of the rest of us who are nominally keen on eliminating oppression and injustice right up until the point where it means that we have to think about things that make us uncomfortable, change our behaviors, and stop assuming that our good intentions make all the difference.
These are the more compelling and important reasons to resist the impulse to frame things in terms of malicious people acting maliciously. Not so much to spare their feelings, and not so much to make it easier to educate and change behavior, but because it's really part of a lie that we tell ourselves -- that it's not about us. But it is about us. We're part of it. We're each of us, at some point in time to greater and lesser degrees, part of the problem. That won't change until we change our behavior and change the institutions that have trained us and reinforce this behavior.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 7:35 PM on June 17, 2015 [30 favorites]
Frankly, these days I don't much care about the most effective way to lead people away from -isms and I very much don't care about sparing feelings. I do generally assume good-faith but that assumption is naturally modified by longer-term observed behavior. In my view, the importance of the discussion about how to think about -isms and problematic behavior is really about changing institutions and changing how we, ourselves, think.
Because none of us are free of this stuff. That's the nature of them, they're endemic, they're institutionalized, they're baked into our lives and our default perspectives. Not just the folks who, like me, are relatively privileged across numerous axes, but everyone native to a culture that embeds these beliefs. Including the people these beliefs oppress.
When the emphasis is on thinking in terms of malice, then yes it's the case that this means that the determining quality is intent. Which is obviously a deeply flawed analysis. It's not that intent doesn't matter, because it does matter. But it's certainly never the only thing that matters and it's almost without fail less important than actual harm. And we can't reliably ascertain other people's intent, at least not easily and not extemporaneously, so it's of very little utility when we're dealing with things like live conversations. In this context, talking about other people's behavior, I am strongly in agreement with GenjiandProust -- it's best to just focus on behavior.
But, again, my larger concern is that the focus on malice and character is that not only does it make it difficult to deal with other people's problematic behavior without putting them on the defensive, it's that it's absolutely not the case that we're not subject to the same framing and defensiveness about our own problematic behavior. And unlike the case of other people, we do have access to our own inner-states, our intentions. We do know when we mean well. We do know when we're genuinely anti-racist or whatever. So the framing that emphasizes malice or anything that implies a defect of character is something that we're naturally going to be resistant to diagnosing as a problem in our own thoughts and behaviors.
And I see this all the time. Not only is it common with relatively privileged people like straight, white, cisgendered progressive men like myself who are inclined to respond to a complaint about something with "but I'm not that way, look at all my history, it's obvious that I'm not...", it's just as common among people who are less privileged along one axis when they're called-out for something along another axis where they are more privileged.
Hand-in-hand with this is that, society-wide, the emphasis on malice and defects of individual character mean that we're constantly defining these oppressive systems in terms of individually malicious bad actors who are just the tiny, miniscule tip of the iceberg. We'll never totally eliminate those villains because they'll keep being replaced from the structure below, which includes us and all the institutions we belong to. The emphasis on the villains takes attention away from the much greater and, in the long-term, more important structural problems. And I don't think that's a coincidence. I think that's very close to being by design. It ends up protecting the interests of those who explicitly prefer the status quo, and it also protects the interests and sensibilities of the rest of us who are nominally keen on eliminating oppression and injustice right up until the point where it means that we have to think about things that make us uncomfortable, change our behaviors, and stop assuming that our good intentions make all the difference.
These are the more compelling and important reasons to resist the impulse to frame things in terms of malicious people acting maliciously. Not so much to spare their feelings, and not so much to make it easier to educate and change behavior, but because it's really part of a lie that we tell ourselves -- that it's not about us. But it is about us. We're part of it. We're each of us, at some point in time to greater and lesser degrees, part of the problem. That won't change until we change our behavior and change the institutions that have trained us and reinforce this behavior.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 7:35 PM on June 17, 2015 [30 favorites]
> In theory I agree, but it's a good shorthand for someone who has proven they're undeserving of nuanced consideration.
If anyone approaches a topic and finds themselves at this line of reasoning, please take it as a sign you shouldn't participate in that discussion.
posted by Johann Georg Faust at 7:38 PM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
If anyone approaches a topic and finds themselves at this line of reasoning, please take it as a sign you shouldn't participate in that discussion.
posted by Johann Georg Faust at 7:38 PM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
(runs over and kisses drinky on cheek)
Every novel should have its Neil Simon moment.
posted by clavdivs at 7:45 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Every novel should have its Neil Simon moment.
posted by clavdivs at 7:45 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
I think what everyone in this thread needs is a gif of a bunny drinking from a bottle.
posted by Jacqueline at 8:31 PM on June 17, 2015 [12 favorites]
posted by Jacqueline at 8:31 PM on June 17, 2015 [12 favorites]
Not every mentally ill person is your benighted loved one struggling with depression or bipolar disorder.
I know clarknova is gone, but I just want to state that the stigma against mental illness and the way we talk about it effects everyone with mental health issues of any kind, and the way we talk about those things can contribute to that in a big way. Please try to keep in mind who your language may marginalize when you use it.
posted by NoraReed at 8:32 PM on June 17, 2015 [18 favorites]
I know clarknova is gone, but I just want to state that the stigma against mental illness and the way we talk about it effects everyone with mental health issues of any kind, and the way we talk about those things can contribute to that in a big way. Please try to keep in mind who your language may marginalize when you use it.
posted by NoraReed at 8:32 PM on June 17, 2015 [18 favorites]
I think what everyone in this thread needs is a gif of a bunny drinking from a bottle.
I didn't know I needed that but it turns out that I did.
posted by MikeMc at 8:34 PM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
I didn't know I needed that but it turns out that I did.
posted by MikeMc at 8:34 PM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
I do not concede that Dolezal is worth discussing on Metafilter. So the statement that everyone concedes is false.
posted by humanfont at 8:48 PM on June 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by humanfont at 8:48 PM on June 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
Right now it's breaking news, so I'm not about to post it to the blue yet, but three hours ago, a white gunman walked into an AME church in Charleston, S.C. and opened fire on a Bible study group. The number of fatalities is still unconfirmed, but there are fatalities. (I'm toggling between Twitter, CNN and the Guardian, because they've had the most regular updates.)
If I hadn't been done with Rachel Dolezal before -- and I was -- I am so very, very done with Rachel Dolezal now.
posted by bakerina at 9:11 PM on June 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
If I hadn't been done with Rachel Dolezal before -- and I was -- I am so very, very done with Rachel Dolezal now.
posted by bakerina at 9:11 PM on June 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
Meanwhile for perspective grim news out of Charleston South Carolina.
posted by humanfont at 9:20 PM on June 17, 2015
posted by humanfont at 9:20 PM on June 17, 2015
bunny drinking from a bottle
Related: Bunny getting up from a nap
posted by byanyothername at 9:21 PM on June 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
Related: Bunny getting up from a nap
posted by byanyothername at 9:21 PM on June 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
re: charleston - this history lesson from feministajones is incredible.
posted by nadawi at 9:23 PM on June 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 9:23 PM on June 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
Folks, please please do not make this a surrogate breaking-news post too. Thanks.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 9:29 PM on June 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 9:29 PM on June 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
Sorry, r_n. If my comment needs to go, then by all means, please zap it.
posted by bakerina at 9:32 PM on June 17, 2015
posted by bakerina at 9:32 PM on June 17, 2015
The bunny getting up from a nap isn't working for me. Can someone provide a link to an archived copy or an alternate link? If that's not possible I suggest that the mods hold the comment until a known-good site can be located, or at least put a note on the front page that the bunny is temporarily unavailable.
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:48 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:48 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
This thread is a woodchipper. What's the tally so far?
Digitalprimate
Mayor Curley
Clarknova
Who'll be next sucked into the maw?
posted by notyou at 10:00 PM on June 17, 2015
Digitalprimate
Mayor Curley
Clarknova
Who'll be next sucked into the maw?
posted by notyou at 10:00 PM on June 17, 2015
Who'll be next sucked into the maw?
posted by notyou.
Lemme guess....not you?
posted by futz at 10:15 PM on June 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by notyou.
Lemme guess....not you?
posted by futz at 10:15 PM on June 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
The heartening thing about this thread is that very shortly, we'll be attending a family wedding in...Spokane (no, I'm not getting into the Dolezal issue here).
We know for a fact there will be extended - and thankfully distant - family members there who are racist, homophobic and transphobic there.
They will raise that issue in the most upsetting ways, and I've got plenty of ammunition to slap them down thanks to the many comments by many trans* members of Metafilter talking about their life experiences and to the extent that they feel comfortable saying it, well, shit, maybe that's down to better moderation.
And for people who long for the "good old days," look at what this user had to say about accessiblity and openly advocated for discrimination against blind people, which is as much a protected class as race or gender under US law in terms of delivery of commercial services.
I'm pretty sure (I'd hope) that some flags on the field now would get that shit deleted, and that's o.k., because it's the kind of bigoted stuff you can find on any newspaper comment thread. Why come here for it?
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 10:28 PM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
We know for a fact there will be extended - and thankfully distant - family members there who are racist, homophobic and transphobic there.
They will raise that issue in the most upsetting ways, and I've got plenty of ammunition to slap them down thanks to the many comments by many trans* members of Metafilter talking about their life experiences and to the extent that they feel comfortable saying it, well, shit, maybe that's down to better moderation.
And for people who long for the "good old days," look at what this user had to say about accessiblity and openly advocated for discrimination against blind people, which is as much a protected class as race or gender under US law in terms of delivery of commercial services.
I'm pretty sure (I'd hope) that some flags on the field now would get that shit deleted, and that's o.k., because it's the kind of bigoted stuff you can find on any newspaper comment thread. Why come here for it?
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 10:28 PM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
METAFILTER: the bunny is temporarily unavailable.
posted by philip-random at 10:58 PM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by philip-random at 10:58 PM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
Did you miss the ensuing discussion where a bunch of people gave a bunch of different reasons why the ADA was a good thing and got into a lot of details about accessible web design? What newspaper comment threads can you point to that are even close?
None, as far as that erudite follow-up in those comments was concerned.
However, someone was openly calling for open discrimination and said it was their god-given right to do so in matters of commerce. I was referring to that specific comment, not the thread, to be clear.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 11:24 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
None, as far as that erudite follow-up in those comments was concerned.
However, someone was openly calling for open discrimination and said it was their god-given right to do so in matters of commerce. I was referring to that specific comment, not the thread, to be clear.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 11:24 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
mandolin conspiracy: "However, someone was openly calling for open discrimination and said it was their god-given right to do so in matters of commerce. I was referring to that specific comment, not the thread, to be clear."
I'm not really getting what you're getting at. People who long for the good old days are saying "Yes, people could say discriminatory shit, and then they'd get a community smackdown". Pointing at a specific comment and saying "Yeah? Well, check out this comment! It's openly discriminatory!" isn't really a counterargument, it's part of their argument. It's the exact wrong kind of example of the bad old days. A better example of the bad old days would be, for example, finding a thread about Brazilian waxing.
posted by Bugbread at 11:32 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm not really getting what you're getting at. People who long for the good old days are saying "Yes, people could say discriminatory shit, and then they'd get a community smackdown". Pointing at a specific comment and saying "Yeah? Well, check out this comment! It's openly discriminatory!" isn't really a counterargument, it's part of their argument. It's the exact wrong kind of example of the bad old days. A better example of the bad old days would be, for example, finding a thread about Brazilian waxing.
posted by Bugbread at 11:32 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Folks, drop the debate over whether Reed's views are okay, or what's true about gender or whatever. Seriously, we are not having a debate on these issues here.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 11:34 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 11:34 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
A few comments deleted. It's shift change, we're playing catch-up.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 11:35 PM on June 17, 2015
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 11:35 PM on June 17, 2015
How can you talk about policy and deletions if you're not allowed to talk about what was deleted?
posted by klangklangston at 11:37 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by klangklangston at 11:37 PM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm sorry to be short here - if you can talk about this in a way that doesn't open a debate about the correct view of gender, and doesn't open a discussion of Dolezal or "transracial", and focuses in a clear way on Mefi issues, ok. Your previous comment seemed to be spawning us into a debate on the validity of Reed's views, which isn't what this thread is for.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 11:41 PM on June 17, 2015
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 11:41 PM on June 17, 2015
A better example of the bad old days would be, for example, finding a thread about Brazilian waxing.
I, uh, just searched that. Fortunately... Posts (0)
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 11:42 PM on June 17, 2015
I, uh, just searched that. Fortunately... Posts (0)
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 11:42 PM on June 17, 2015
I specifically related my longer comment to the direct issue of why this moderation policy is a contentious one. And I'm sorry to be short in reply, but in making decisions, the actual situation matters and discussing the details of that should self evidently be part of that discussion. It was a sloppy, reactive deletion that would seem to undercut the idea that discussing moderation decisions is an appropriate use of MetaTalk — in which case, why leave the thread open?
posted by klangklangston at 11:49 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by klangklangston at 11:49 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Lobster, you say that the mods read every comment on the grey and yet all of you seem to be absent while all these derails occur and then you come back and delete comments which pisses people off. If 30 derailing comments go by without mod comment, I feel that people can rightly assume that vein of conversation is acceptable. But nope, you guys suddenly show up and delete comments. And if shift change is a major problem for you guys how about you stop using it as an excuse and actually fix the problem?
posted by futz at 11:54 PM on June 17, 2015
posted by futz at 11:54 PM on June 17, 2015
Your comment was 4.5 paragraphs of exegesis of Reed, and then a few sentences about Mefi. Can't you make the points about Mefi but condense or elide the argument-spawning stuff about Reed? Reed's post was deleted for the same reason as the other posts on this subject (even if he has somewhat different views on it), and understanding the deletion doesn't require getting into the nitty gritty of his views.
futz, we have fewer mods, which means little or no overlapping time (i.e. one shift starts when the other one ends) and the new mod has to catch up on the thread and decide if a comment is a derail or if there's some context that makes it ok. That's what gnfti was doing here. Normally this isn't a problem except in massive angry fast-moving threads. Threads like that are a problem exactly because we don't have the mod resources to handle them well for exactly reasons like this.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 11:56 PM on June 17, 2015 [9 favorites]
futz, we have fewer mods, which means little or no overlapping time (i.e. one shift starts when the other one ends) and the new mod has to catch up on the thread and decide if a comment is a derail or if there's some context that makes it ok. That's what gnfti was doing here. Normally this isn't a problem except in massive angry fast-moving threads. Threads like that are a problem exactly because we don't have the mod resources to handle them well for exactly reasons like this.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 11:56 PM on June 17, 2015 [9 favorites]
I specifically related my longer comment to the direct issue of why this moderation policy is a contentious one.
I don't really see this moderation policy as being contentious, at all, personally. The example you cited was a shitty article expressing ugly views that are indistinguishable from other similarly ugly views in form and content (whether or not their ugliness originates from a different cause is an irrelevancy).
And insofar as the actual situation matters, I think it should probably be abundantly clear at this point, based on past history of "contentious topics" and the sorts of threads and deletions that inspire these epic MeTas, that a significant number of white, upper-middle-class, able-bodied neurotypical cisgender heterosexuals (and particularly men who fall into those categories) are incapable of having a discussion that touches on issues of race, class, gender, mental illness and sexuality that isn't horribly alienating and insulting to a lot of people who aren't white, upper-middle-class, able-bodied neurotypical cisgender heterosexuals (and the likelihood that such a discussion is going to be horrible in multiple ways increases exponentially when the subject involves an intersection of issues of race/class/gender/mental illness/etc).
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 11:59 PM on June 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
I don't really see this moderation policy as being contentious, at all, personally. The example you cited was a shitty article expressing ugly views that are indistinguishable from other similarly ugly views in form and content (whether or not their ugliness originates from a different cause is an irrelevancy).
And insofar as the actual situation matters, I think it should probably be abundantly clear at this point, based on past history of "contentious topics" and the sorts of threads and deletions that inspire these epic MeTas, that a significant number of white, upper-middle-class, able-bodied neurotypical cisgender heterosexuals (and particularly men who fall into those categories) are incapable of having a discussion that touches on issues of race, class, gender, mental illness and sexuality that isn't horribly alienating and insulting to a lot of people who aren't white, upper-middle-class, able-bodied neurotypical cisgender heterosexuals (and the likelihood that such a discussion is going to be horrible in multiple ways increases exponentially when the subject involves an intersection of issues of race/class/gender/mental illness/etc).
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 11:59 PM on June 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
Yeah I came on shift, saw the derail, scrolled up a bit to make sure I wasn't missing anything that would make this something else than a proxy discussion as described in the first comment of this thread, decided I probably wasn't, and when I scrolled back down LM had already pruned things. To my mind this was all well within the span of time I would normally take to make sure I wasn't about to do something stupid. In other words, we're moderating as fast as we can.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane (staff) at 12:02 AM on June 18, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane (staff) at 12:02 AM on June 18, 2015 [7 favorites]
mandolin conspiracy: "I, uh, just searched that. Fortunately... Posts (0)"
Huh. I can't seem to find the waxing thread I remembered. But here's another example of the contention that "It was okay if someone was horrible back then, because then they'd get the smackdown and everyone would learn and become better people" not being what actually happened back then: You can be a better boyfriend (Warning: 2005 MetaFilter post that deals with women). And that's not even in the grey, it's in the blue.
futz: "And if shift change is a major problem for you guys how about you stop using it as an excuse and actually fix the problem?"
If shift change annoys you so much, how about you just write the shift change times on a post-it pad, stick it to your screen, and assume any comments posted within 1 hour of the shift change are "under review" instead of "verified and accepted"? Unlike the mods, you could do that right away, without changing work schedules, sleep schedules, etc. Unlike the mods, you could do it for free (or the negligible cost of a scrap of paper and a few drops of pen ink).
Or, if that's too much trouble, how about this: If mods say "Don't do X", and several times through the thread they come back in and say "Reminder, don't do X", and "Look, guys, we're not doing X here", then when you see X, and it hasn't been deleted, think "Oh, I guess the mods haven't seen it/haven't gotten to it/are putting out a server fire/are on the toilet".
posted by Bugbread at 12:07 AM on June 18, 2015 [18 favorites]
Huh. I can't seem to find the waxing thread I remembered. But here's another example of the contention that "It was okay if someone was horrible back then, because then they'd get the smackdown and everyone would learn and become better people" not being what actually happened back then: You can be a better boyfriend (Warning: 2005 MetaFilter post that deals with women). And that's not even in the grey, it's in the blue.
futz: "And if shift change is a major problem for you guys how about you stop using it as an excuse and actually fix the problem?"
If shift change annoys you so much, how about you just write the shift change times on a post-it pad, stick it to your screen, and assume any comments posted within 1 hour of the shift change are "under review" instead of "verified and accepted"? Unlike the mods, you could do that right away, without changing work schedules, sleep schedules, etc. Unlike the mods, you could do it for free (or the negligible cost of a scrap of paper and a few drops of pen ink).
Or, if that's too much trouble, how about this: If mods say "Don't do X", and several times through the thread they come back in and say "Reminder, don't do X", and "Look, guys, we're not doing X here", then when you see X, and it hasn't been deleted, think "Oh, I guess the mods haven't seen it/haven't gotten to it/are putting out a server fire/are on the toilet".
posted by Bugbread at 12:07 AM on June 18, 2015 [18 favorites]
And I'm sorry to be short in reply, but in making decisions, the actual situation matters and discussing the details of that should self evidently be part of that discussion.
There was enough Dolezai-matter in it to strongly violate the ground rules laid out in the introduction to the thread:
First note: this thread is not a place to discuss the Dolezal situation itself, or our theories on race or gender. This thread is for meta discussion, discussion about Metafilter policies, site issues etc.
posted by sebastienbailard at 12:29 AM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
There was enough Dolezai-matter in it to strongly violate the ground rules laid out in the introduction to the thread:
First note: this thread is not a place to discuss the Dolezal situation itself, or our theories on race or gender. This thread is for meta discussion, discussion about Metafilter policies, site issues etc.
posted by sebastienbailard at 12:29 AM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
if you can talk about this in a way that doesn't open a debate about the correct view of gender
It has been provably impossible to discuss the topic as it relates to MeFi without discussing the topic it relates to the outside world. Just look at many of the standing comments in this thread. I don't know why we're pretending that the MeFi community does not already have preexisting, fixed value judgments on the matter, which factor into site policy. And that's more than okay...but it's weird if we pretend that we don't have these judgments.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:43 AM on June 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
It has been provably impossible to discuss the topic as it relates to MeFi without discussing the topic it relates to the outside world. Just look at many of the standing comments in this thread. I don't know why we're pretending that the MeFi community does not already have preexisting, fixed value judgments on the matter, which factor into site policy. And that's more than okay...but it's weird if we pretend that we don't have these judgments.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:43 AM on June 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
I just reviewed the FAQs, and am wondering: are users notified if comments are deleted? Or are people just really good at checking their posts?
I've had one post to the blue deleted, and I was notified and understood the reason. And I've understood the reasons why specific comments on this thread have been deleted - the mods have been pretty good at clearly noting why.
I've followed this thread closely, and am still confused at the raw anger people are having that certain posts are deleted. Intellectually, I understand the arguments about free speech. In this case I am on the side of active moderation, believing that maintaining civil discourse has a higher value than an an absolutist view of free speech. It's not that I don't understand the other side, it's that it's a case of two competing values for me, and I need to choose one.
What I still don't understand is: why is this particular issue such an emotional trigger for (presumably) straight white cis-gendered people? Why here, why now, and why die on this hill?
posted by kanewai at 12:49 AM on June 18, 2015 [4 favorites]
I've had one post to the blue deleted, and I was notified and understood the reason. And I've understood the reasons why specific comments on this thread have been deleted - the mods have been pretty good at clearly noting why.
I've followed this thread closely, and am still confused at the raw anger people are having that certain posts are deleted. Intellectually, I understand the arguments about free speech. In this case I am on the side of active moderation, believing that maintaining civil discourse has a higher value than an an absolutist view of free speech. It's not that I don't understand the other side, it's that it's a case of two competing values for me, and I need to choose one.
What I still don't understand is: why is this particular issue such an emotional trigger for (presumably) straight white cis-gendered people? Why here, why now, and why die on this hill?
posted by kanewai at 12:49 AM on June 18, 2015 [4 favorites]
There is a content difference between saying "you said something very hurtful and ignorant" vs. "you must be bigoted because that is the logical outcome of your opinion" - I don't think it's really a tone question at all.
the ideal should probably still be to maintain some veneer of separation between telling someone they're saying ignorant things vs. calling someone an actual bigot
This man is made of straw - nobody does the 'you must be bigoted because of what you said!' thing really. They do the 'what you said is bigoted' thing, which is not that different to 'you said something hurtful and ignorant'. Guess what? If something is ignorant and hurtful, it's probably because it was bigoted, or -ist, or -phobic. Not the person saying it necessarily, the thing that was said.
Just as a reminder, women can be and frequently are war veterans (with PTSD) as well. So if people are shaming women as a class, they are already shaming war veterans.
Not as a class they're not.
One that comes to mind with all of this is "calling out" vs. "tone policing". IMHO there's no real difference between the two other than which side of the argument you're on. If you're on what's perceived to be the right side and someone calls you an "obnoxious asshole" they're tone policing (and that's bad). OTOH if you're on what's perceived to be the wrong side of the argument and calls you an "obnoxious asshole" they're just calling you out on your bullshit (and that's good). I can't be the only that see this can I? Pretty soon I'm going to have to make a flowchart to follow before commenting just to be sure I'm using the right jargon in the right context. Hmmm...be back in few hours.
Yes, whether or not 'obnoxious asshole' is a relevant or correct thing to say to a person does indeed on at least some level depend on whether or not they are in fact being an obnoxious asshole. Strange that.
Everyone also concedes that the Dolezal topic is indisputably a topic that can and should be discussed on MeFi. Let's just assume that everyone is able to have a polite conversation about it, or that the mods are able to ensure that that is the case.
Given these two premises, I would love to hear how it follows that the rule excluding posts on this topic could be motivated by anything other than out of concern that it is the topic (and the concededly legitimate areas of debate that surround it) which hurts the feelings of a large contingent of MeFi users.
Given those two premises, you can prove whatever you like. The situation would look pretty different under those premises.
For one, I'm not convinced that everyone agrees that it is a topic that 'should' be discussed on MeFi. Can, sure, and not suggesting it SHOULDN'T either, but it does not follow from there that we SHOULd discuss it. COULD, sure, but not should - we are under no obligation to do so.
Secondly, if we're assuming a perfectly good and polite conversation about it, people wouldn't be hurt. People are being hurt specifically because a polite conversation about the topic is practically impossible at the moment, given the current media context.
posted by Dysk at 12:49 AM on June 18, 2015 [6 favorites]
the ideal should probably still be to maintain some veneer of separation between telling someone they're saying ignorant things vs. calling someone an actual bigot
This man is made of straw - nobody does the 'you must be bigoted because of what you said!' thing really. They do the 'what you said is bigoted' thing, which is not that different to 'you said something hurtful and ignorant'. Guess what? If something is ignorant and hurtful, it's probably because it was bigoted, or -ist, or -phobic. Not the person saying it necessarily, the thing that was said.
Just as a reminder, women can be and frequently are war veterans (with PTSD) as well. So if people are shaming women as a class, they are already shaming war veterans.
Not as a class they're not.
One that comes to mind with all of this is "calling out" vs. "tone policing". IMHO there's no real difference between the two other than which side of the argument you're on. If you're on what's perceived to be the right side and someone calls you an "obnoxious asshole" they're tone policing (and that's bad). OTOH if you're on what's perceived to be the wrong side of the argument and calls you an "obnoxious asshole" they're just calling you out on your bullshit (and that's good). I can't be the only that see this can I? Pretty soon I'm going to have to make a flowchart to follow before commenting just to be sure I'm using the right jargon in the right context. Hmmm...be back in few hours.
Yes, whether or not 'obnoxious asshole' is a relevant or correct thing to say to a person does indeed on at least some level depend on whether or not they are in fact being an obnoxious asshole. Strange that.
Everyone also concedes that the Dolezal topic is indisputably a topic that can and should be discussed on MeFi. Let's just assume that everyone is able to have a polite conversation about it, or that the mods are able to ensure that that is the case.
Given these two premises, I would love to hear how it follows that the rule excluding posts on this topic could be motivated by anything other than out of concern that it is the topic (and the concededly legitimate areas of debate that surround it) which hurts the feelings of a large contingent of MeFi users.
Given those two premises, you can prove whatever you like. The situation would look pretty different under those premises.
For one, I'm not convinced that everyone agrees that it is a topic that 'should' be discussed on MeFi. Can, sure, and not suggesting it SHOULDN'T either, but it does not follow from there that we SHOULd discuss it. COULD, sure, but not should - we are under no obligation to do so.
Secondly, if we're assuming a perfectly good and polite conversation about it, people wouldn't be hurt. People are being hurt specifically because a polite conversation about the topic is practically impossible at the moment, given the current media context.
posted by Dysk at 12:49 AM on June 18, 2015 [6 favorites]
Yeah, general reminder: This is a contentious thread, things are getting nixed. If someone says something that really sets you off, before you click "Post Comment" for your comeback, refresh the thread. The problem comment may no longer exist.
posted by Bugbread at 1:01 AM on June 18, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by Bugbread at 1:01 AM on June 18, 2015 [7 favorites]
Yeah, maybe just a deep-breath-and-press-F5 is in order, and I'm including myself here. All of the recent confusion appears to have been due to the "proxy debate" deletions in the past couple of hours -- yeah, mostly replies to previously deleted comments.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane (staff) at 1:04 AM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane (staff) at 1:04 AM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
I almost feel like I deserve a fucking medal or something for having read through this thread, so I'd like to offer (sadly purely imaginary) '#1 Mod Team' medals to the mods.
posted by Dysk at 1:13 AM on June 18, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 1:13 AM on June 18, 2015 [9 favorites]
I am really failing to see how this metatalk is being productive in any way at this point. It can’t discuss the substantive issues (for perfectly good reasons) which leads to everyone tapdancing around them and occasionally stepping over the line, deliberately or not, leading to outrage, comment deletions, wailing, gnashing of teeth etc etc.
Even if I personally would love to see an interesting debate about identity & gender, it’s not going to happen here — at least certainly not right now & probably not ever: any discussion of such topics is going to include references to viewpoints which our QUILTBAG members find extremely personal & hurtful. MeFi as a site has decided that not hurting those members is more important than discussing certain topics: that’s the way it is & people can either accept it or quit the site. If people want to have yet another debate about comment deletions again (groan) then someone can start a new metatalk discussion in a week or so - it can keep for the moment.
As it stands this thread is eating vast amounts of mod time & causing endless angst and stress with no constructive outcome: just close it up & let everyone walk away and lick their wounds.
posted by pharm at 1:18 AM on June 18, 2015 [6 favorites]
Even if I personally would love to see an interesting debate about identity & gender, it’s not going to happen here — at least certainly not right now & probably not ever: any discussion of such topics is going to include references to viewpoints which our QUILTBAG members find extremely personal & hurtful. MeFi as a site has decided that not hurting those members is more important than discussing certain topics: that’s the way it is & people can either accept it or quit the site. If people want to have yet another debate about comment deletions again (groan) then someone can start a new metatalk discussion in a week or so - it can keep for the moment.
As it stands this thread is eating vast amounts of mod time & causing endless angst and stress with no constructive outcome: just close it up & let everyone walk away and lick their wounds.
posted by pharm at 1:18 AM on June 18, 2015 [6 favorites]
"Yes, whether or not 'obnoxious asshole' is a relevant or correct thing to say to a person does indeed on at least some level depend on whether or not they are in fact being an obnoxious asshole. Strange that."
It's not a fact, it's an opinion. Recognizing that may help you understand the comment you were replying to.
posted by klangklangston at 1:19 AM on June 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
It's not a fact, it's an opinion. Recognizing that may help you understand the comment you were replying to.
posted by klangklangston at 1:19 AM on June 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
I just reviewed the FAQs, and am wondering: are users notified if comments are deleted? Or are people just really good at checking their posts?
I've had one post to the blue deleted, and I was notified and understood the reason. And I've understood the reasons why specific comments on this thread have been deleted - the mods have been pretty good at clearly noting why.
I've followed this thread closely, and am still confused at the raw anger people are having that certain posts are deleted. Intellectually, I understand the arguments about free speech. In this case I am on the side of active moderation, believing that maintaining civil discourse has a higher value than an an absolutist view of free speech. It's not that I don't understand the other side, it's that it's a case of two competing values for me, and I need to choose one.
What I still don't understand is: why is this particular issue such an emotional trigger for (presumably) straight white cis-gendered people? Why here, why now, and why die on this hill?
Deletions aren't notified, though a deleted FPP might well get a courtesy pm if it's a 'maybe reframe and try again, or wait a bit until the facts are in?'. In general the reasons for comment deletions will be understandable - nearly all the comments I've had deleted are either part of a derail or unnecessarily pot-stirry.
As to this particular hill - this is just the latest skirmish in a long, long war. Complicated by the fact that the people on both sides like each other quite a lot and are fighting in the living room of some really nice people.
posted by Sebmojo at 1:24 AM on June 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
I've had one post to the blue deleted, and I was notified and understood the reason. And I've understood the reasons why specific comments on this thread have been deleted - the mods have been pretty good at clearly noting why.
I've followed this thread closely, and am still confused at the raw anger people are having that certain posts are deleted. Intellectually, I understand the arguments about free speech. In this case I am on the side of active moderation, believing that maintaining civil discourse has a higher value than an an absolutist view of free speech. It's not that I don't understand the other side, it's that it's a case of two competing values for me, and I need to choose one.
What I still don't understand is: why is this particular issue such an emotional trigger for (presumably) straight white cis-gendered people? Why here, why now, and why die on this hill?
Deletions aren't notified, though a deleted FPP might well get a courtesy pm if it's a 'maybe reframe and try again, or wait a bit until the facts are in?'. In general the reasons for comment deletions will be understandable - nearly all the comments I've had deleted are either part of a derail or unnecessarily pot-stirry.
As to this particular hill - this is just the latest skirmish in a long, long war. Complicated by the fact that the people on both sides like each other quite a lot and are fighting in the living room of some really nice people.
posted by Sebmojo at 1:24 AM on June 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
Even if I personally would love to see an interesting debate about identity & gender
Apparently a discussion, with bona-fide people of diverse identities and genders actually present, would not be interesting enough already? Really.
posted by polymodus at 1:26 AM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
Apparently a discussion, with bona-fide people of diverse identities and genders actually present, would not be interesting enough already? Really.
posted by polymodus at 1:26 AM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
(I still feel deleting metatalk comments is an unfortunate bridge too far, but you go to culture war with the number of website moderators you can afford, not the number of website moderators you'd like to afford)
posted by Sebmojo at 1:27 AM on June 18, 2015
posted by Sebmojo at 1:27 AM on June 18, 2015
Something that people might not be aware of: the "trans-race equals trans-gender" meme is being pushed by some unsavory people. For instance, right at the start of this I read through a longish set of satirical Tweets from someone claiming to be trans-racial who kept on coming back to "well if Jenner can change his sex..." and "well if gays can marry". There was a lot of stuff there; it wasn't a spur-of-the-moment sort of thing; he'd put some effort into it. At least one news source had treated it as genuine, too. I think this guy and some others I saw were trolls working in conjunction, but it doesn't really make a difference. I enjoy reading discussions of race and gender, but I'm blowed if I'll dance for some 4channers' amusement.
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:37 AM on June 18, 2015 [10 favorites]
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:37 AM on June 18, 2015 [10 favorites]
Seb: I believe the rule is: don’t try and rehash the topic that wasn’t going well in the first place in metatalk. Oh, and don’t insult people. I think the mods have been doing their best to stick to those rules in this meta, but people will keep on dragging the original topic back in.
posted by pharm at 1:52 AM on June 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by pharm at 1:52 AM on June 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
It's not a fact, it's an opinion. Recognizing that may help you understand the comment you were replying to.
Sometimes. Not always.
posted by Dysk at 1:54 AM on June 18, 2015
Sometimes. Not always.
posted by Dysk at 1:54 AM on June 18, 2015
NB. For the avoidance of doubt, my comment immediately above was definitely not meant to imply that Sebmojo himself had been insulting! Just that those were the rules as I understand them.
(Write out 100 times: I must proof read comments for unfortunate ambiguity more carefully.)
posted by pharm at 3:18 AM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
(Write out 100 times: I must proof read comments for unfortunate ambiguity more carefully.)
posted by pharm at 3:18 AM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
It should be noted that of the three who "went into the woodchipper", as it was put, only one was Fargo'd.
Also, if the bunny gif doesn't work for you, here: enjoy.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 3:54 AM on June 18, 2015
Also, if the bunny gif doesn't work for you, here: enjoy.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 3:54 AM on June 18, 2015
Everyone also concedes that the Dolezal topic is indisputably a topic that can and should be discussed on MeFi.
This is jumping back a bit, but I want to add my voice to those emphatically saying that this is not even close to being true. I think this is a topic that could be an interesting discussion on MeFi -- in the right context, at the right time, and if as a community we can keep our shit together and avoid it becoming a shitshow.
But should? Absolutely not. That's assuming a level of inevitability regarding stories in the cultural/political zeitgeist (as well as some sort of responsibility for MeFi to cover all such stories) that does not exist, and should not exist.
Not every breaking news story or media event has to be (or should be) on MeFi.
posted by tocts at 4:41 AM on June 18, 2015 [13 favorites]
This is jumping back a bit, but I want to add my voice to those emphatically saying that this is not even close to being true. I think this is a topic that could be an interesting discussion on MeFi -- in the right context, at the right time, and if as a community we can keep our shit together and avoid it becoming a shitshow.
But should? Absolutely not. That's assuming a level of inevitability regarding stories in the cultural/political zeitgeist (as well as some sort of responsibility for MeFi to cover all such stories) that does not exist, and should not exist.
Not every breaking news story or media event has to be (or should be) on MeFi.
posted by tocts at 4:41 AM on June 18, 2015 [13 favorites]
I'll throw one more vote on the pile of disagreements with the idea that the Dolezal story, or any story, *should* be discussed on metafilter. In fact, by my understanding of what constitutes a good post for this place, the very idea that we "should be" discussing something is a warning sign that the theoretical post is on shaky ground. The heuristic is find things that are interesting for people to read or see or learn about, rather than to find things that, in the poster's estimation, people need to be informed of.
posted by Ipsifendus at 4:50 AM on June 18, 2015 [14 favorites]
posted by Ipsifendus at 4:50 AM on June 18, 2015 [14 favorites]
Well, it's hard to be meta about a deletion without being meta about a deletion. But demanding equal time for anti-trans rhetoric on the front page strikes me as rather like demanding equal time for anti-vax and Young Earth Creationism. The word of trans people has never been enough, and the medical, legal, and psychological communities of practice reluctantly consider transition and acceptance good, because every alternative over the previous century was a proven failure more brutal than nonintervention.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 5:30 AM on June 18, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 5:30 AM on June 18, 2015 [8 favorites]
I just reviewed the FAQs, and am wondering: are users notified if comments are deleted? Or are people just really good at checking their posts?
Allow me to blow your mind. There are some people who care so much about arguing on MeTa that they actually screenshot these threads so that they can have a record of what was posted and deleted.
I recall, not to long ago, a member offering to share his screenshots.
posted by jayder at 5:30 AM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
Allow me to blow your mind. There are some people who care so much about arguing on MeTa that they actually screenshot these threads so that they can have a record of what was posted and deleted.
I recall, not to long ago, a member offering to share his screenshots.
posted by jayder at 5:30 AM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
Mods, would you consider closing this?
If anything testifies to the unnecessary nature of discussions of the Dolezal situation, it's what happened in Charleston last night.
posted by anotherpanacea at 5:40 AM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
If anything testifies to the unnecessary nature of discussions of the Dolezal situation, it's what happened in Charleston last night.
posted by anotherpanacea at 5:40 AM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
The inability of this site to actually discuss an issue with these considerations is emblematic of why this site is a hollow shell of its former self. This is a discussion board for very fragile people now. What a waste.
I agree. I longed to be part of MetaFilter, when it was full of vibrant debate and discussion. Now too many voices outside the identity-politics set have been driven away, and it is much less interesting and educational.
It's not the loss of these people's views on these subjects that's the problem for me. It's their views on other subjects that we lose, subjects where they would similarly be in a minority, but we might be more willing to tolerate alternative viewpoints. Our loss of these people is significant.
Your loss of these people is significant, I should say.
posted by alasdair at 5:44 AM on June 18, 2015 [6 favorites]
I agree. I longed to be part of MetaFilter, when it was full of vibrant debate and discussion. Now too many voices outside the identity-politics set have been driven away, and it is much less interesting and educational.
It's not the loss of these people's views on these subjects that's the problem for me. It's their views on other subjects that we lose, subjects where they would similarly be in a minority, but we might be more willing to tolerate alternative viewpoints. Our loss of these people is significant.
Your loss of these people is significant, I should say.
posted by alasdair at 5:44 AM on June 18, 2015 [6 favorites]
the identity-politics set
Is there any way to read that term that is not horribly, horribly insulting?
posted by mittens at 5:48 AM on June 18, 2015 [27 favorites]
Is there any way to read that term that is not horribly, horribly insulting?
posted by mittens at 5:48 AM on June 18, 2015 [27 favorites]
It's not the loss of these people's views on these subjects that's the problem for me. It's their views on other subjects that we lose, subjects where they would similarly be in a minority, but we might be more willing to tolerate alternative viewpoints. Our loss of these people is significant.
That's on them. If they take their ball and go home because they're being told they can't go into say, trans threads and spout transphobic nonsense, or race threads and spout racist nonsense, etc, etc, that's not our fault. Marginalised groups should not have to take people's shit on mefi so that they might stay to add value elsewhere. If they can usefully be part of discussions on other topics but not these, then it is up to them to engage in discussions on other topics, but not these.
posted by Dysk at 5:58 AM on June 18, 2015 [36 favorites]
That's on them. If they take their ball and go home because they're being told they can't go into say, trans threads and spout transphobic nonsense, or race threads and spout racist nonsense, etc, etc, that's not our fault. Marginalised groups should not have to take people's shit on mefi so that they might stay to add value elsewhere. If they can usefully be part of discussions on other topics but not these, then it is up to them to engage in discussions on other topics, but not these.
posted by Dysk at 5:58 AM on June 18, 2015 [36 favorites]
So talking about experiences from marginalized perspectives and cutting other people's inclinations to automatically challenge them as an intellectual exercise = joining the "identity politics set." Most adorable, that.
But you failed to address the possibility that many of the people in the aforementioned "set" are quite knowledgeable across a number of topics. I suspect that your mourning of a significant reduction in MeFi's collective knowledge base is premature.
posted by Ashen at 6:01 AM on June 18, 2015 [11 favorites]
But you failed to address the possibility that many of the people in the aforementioned "set" are quite knowledgeable across a number of topics. I suspect that your mourning of a significant reduction in MeFi's collective knowledge base is premature.
posted by Ashen at 6:01 AM on June 18, 2015 [11 favorites]
Mods, would you consider closing this?
It's absolutely an option. But it's early in the (US) day and I'd like to see how things develop today before I do anything rash.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane (staff) at 6:04 AM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's absolutely an option. But it's early in the (US) day and I'd like to see how things develop today before I do anything rash.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane (staff) at 6:04 AM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
Is there any way to read that term that is not horribly, horribly insulting?
Not really no, but the implication of the defense is interesting. "As long as the discussion wasn't about women or trans folks, they were perfectly fine". I have an uncle like that. Totally nice guy until someone mentions Mexicans, then he says all kindsa ugly shit. And everyone in my family ignores this, which just reinforces his toxicity. And there aren't even any Mexicans in my family who have to listen to this shit, but in the case here on Metafilter, the very people at least 2 of those guys who left have insulted are right here. But I guess as a member of the "identity politics set" it matters to me, and if we're eulogizing the departed, all I have to say is good riddance to folks who were demonstrably unhappy here anyway and wanted to spread their piss mist of negativity amongst us all.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 6:04 AM on June 18, 2015 [15 favorites]
Not really no, but the implication of the defense is interesting. "As long as the discussion wasn't about women or trans folks, they were perfectly fine". I have an uncle like that. Totally nice guy until someone mentions Mexicans, then he says all kindsa ugly shit. And everyone in my family ignores this, which just reinforces his toxicity. And there aren't even any Mexicans in my family who have to listen to this shit, but in the case here on Metafilter, the very people at least 2 of those guys who left have insulted are right here. But I guess as a member of the "identity politics set" it matters to me, and if we're eulogizing the departed, all I have to say is good riddance to folks who were demonstrably unhappy here anyway and wanted to spread their piss mist of negativity amongst us all.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 6:04 AM on June 18, 2015 [15 favorites]
Is there any way to read that term that is not horribly, horribly insulting?
Is there any way to read that comment that doesn't make it clear that the poster hasn't read the thread he's commenting in, where that very question has been asked and debated repeatedly? Maybe the reason he isn't seeing "vibrant debate and discussion" is that he isn't actually reading?
To be fair, this thread has also been contentious and exhausting, but if you don't have something new to offer to the discussion, that's kind of on you....
posted by GenjiandProust at 6:05 AM on June 18, 2015 [9 favorites]
Is there any way to read that comment that doesn't make it clear that the poster hasn't read the thread he's commenting in, where that very question has been asked and debated repeatedly? Maybe the reason he isn't seeing "vibrant debate and discussion" is that he isn't actually reading?
To be fair, this thread has also been contentious and exhausting, but if you don't have something new to offer to the discussion, that's kind of on you....
posted by GenjiandProust at 6:05 AM on June 18, 2015 [9 favorites]
I almost feel like I deserve a fucking medal or something for having read through this thread,
At least a t-shirt.
posted by MikeMc at 6:12 AM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
At least a t-shirt.
posted by MikeMc at 6:12 AM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
If anything testifies to the unnecessary nature of discussions of the Dolezal situation, it's what happened in Charleston last night.
Shut the site down then. What is necessary to discuss in the face of tragedy and hate?
I don't see how one thing has anything to do with the other.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:13 AM on June 18, 2015 [11 favorites]
Shut the site down then. What is necessary to discuss in the face of tragedy and hate?
I don't see how one thing has anything to do with the other.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:13 AM on June 18, 2015 [11 favorites]
If anything testifies to the unnecessary nature of discussions of the Dolezal situation, it's what happened in Charleston last night.
I strongly disagree with this. The Dolezal fiasco is endemic to the same racial dynamics that helped to create the environment for the church shooting. Those dynamics need to be dragged out into the light and discussed. Both events have value. As a Black person who has watched people debate whether Black womanhood should even warrant protection from appropriation, and who is bracing themselves for the oncoming wave of people giving this dude the benefit of the doubt, those topics also have value to me. I do not believe I am alone in that.
posted by Ashen at 6:14 AM on June 18, 2015 [32 favorites]
I strongly disagree with this. The Dolezal fiasco is endemic to the same racial dynamics that helped to create the environment for the church shooting. Those dynamics need to be dragged out into the light and discussed. Both events have value. As a Black person who has watched people debate whether Black womanhood should even warrant protection from appropriation, and who is bracing themselves for the oncoming wave of people giving this dude the benefit of the doubt, those topics also have value to me. I do not believe I am alone in that.
posted by Ashen at 6:14 AM on June 18, 2015 [32 favorites]
Don't Be A Jerk
don't be an asshole
After thinking about it a bit, I think statements like those are the absolute worst way to communicate community norms. All of the content is in the final word, which is left almost completely undefined, so nothing is transmitted and anyone can choose to see or not see whatever they want in it.
Also, it's often been said that family finances aren't a good model for government finances. I think there might be a similar analogy for general-interest online community norms. A lot of the topics people discuss here are ones that I would only discuss with people I know in smaller group (where sensitivities can be manageable in number and reasonably accommodated), but there are a lot of you here and most of you will always be strangers.
posted by cosmic.osmo at 6:31 AM on June 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
don't be an asshole
After thinking about it a bit, I think statements like those are the absolute worst way to communicate community norms. All of the content is in the final word, which is left almost completely undefined, so nothing is transmitted and anyone can choose to see or not see whatever they want in it.
Also, it's often been said that family finances aren't a good model for government finances. I think there might be a similar analogy for general-interest online community norms. A lot of the topics people discuss here are ones that I would only discuss with people I know in smaller group (where sensitivities can be manageable in number and reasonably accommodated), but there are a lot of you here and most of you will always be strangers.
posted by cosmic.osmo at 6:31 AM on June 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
Well, and it's been said many times that it's okay to be a jerk or an asshole here if it's the right person being a jerk or asshole to the right people.
posted by jayder at 6:37 AM on June 18, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by jayder at 6:37 AM on June 18, 2015 [7 favorites]
The fact that has been said doesn't make it right, though.
posted by corb at 6:49 AM on June 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by corb at 6:49 AM on June 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
Right or correct?
posted by NortonDC at 6:52 AM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by NortonDC at 6:52 AM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
your weird conspiracy theory isn't even true in just this thread.
posted by nadawi at 6:56 AM on June 18, 2015 [15 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 6:56 AM on June 18, 2015 [15 favorites]
jayder: "Well, and it's been said many times that it's okay to be a jerk or an asshole here if it's the right person being a jerk or asshole to the right people."
I agree that MeFi has a bit of a double-standard when it comes to being a jerk, but I never understand the way the silenced-all-my-life people use this argument. "I was an asshole and my comment got deleted. He was an asshole but his comment didn't get deleted. Therefore...my comment should not have been deleted." What? No. The problem is that his comment wasn't deleted, not that your comment was.
But we're just talking a matter of degree, here, anyway. In this very thread, several people on the "right" side of the argument (I assume by the "right" you mean "in agreement with the mods/general MeFi zeitgeist") have had their comments deleted for being jerks. It's not like if you're the right person you get a free pass, you just get slightly more leniency than other people.
posted by Bugbread at 6:57 AM on June 18, 2015 [12 favorites]
I agree that MeFi has a bit of a double-standard when it comes to being a jerk, but I never understand the way the silenced-all-my-life people use this argument. "I was an asshole and my comment got deleted. He was an asshole but his comment didn't get deleted. Therefore...my comment should not have been deleted." What? No. The problem is that his comment wasn't deleted, not that your comment was.
But we're just talking a matter of degree, here, anyway. In this very thread, several people on the "right" side of the argument (I assume by the "right" you mean "in agreement with the mods/general MeFi zeitgeist") have had their comments deleted for being jerks. It's not like if you're the right person you get a free pass, you just get slightly more leniency than other people.
posted by Bugbread at 6:57 AM on June 18, 2015 [12 favorites]
That's on them. If they take their ball and go home because they're being told they can't go into say, trans threads and spout transphobic nonsense, or race threads and spout racist nonsense, etc, etc, that's not our fault. Marginalised groups should not have to take people's shit on mefi so that they might stay to add value elsewhere. If they can usefully be part of discussions on other topics but not these, then it is up to them to engage in discussions on other topics, but not these.
But, for like the 50th time, the issue here is the deletion of a thread and the decision to at least temporarily ban all threads on the same topic -- not the deletion of racist comments. Very few people - if any - are arguing that people should be permitted to "spout transphobic nonsense" or "spout racist nonsense."
I can't put it any better than pharm, who said: Even if I personally would love to see an interesting debate about identity & gender, it’s not going to happen here — at least certainly not right now & probably not ever: any discussion of such topics is going to include references to viewpoints which our QUILTBAG members find extremely personal & hurtful. MeFi as a site has decided that not hurting those members is more important than discussing certain topics: that’s the way it is & people can either accept it or quit the site.
It's that idea that I am objecting to and I think others are objecting to. The idea that we can't have a conversation because some people in the conversation are going to refer to viewpoints that some members find hurtful. (By the way, I think the way pharm put it is much stronger/more absolutist than the way the mods put it, but I'm objecting to the the strong version of the view because I don't want the policy to drift any further that way.)
The deleted-threads-versus-comments issue is really important - I would wager that nearly everyone here supports the deletion of ugly/hurtful/ignorant comments. It's the deletion of full threads - including non-bad comments - that is the policy issue that I think is generating the most controversy.
In the end, I think there is legitimate room for disagreement on that policy question, but let's be clear about what the question is.
posted by Mid at 7:05 AM on June 18, 2015 [8 favorites]
But, for like the 50th time, the issue here is the deletion of a thread and the decision to at least temporarily ban all threads on the same topic -- not the deletion of racist comments. Very few people - if any - are arguing that people should be permitted to "spout transphobic nonsense" or "spout racist nonsense."
I can't put it any better than pharm, who said: Even if I personally would love to see an interesting debate about identity & gender, it’s not going to happen here — at least certainly not right now & probably not ever: any discussion of such topics is going to include references to viewpoints which our QUILTBAG members find extremely personal & hurtful. MeFi as a site has decided that not hurting those members is more important than discussing certain topics: that’s the way it is & people can either accept it or quit the site.
It's that idea that I am objecting to and I think others are objecting to. The idea that we can't have a conversation because some people in the conversation are going to refer to viewpoints that some members find hurtful. (By the way, I think the way pharm put it is much stronger/more absolutist than the way the mods put it, but I'm objecting to the the strong version of the view because I don't want the policy to drift any further that way.)
The deleted-threads-versus-comments issue is really important - I would wager that nearly everyone here supports the deletion of ugly/hurtful/ignorant comments. It's the deletion of full threads - including non-bad comments - that is the policy issue that I think is generating the most controversy.
In the end, I think there is legitimate room for disagreement on that policy question, but let's be clear about what the question is.
posted by Mid at 7:05 AM on June 18, 2015 [8 favorites]
By the way, I think the way pharm put it is much stronger/more absolutist than the way the mods put it, but I'm objecting to the the strong version of the view because I don't want the policy to drift any further that way.
So you acknowledge that the mods have repeatedly stated that pharm's contention (that this cannot ever be discussed) is completely and absolutely false, but you nonetheless feel the need to use that false statement as your basis of contention anyways because ... reasons?
This would be a much more productive discussion if the "sky is falling" free speech crowd was addressing what the mods have actually said, as opposed to what people are projecting and imagining they might say in some theoretical future.
posted by tocts at 7:09 AM on June 18, 2015 [5 favorites]
So you acknowledge that the mods have repeatedly stated that pharm's contention (that this cannot ever be discussed) is completely and absolutely false, but you nonetheless feel the need to use that false statement as your basis of contention anyways because ... reasons?
This would be a much more productive discussion if the "sky is falling" free speech crowd was addressing what the mods have actually said, as opposed to what people are projecting and imagining they might say in some theoretical future.
posted by tocts at 7:09 AM on June 18, 2015 [5 favorites]
I think it's more than just "hurtful". It's not just getting your feelings hurt, we've been hearing from people about that hurt and what it entails and it is not just "oh someone said something shitty", it's being harassed and violated and bullied and threatened and hated-on IRL, and then coming to MetaFilter hoping to find a space where that doesn't happen.
If i'm understanding correctly.
posted by joseph conrad is fully awesome at 7:11 AM on June 18, 2015 [8 favorites]
If i'm understanding correctly.
posted by joseph conrad is fully awesome at 7:11 AM on June 18, 2015 [8 favorites]
Yes, we are having a discussion about what site policy should be. One user gave their view and I said I disagree - that's basically what we are doing here. I don't think I said the sky is falling in any way.
posted by Mid at 7:12 AM on June 18, 2015
posted by Mid at 7:12 AM on June 18, 2015
the handling of one newsfilter event is not some new policy. this happens from time to time and yet mefi keeps on trucking.
posted by nadawi at 7:14 AM on June 18, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 7:14 AM on June 18, 2015 [4 favorites]
you acknowledge that the mods have repeatedly stated that pharm's contention (that this cannot ever be discussed) is completely and absolutely false,
I think the difference between: "this cannot ever be discussed" and "someday, maybe, who can ever know the future, but probably not likely" is a real one, but not necessarily that different in terms of effect on actual FPPs.
posted by corb at 7:15 AM on June 18, 2015
I think the difference between: "this cannot ever be discussed" and "someday, maybe, who can ever know the future, but probably not likely" is a real one, but not necessarily that different in terms of effect on actual FPPs.
posted by corb at 7:15 AM on June 18, 2015
It's not just getting your feelings hurt, we've been hearing from people about that hurt and what it entails and it is not just "oh someone said something shitty", it's being harassed and violated and bullied and threatened and hated-on IRL, and then coming to MetaFilter hoping to find a space where that doesn't happen.
The question I would like to see answered as a matter of policy is whether or not the discussion of those things is, in itself, the problem. I personally don't have issues with a quicker banhammer for people who are part of the problem if it allows for more productive and educational discussion between people on both sides of the privilege fence.
posted by Mooski at 7:15 AM on June 18, 2015
The question I would like to see answered as a matter of policy is whether or not the discussion of those things is, in itself, the problem. I personally don't have issues with a quicker banhammer for people who are part of the problem if it allows for more productive and educational discussion between people on both sides of the privilege fence.
posted by Mooski at 7:15 AM on June 18, 2015
One user gave their view and I said I disagree - that's basically what we are doing here.
A view that the mods have already stated is not policy and isn't going to be policy. Putting it up as the thing you're arguing against is more or less fighting a strawman at that point.
There is a repeated pattern of discussion in the grey that goes like this:
Not A Mod: "I think [THING]"
Other Not A Mod: "Wait, [THING] is policy now? WTF?"
(repeat with like 10 other Not A Mods reacting to this apparent new policy)
Moderator"No, [THING] is absolutely not policy."
(a bunch of comments go by)
New, Other Not A Mod: "I'd like to comment on this new policy of [THING]"
(and hey a bunch of other Not A Mods get into more heated discussion to this apparent new policy)
Moderator"Seriously, again, [THING] is absolutely not policy."
(and then this repeats itself a dozen times)
I seriously do not get it. Yes, policy here is made with input from the userbase, but when moderators make flat statements about what is and is not policy, why is there always someone who needs to go back and argue about the thing they were already told isn't policy?
Is there ever a point at which you think to yourself, "OK, I guess I finally believe the moderators now that they've repeated this 5 times"?
posted by tocts at 7:29 AM on June 18, 2015 [21 favorites]
A view that the mods have already stated is not policy and isn't going to be policy. Putting it up as the thing you're arguing against is more or less fighting a strawman at that point.
There is a repeated pattern of discussion in the grey that goes like this:
Not A Mod: "I think [THING]"
Other Not A Mod: "Wait, [THING] is policy now? WTF?"
(repeat with like 10 other Not A Mods reacting to this apparent new policy)
Moderator"No, [THING] is absolutely not policy."
(a bunch of comments go by)
New, Other Not A Mod: "I'd like to comment on this new policy of [THING]"
(and hey a bunch of other Not A Mods get into more heated discussion to this apparent new policy)
Moderator"Seriously, again, [THING] is absolutely not policy."
(and then this repeats itself a dozen times)
I seriously do not get it. Yes, policy here is made with input from the userbase, but when moderators make flat statements about what is and is not policy, why is there always someone who needs to go back and argue about the thing they were already told isn't policy?
Is there ever a point at which you think to yourself, "OK, I guess I finally believe the moderators now that they've repeated this 5 times"?
posted by tocts at 7:29 AM on June 18, 2015 [21 favorites]
But, for like the 50th time, the issue here is the deletion of a thread and the decision to at least temporarily ban all threads on the same topic -- not the deletion of racist comments. Very few people - if any - are arguing that people should be permitted to "spout transphobic nonsense" or "spout racist nonsense."
Racist and transphobic nonsense was what that thread was, and what other threads on the issue right now would be. And again, no topic is banned - it is simply and demonstrably not possible for mefi to have a discussion about the issue right now.
The deleted-threads-versus-comments issue is really important - I would wager that nearly everyone here supports the deletion of ugly/hurtful/ignorant comments. It's the deletion of full threads - including non-bad comments - that is the policy issue that I think is generating the most controversy.
If the mod team were infinitely large they might be able to keep up with the sort of level of pruning those threads would require right now, but it's just not feasible with the staffing levels and entire rest of a site to run. We are not being told we cannot have this conversation - we have proven ourselves incapable of it, and so we are being asked to sit on it a bit before revisiting for another go.
posted by Dysk at 7:32 AM on June 18, 2015 [10 favorites]
Racist and transphobic nonsense was what that thread was, and what other threads on the issue right now would be. And again, no topic is banned - it is simply and demonstrably not possible for mefi to have a discussion about the issue right now.
The deleted-threads-versus-comments issue is really important - I would wager that nearly everyone here supports the deletion of ugly/hurtful/ignorant comments. It's the deletion of full threads - including non-bad comments - that is the policy issue that I think is generating the most controversy.
If the mod team were infinitely large they might be able to keep up with the sort of level of pruning those threads would require right now, but it's just not feasible with the staffing levels and entire rest of a site to run. We are not being told we cannot have this conversation - we have proven ourselves incapable of it, and so we are being asked to sit on it a bit before revisiting for another go.
posted by Dysk at 7:32 AM on June 18, 2015 [10 favorites]
The deletion of full threads is due in part to mod resources: if they know it's going to be a shit show that will require x amount of attention to keep from going completely off the rails and that the rest of the site would suffer, then putting a time-out on a topic seems to be the reasonable solution. Even if almost everyone agreed on what comments should be deleted, the mods still have to delete them. And particularly in light of how upset some people have gotten in this thread about deletions occurring too slowly due to a shift change, I'm fairly certain the mods made the right call.
And yes, it sucks that the mods can't predict the future, but that doesn't change the fact that the resources available now aren't sufficient to handle a contentious newsfilter thread.
posted by ghost phoneme at 7:34 AM on June 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
And yes, it sucks that the mods can't predict the future, but that doesn't change the fact that the resources available now aren't sufficient to handle a contentious newsfilter thread.
posted by ghost phoneme at 7:34 AM on June 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
Yes, policy here is made with input from the userbase, but when moderators make flat statements about what is and is not policy, why is there always someone who needs to go back and argue about the thing they were already told isn't policy?
Maybe the mod comments in MetaTalk threads need to be highlighted with a different background color and not just with the mod badge next to their names. That way when people are just skimming the threads they'll hopefully stop and read those.
posted by Jacqueline at 7:34 AM on June 18, 2015 [10 favorites]
Maybe the mod comments in MetaTalk threads need to be highlighted with a different background color and not just with the mod badge next to their names. That way when people are just skimming the threads they'll hopefully stop and read those.
posted by Jacqueline at 7:34 AM on June 18, 2015 [10 favorites]
Maybe the mod comments in MetaTalk threads need to be highlighted with a different background color and not just with the mod badge next to their names. That way when people are just skimming the threads they'll hopefully stop and read those.
Or at least in the long/fighty ones, yes. I think that would be a good idea.
posted by jeather at 7:36 AM on June 18, 2015 [4 favorites]
Or at least in the long/fighty ones, yes. I think that would be a good idea.
posted by jeather at 7:36 AM on June 18, 2015 [4 favorites]
"The deleted-threads-versus-comments issue is really important - I would wager that nearly everyone here supports the deletion of ugly/hurtful/ignorant comments. It's the deletion of full threads - including non-bad comments - that is the policy issue that I think is generating the most controversy."
Well, first of all, as others have said, this isn't some blanket policy decision. It's an individual case that will be reevaluated over time.
Secondly, in the past I've argued strenuously against a "we can't have a post on this topic" position and strongly in favor of the position that careful and strong moderation of comments in such threads is the much better solution to the problem. And I still very much believe this, as a rule.
But there are exceptions to the rule. As has been painstakingly explained, this particular topic intersects in some especially painful ways for several different groups. And it also attracts a disproportionate amount of interest from people who want to discuss it from a position of relative ignorance and therefore to blunder into writing hurtful things. Not to mention the people who are more deliberately hurtful.
And the thing about careful and constant moderation of such a thread is that even so those comments are going to be posted and visible for some amount of time before they're deleted -- there is no avoiding that some of the damage they cause will occur even under the ideal moderation conditions. With all of these exacerbating factors, I think this topic, at this point in time, is one where it we couldn't expect that even having a single mod dedicated to this one specific thread 24-hours a day would be sufficient to keep it minimally toxic enough to justify its presence - and we don't have that level of moderator resources. The determination that this was an especially problematic topic wasn't speculative -- they gave it a try three times.
This is an unusual circumstance. It is a very poor basis upon which to generalize about site policy.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 7:38 AM on June 18, 2015 [10 favorites]
Well, first of all, as others have said, this isn't some blanket policy decision. It's an individual case that will be reevaluated over time.
Secondly, in the past I've argued strenuously against a "we can't have a post on this topic" position and strongly in favor of the position that careful and strong moderation of comments in such threads is the much better solution to the problem. And I still very much believe this, as a rule.
But there are exceptions to the rule. As has been painstakingly explained, this particular topic intersects in some especially painful ways for several different groups. And it also attracts a disproportionate amount of interest from people who want to discuss it from a position of relative ignorance and therefore to blunder into writing hurtful things. Not to mention the people who are more deliberately hurtful.
And the thing about careful and constant moderation of such a thread is that even so those comments are going to be posted and visible for some amount of time before they're deleted -- there is no avoiding that some of the damage they cause will occur even under the ideal moderation conditions. With all of these exacerbating factors, I think this topic, at this point in time, is one where it we couldn't expect that even having a single mod dedicated to this one specific thread 24-hours a day would be sufficient to keep it minimally toxic enough to justify its presence - and we don't have that level of moderator resources. The determination that this was an especially problematic topic wasn't speculative -- they gave it a try three times.
This is an unusual circumstance. It is a very poor basis upon which to generalize about site policy.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 7:38 AM on June 18, 2015 [10 favorites]
I agree that MeFi has a bit of a double-standard when it comes to being a jerk, but I never understand the way the silenced-all-my-life people use this argument. "I was an asshole and my comment got deleted. He was an asshole but his comment didn't get deleted. Therefore...my comment should not have been deleted." What? No. The problem is that his comment wasn't deleted, not that your comment was.
In the interest of fairness, from my observation, this type of behavior is not at all limited to the "silenced all my life" crowd. In both this and the recent "tattoo article/boyzone" Metatalk thread, a large part of what is/was being requested from the mods from a large portion of the community is swifter and harsher action when someone violates the community standards (a sentiment I largely agree with, for the record). Yet just yesterday in this thread (and several times in that one) when a member from the "majority view" side would get a comment deleted or public admonishment from the mods, those same folks would suddenly became total, "Wait, why is his/her comment getting deleted, this is ridiculous, Mods!"-types.
posted by The Gooch at 7:40 AM on June 18, 2015 [7 favorites]
In the interest of fairness, from my observation, this type of behavior is not at all limited to the "silenced all my life" crowd. In both this and the recent "tattoo article/boyzone" Metatalk thread, a large part of what is/was being requested from the mods from a large portion of the community is swifter and harsher action when someone violates the community standards (a sentiment I largely agree with, for the record). Yet just yesterday in this thread (and several times in that one) when a member from the "majority view" side would get a comment deleted or public admonishment from the mods, those same folks would suddenly became total, "Wait, why is his/her comment getting deleted, this is ridiculous, Mods!"-types.
posted by The Gooch at 7:40 AM on June 18, 2015 [7 favorites]
tocts - how is my comment less legitimate than pharm's comments or anyone else's comment about site policy if the mods have already told us what site policy is?
If the mods have ruled, then what's the point of any of this discussion? Maybe you think it has none, and that's fine, but nobody's making you read it.
And site policy is not some fixed thing where the mods tell us what it is and then it is set forever. It changes. These discussions are part of what shapes that change. Again, you don't have to participate.
posted by Mid at 7:41 AM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
If the mods have ruled, then what's the point of any of this discussion? Maybe you think it has none, and that's fine, but nobody's making you read it.
And site policy is not some fixed thing where the mods tell us what it is and then it is set forever. It changes. These discussions are part of what shapes that change. Again, you don't have to participate.
posted by Mid at 7:41 AM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
Or at least in the long/fighty ones, yes. I think that would be a good idea.
Agreed; in at least two of the other web forums I've frequented, moderator comments when speaking about matters of policy are highlighted and a different color. That might be a good thing, especially if I've managed to miss the five or so times they've specifically addressed a question I just asked.
posted by Mooski at 7:41 AM on June 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
Agreed; in at least two of the other web forums I've frequented, moderator comments when speaking about matters of policy are highlighted and a different color. That might be a good thing, especially if I've managed to miss the five or so times they've specifically addressed a question I just asked.
posted by Mooski at 7:41 AM on June 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
Now too many voices outside the identity-politics set have been driven away
This is offensive bullshit. "Identity politics"? Really? Shocking fact: the interests and concerns of straight white men aren't the only ones that matter. If someone can't deal with being told not to be transphobic/homophobic/misogynistic/racist/whatever, then they can fuck off. Nothing of any real value is lost by their absence. It's really rather interesting how willing people are to make excuses for bad behaviour and harmful opinions when that behaviour and those opinions aren't directed at them but at some abstract "other". But here's the thing: that "other" isn't abstract. Those people are here, and participating in the discussion. Having one's identity and culture and so on be something that's considered "an interesting topic for debate" or whatever is not really helpful. I dunno, maybe you missed the whole thing over "monthbywomen" and all the people saying they felt there was a lot of overt and not-so-overt misogyny that made MetaFilter feel like an unwelcoming space for women, at times? Or the exodus of trans members after some ugly and unpleasant transphobic comments? Having a "safe space" for straight white guys may be something you see as positive; personally I'd not feel especially comfortable or welcome there. (And just because someone isn't an asshole to you doesn't mean they aren't an asshole.)
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 7:45 AM on June 18, 2015 [25 favorites]
This is offensive bullshit. "Identity politics"? Really? Shocking fact: the interests and concerns of straight white men aren't the only ones that matter. If someone can't deal with being told not to be transphobic/homophobic/misogynistic/racist/whatever, then they can fuck off. Nothing of any real value is lost by their absence. It's really rather interesting how willing people are to make excuses for bad behaviour and harmful opinions when that behaviour and those opinions aren't directed at them but at some abstract "other". But here's the thing: that "other" isn't abstract. Those people are here, and participating in the discussion. Having one's identity and culture and so on be something that's considered "an interesting topic for debate" or whatever is not really helpful. I dunno, maybe you missed the whole thing over "monthbywomen" and all the people saying they felt there was a lot of overt and not-so-overt misogyny that made MetaFilter feel like an unwelcoming space for women, at times? Or the exodus of trans members after some ugly and unpleasant transphobic comments? Having a "safe space" for straight white guys may be something you see as positive; personally I'd not feel especially comfortable or welcome there. (And just because someone isn't an asshole to you doesn't mean they aren't an asshole.)
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 7:45 AM on June 18, 2015 [25 favorites]
> the issue here is the deletion of a thread and the decision to at least temporarily ban all threads on the same topic
Can you articulate what that topic is, exactly? What is the subject that you allege has been banned from being fpp'd if only temporarily?
posted by rtha at 7:51 AM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
Can you articulate what that topic is, exactly? What is the subject that you allege has been banned from being fpp'd if only temporarily?
posted by rtha at 7:51 AM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
This is an unusual circumstance. It is a very poor basis upon which to generalize about site policy.
It is.
posted by Wolof at 7:54 AM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
It is.
posted by Wolof at 7:54 AM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
The determination that this was an especially problematic topic wasn't speculative -- they gave it a try three times.
The mods canned the first for being newsfiltery & too new + weird, let the second run until the set of QUILTBAG members noping right out of the thread convinced them to kill it & then deleted the third thread on sight. That’s not giving it a try three times (which is not to imply that any topic has the right to a second or third go around before the mods get itchy delete button fingers).
posted by pharm at 7:56 AM on June 18, 2015
The mods canned the first for being newsfiltery & too new + weird, let the second run until the set of QUILTBAG members noping right out of the thread convinced them to kill it & then deleted the third thread on sight. That’s not giving it a try three times (which is not to imply that any topic has the right to a second or third go around before the mods get itchy delete button fingers).
posted by pharm at 7:56 AM on June 18, 2015
The mods canned the first for being newsfiltery & too new + weird, let the second run until the set of QUILTBAG members noping right out of the thread convinced them to kill it & then deleted the third thread on sight.
All of these are reasons why an FPP might be a bad fit for mefi, or might be poorly framed, or might not engender a constructive discussion. Three attempts at making a decent FPP were made, one of which was allowed to run for quite a while before being deleted. That the given deletion reasons were not identical does not mean that it was not the same fundamental issue - just that different problems with framing and so on were most evident each time.
posted by Dysk at 7:59 AM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
All of these are reasons why an FPP might be a bad fit for mefi, or might be poorly framed, or might not engender a constructive discussion. Three attempts at making a decent FPP were made, one of which was allowed to run for quite a while before being deleted. That the given deletion reasons were not identical does not mean that it was not the same fundamental issue - just that different problems with framing and so on were most evident each time.
posted by Dysk at 7:59 AM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
That seems like an overly picky definition of "try." I see no reason not to assume they looked at the way the post was written and framed before deleting it; that seems sufficient to call it a "try" in my book, particularly since Brandon's non-problematic framing of a post about black identity was allowed to stand.
posted by phearlez at 8:02 AM on June 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by phearlez at 8:02 AM on June 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'm a white male and I've had more than enough of white male identity politics.
posted by Rumple at 8:08 AM on June 18, 2015 [16 favorites]
posted by Rumple at 8:08 AM on June 18, 2015 [16 favorites]
Can you articulate what that topic is, exactly? What is the subject that you allege has been banned from being fpp'd if only temporarily?
I don't understand. Multiple threads about Dolezal were deleted and the mods have been pretty clear that they don't want to see another one in the near term. Is this really a point of dispute? From there, it's a pretty short jump to the idea that other similar fast-moving stories that entail race or gender controversy could be similarly shut down - not in a "sky is falling" kind of way, but in that the logic of the Dolezal deletions would seem to apply pretty well to other stories/topics as well.
Of course, I'm not the person who is doing the deletions, so I can't give you the official definition of what is banned or temporarily banned, but it would be pretty weird to find out that the mods did not mean to stop people from talking about something by deleting multiple threads about this person or the controversy about her - however you think that something is defined.
posted by Mid at 8:16 AM on June 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
I don't understand. Multiple threads about Dolezal were deleted and the mods have been pretty clear that they don't want to see another one in the near term. Is this really a point of dispute? From there, it's a pretty short jump to the idea that other similar fast-moving stories that entail race or gender controversy could be similarly shut down - not in a "sky is falling" kind of way, but in that the logic of the Dolezal deletions would seem to apply pretty well to other stories/topics as well.
Of course, I'm not the person who is doing the deletions, so I can't give you the official definition of what is banned or temporarily banned, but it would be pretty weird to find out that the mods did not mean to stop people from talking about something by deleting multiple threads about this person or the controversy about her - however you think that something is defined.
posted by Mid at 8:16 AM on June 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
Come on Rumple, where's your solidarity? If we let this go then only 99.993% of the world will be tailored to our interests and priorities. From there it'll be a short slide to 99.98% and how the fuck will life be worth living anymore?
posted by phearlez at 8:17 AM on June 18, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by phearlez at 8:17 AM on June 18, 2015 [7 favorites]
let the second run until the set of QUILTBAG members noping right out of the thread convinced them to kill it
See, this right here is a huge part of the problem. The framing it as QUILTBAG members being the impetus for thread closure, instead of other members being repeatedly hurtful to them, is completely dishonest. So is all the griping about how it wasn't that bad back in the good old rough-and-tumble, pre-"identity politics" days. So is the repeated contention that this is a banned topic, although if people keep up this tactic it may indeed become a self-fulfilling prophecy entirely because they poisoned the well. These are all things that have been proven objectively false by mods and links to prior threads, and yet they keep on popping up in this thread like clockwork.
Unfortunately, this is a situation that comes up again and again, and it seems like it's just going to keep on happening. It's how one trans member's gentle "hey, folks, please use a space between 'trans' and 'woman'" morphed into an army of SJWs silencing the brave voices of reason and logic. It's how "let's not repeat MRA talking points" became an example of how men were being oppressed here. At this point, I assume this will just be another chapter in the mythologies about the site being destroyed by indentitarian boogeymen, despite the fact that it's absolutely untrue. If you want to worry about what might be harming the site, that right there is doing much more than anything else that's been put forward.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:24 AM on June 18, 2015 [22 favorites]
See, this right here is a huge part of the problem. The framing it as QUILTBAG members being the impetus for thread closure, instead of other members being repeatedly hurtful to them, is completely dishonest. So is all the griping about how it wasn't that bad back in the good old rough-and-tumble, pre-"identity politics" days. So is the repeated contention that this is a banned topic, although if people keep up this tactic it may indeed become a self-fulfilling prophecy entirely because they poisoned the well. These are all things that have been proven objectively false by mods and links to prior threads, and yet they keep on popping up in this thread like clockwork.
Unfortunately, this is a situation that comes up again and again, and it seems like it's just going to keep on happening. It's how one trans member's gentle "hey, folks, please use a space between 'trans' and 'woman'" morphed into an army of SJWs silencing the brave voices of reason and logic. It's how "let's not repeat MRA talking points" became an example of how men were being oppressed here. At this point, I assume this will just be another chapter in the mythologies about the site being destroyed by indentitarian boogeymen, despite the fact that it's absolutely untrue. If you want to worry about what might be harming the site, that right there is doing much more than anything else that's been put forward.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:24 AM on June 18, 2015 [22 favorites]
Dysk: I think a post surely has to be allowed to accumulate a bunch of comments before you can reasonable say we’ve “given it a try”. This topic was not “given a try three times”. It was given a try once & deleted on sight thereafter. Which is fine - there have been plenty of posts that went badly on MeFi before & I’m sure there will be again. This one was just unusual in that it ran on a bit longer & accumulated more comments before it was finally killed.
phearlez: Brandon’s (interesting + worthwhile) post deliberately avoided the difficult topic & any mention of it was deleted by the mods, so I’m really not sure it counts.
NB. It’s always been a little weird to me that when the mods are speaking “ex cathedra” (as it were) they do so fairly obviously on metafilter.com [like this usually] but don’t (usually? Maybe I’ve missed it...) make that distinction on metatalk.
posted by pharm at 8:24 AM on June 18, 2015
phearlez: Brandon’s (interesting + worthwhile) post deliberately avoided the difficult topic & any mention of it was deleted by the mods, so I’m really not sure it counts.
NB. It’s always been a little weird to me that when the mods are speaking “ex cathedra” (as it were) they do so fairly obviously on metafilter.com [like this usually] but don’t (usually? Maybe I’ve missed it...) make that distinction on metatalk.
posted by pharm at 8:24 AM on June 18, 2015
> I don't understand. Multiple threads about Dolezal were deleted and the mods have been pretty clear that they don't want to see another one in the near term. Is this really a point of dispute?
So, the topic you want to discuss is Dolezal? Am I understanding you correctly? Because my question was more specific, and I guess I wasn't clear. I'll try to be clearer: what, specifically, is it about Dolezal that you think is important or interesting enough that we should discuss it?
posted by rtha at 8:30 AM on June 18, 2015 [6 favorites]
So, the topic you want to discuss is Dolezal? Am I understanding you correctly? Because my question was more specific, and I guess I wasn't clear. I'll try to be clearer: what, specifically, is it about Dolezal that you think is important or interesting enough that we should discuss it?
posted by rtha at 8:30 AM on June 18, 2015 [6 favorites]
From there, it's a pretty short jump to the idea that other similar fast-moving stories that entail race or gender controversy could be similarly shut down - not in a "sky is falling" kind of way, but in that the logic of the Dolezal deletions would seem to apply pretty well to other stories/topics as well.
Yeah no, we have threads on trans issues and race on mefi all the time and they're not (always) a problem. This is a weird edge case where the rhetoric surrounding it in the media was hijacked by bad actors and you cannot generalise from this case.
Dysk: I think a post surely has to be allowed to accumulate a bunch of comments before you can reasonable say we’ve “given it a try”. This topic was not “given a try three times”. It was given a try once & deleted on sight thereafter. Which is fine - there have been plenty of posts that went badly on MeFi before & I’m sure there will be again. This one was just unusual in that it ran on a bit longer & accumulated more comments before it was finally killed.
I think you have your causality wrong - the longer thread was not the first one, was it? Posts can be bad for reasons other than how their comment threads go, so I don't think the requirement that the comments be allowed to flow is necessary for there to have been an attempt at a good post.
posted by Dysk at 8:31 AM on June 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
Yeah no, we have threads on trans issues and race on mefi all the time and they're not (always) a problem. This is a weird edge case where the rhetoric surrounding it in the media was hijacked by bad actors and you cannot generalise from this case.
Dysk: I think a post surely has to be allowed to accumulate a bunch of comments before you can reasonable say we’ve “given it a try”. This topic was not “given a try three times”. It was given a try once & deleted on sight thereafter. Which is fine - there have been plenty of posts that went badly on MeFi before & I’m sure there will be again. This one was just unusual in that it ran on a bit longer & accumulated more comments before it was finally killed.
I think you have your causality wrong - the longer thread was not the first one, was it? Posts can be bad for reasons other than how their comment threads go, so I don't think the requirement that the comments be allowed to flow is necessary for there to have been an attempt at a good post.
posted by Dysk at 8:31 AM on June 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
Mod note: NB. It’s always been a little weird to me that when the mods are speaking “ex cathedra” (as it were) they do so fairly obviously on metafilter.com [like this usually] but don’t (usually? Maybe I’ve missed it...) make that distinction on metatalk.
Difference of venue, basically. On the blue, when we're speaking as mods-not-users, that's the exception and it's on a part of the site where people are expected to not get into metacommentary in general. Over here, we're more or less obliged to be responding, and are much more likely to be doing so in a moderative capacity, and in a conversation where metacommentary and metadiscussion is already the norm rather than the proscribed exception. So marking out every comment would be sort of distracting busy work; we'll generally leave that for, well, meta-metacommentary directives asking someone to cut something out or folks to drop a specific thing if gentler prodding isn't working.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:35 AM on June 18, 2015
Difference of venue, basically. On the blue, when we're speaking as mods-not-users, that's the exception and it's on a part of the site where people are expected to not get into metacommentary in general. Over here, we're more or less obliged to be responding, and are much more likely to be doing so in a moderative capacity, and in a conversation where metacommentary and metadiscussion is already the norm rather than the proscribed exception. So marking out every comment would be sort of distracting busy work; we'll generally leave that for, well, meta-metacommentary directives asking someone to cut something out or folks to drop a specific thing if gentler prodding isn't working.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:35 AM on June 18, 2015
The deletion I saw was a one-link post to an explicitly anti-trans opinion piece and IMSHO would have been questionable regardless of whatever else was happening in the news or on the front page.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 8:38 AM on June 18, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 8:38 AM on June 18, 2015 [4 favorites]
So, the topic you want to discuss is Dolezal? Am I understanding you correctly? Because my question was more specific, and I guess I wasn't clear. I'll try to be clearer: what, specifically, is it about Dolezal that you think is important or interesting enough that we should discuss it?
Are we arguing about how specific something has to be before it is considered a "topic"? It's hard to see how that adds up to anything here. Maybe your point is that general issues of race and gender are not "topics" that have been banned - but I' m not arguing otherwise.
Also, what I think is interesting or important really isn't the point. I think Dolezal is silly Newsfilter. Other people wanted to talk about the story. It's the stated grounds for the deletion that bugged me, as I think I have said.
posted by Mid at 8:39 AM on June 18, 2015
Are we arguing about how specific something has to be before it is considered a "topic"? It's hard to see how that adds up to anything here. Maybe your point is that general issues of race and gender are not "topics" that have been banned - but I' m not arguing otherwise.
Also, what I think is interesting or important really isn't the point. I think Dolezal is silly Newsfilter. Other people wanted to talk about the story. It's the stated grounds for the deletion that bugged me, as I think I have said.
posted by Mid at 8:39 AM on June 18, 2015
WooHoo, I’ve joined the forces of oppression!
Or alternatively, that’s exactly how LobsterMitten chose to describe the situation right up at the top of this great long list of comments:
Dysk: Yeah, the one that was let run was the second.
CBrachyrhynchos: there have been a bunch of posts on this topic.
posted by pharm at 8:39 AM on June 18, 2015
Or alternatively, that’s exactly how LobsterMitten chose to describe the situation right up at the top of this great long list of comments:
This isn't theoretical. After deleting the first one, we left the second post on it up for a few hours the other day (on the theory “well, people really want to talk about it, let’s give it a shot”), and eventually deleted it because it was degenerating into something that black and trans members were saying was angering/painful for them —And that’s OK! People get to point out hurtful things & their views are listened to.
http://www.metafilter.com/150418/When-Life-Imitiates-Art-Its-not-Always-As-Funny
After we closed that thread we immediately heard from other people that it was a relief to them not to have to watch white/cis people discussing this stuff in the abstract "oh isn't it interesting, all these ideas about identity" kind of way. Now, I'm a white cis person who would be interested in having that abstract discussion. But in the last few years we've been hearing more and more from members that it's not fair, or good for community, for those of us on the advantaged side of some of these divides to insist on our right to have abstract thought-experimenty discussions when it ruins the day of the folks with more skin in the game.
Dysk: Yeah, the one that was let run was the second.
CBrachyrhynchos: there have been a bunch of posts on this topic.
posted by pharm at 8:39 AM on June 18, 2015
To be clear, one-link posts to opinion pieces are questionable whether I agree with them or not.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 8:44 AM on June 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 8:44 AM on June 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
In fact, everything I’ve said up-thread about the “topic choice + metafilter” thing appears to be a straight paraphrase of LobsterMitten’s first comment: I am that man who sits in a meeting and repeats a woman’s contributions as if they’re my own idea. Argh.
posted by pharm at 8:48 AM on June 18, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by pharm at 8:48 AM on June 18, 2015 [5 favorites]
> It's the stated grounds for the deletion that bugged me, as I think I have said.
It's newsfiltery bullshit that some people can't seem to keep from behaving like jerks in.. I'm okay with that as a deletion reason. Blame the people with the behavior problem.
posted by rtha at 8:58 AM on June 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
It's newsfiltery bullshit that some people can't seem to keep from behaving like jerks in.. I'm okay with that as a deletion reason. Blame the people with the behavior problem.
posted by rtha at 8:58 AM on June 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
WRT to identity politics, I found this to be a useful introduction that's fairly accessible. Particularly relevant to this discussion:
The dangers of identity politics, then, are that it casts as authentic to the self or group an identity that in fact is defined by its opposition to an Other. Reclaiming such an identity as one's own merely reinforces its dependence on this dominant Other, and further internalizes and reinforces an oppressive hierarchy. While the charge that identity politics promotes a victim mentality is often a facile pot-shot, Wendy Brown offers a more sophisticated caution against the dangers of ressentiment (the moralizing revenge of the powerless). She argues that identity politics has its own genealogy in liberal capitalism that relentlessly reinforces the “wounded attachments” it claims to sever: “Politicized identity thus enunciates itself, makes claims for itself, only by entrenching, restating, dramatizing, and inscribing its pain in politics; it can hold out no future—for itself or others—that triumphs over this pain” (Brown 1995, 74). This challenge has been met with more intense discussion of the temporality of identity politics: can an identification be premised on a forward-looking solidarity rather than a ressentiment-laden exclusion (see Zerilli 2005; Weir 2008; Bhambra and Margee 2010)?posted by bonehead at 8:58 AM on June 18, 2015 [6 favorites]
I see no indication that a discussion of Dolezal has been BANNED 4EVA OMG. I bet in six weeks I could make an FPP about racial and cultural identity, the history of the Black identity in America specifically, the complicated edge cases around ethnic/cultural identity, and people who have chosen to present as an identity other than the one the Great American Racial Sorting Hat put them into -- referencing Dolezal in that last category -- and have it go just fine with some mod backup to make sure other bigoted irrelevancies didn't come into play. I bet that there are a dozen other ways you could write a post around issues that reference her as well. It's just that right now, new elements are coming to light on a daily basis AND the whole issue is currently tainted by the number of people saying "Wow, let's all gawk at this freaky-deek freak and compare her to other notable people whom we will also categorize as freaky-deek freaks for the purpose of this pseudo-news story!"
posted by KathrynT at 9:13 AM on June 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by KathrynT at 9:13 AM on June 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
There are multiple factors at play that mean potential Dolezal posts will skew toward a majority of racist/transphobic nonsense, which creates excessive work for mods and undue distress for affected minority users. The conversation that the majority of people want to have is fundamentally tainted by racist/transphobic nonsense. Without (I hope) going into enough detail to open a proxy debate:
1. "Transracial" is not a real thing. No scientific data or historical account supports it. There are plenty of historical cases of people "passing" for other races or being racially ambiguous or having complex thoughts on race. It'd be great to talk about those, and we can.
2. "Transracial" is a troll/bigot talking point. 4chan are having a field day and everyone's too dumb not to fall for it.
3. It is far too easy to use Dolezal as a cudgel to express racism or transphobia and loads of people are doing this. Many of the pieces folks want to post and discuss boil down to just this.
Beyond that, there are potentially interesting conversations to be had about race, but we'd still have to avoid outragefilter which is another enormous hurdle given the details of the story. And that's assuming the numbered points are things that can be jumped over. Currently they're exactly the things that the majority of users want to talk about--they're what will inevitably dominate a hypothetical Dolezal thread at this time, and that's the problem. Until enough users are on board with seeing that problem, any thread on this will go poorly. We're better off sticking to MetaBunny in the mean time.
posted by byanyothername at 9:20 AM on June 18, 2015 [10 favorites]
1. "Transracial" is not a real thing. No scientific data or historical account supports it. There are plenty of historical cases of people "passing" for other races or being racially ambiguous or having complex thoughts on race. It'd be great to talk about those, and we can.
2. "Transracial" is a troll/bigot talking point. 4chan are having a field day and everyone's too dumb not to fall for it.
3. It is far too easy to use Dolezal as a cudgel to express racism or transphobia and loads of people are doing this. Many of the pieces folks want to post and discuss boil down to just this.
Beyond that, there are potentially interesting conversations to be had about race, but we'd still have to avoid outragefilter which is another enormous hurdle given the details of the story. And that's assuming the numbered points are things that can be jumped over. Currently they're exactly the things that the majority of users want to talk about--they're what will inevitably dominate a hypothetical Dolezal thread at this time, and that's the problem. Until enough users are on board with seeing that problem, any thread on this will go poorly. We're better off sticking to MetaBunny in the mean time.
posted by byanyothername at 9:20 AM on June 18, 2015 [10 favorites]
Reclaiming such an identity as one's own merely reinforces its dependence on this dominant Other, and further internalizes and reinforces an oppressive hierarchy
One of the problems with this sort of post- or hyper-Althusserian characterization of identity is that it basically leaves one no room to maneuver. What is one to actually do with the identity you have been given? If your culture continually assaults you over the identity they have handed you, how can you not develop a sort of politics of pain? You are always being forced to react. You are left (if we're throwing cultural theory stuff around) with a Winnicottish "environment that insists on being important," that is not only always attempting to force your hand in matters of identity but the carefully scrutinizing, judging, and persecuting those actions it has itself prompted.
posted by mittens at 9:28 AM on June 18, 2015 [15 favorites]
One of the problems with this sort of post- or hyper-Althusserian characterization of identity is that it basically leaves one no room to maneuver. What is one to actually do with the identity you have been given? If your culture continually assaults you over the identity they have handed you, how can you not develop a sort of politics of pain? You are always being forced to react. You are left (if we're throwing cultural theory stuff around) with a Winnicottish "environment that insists on being important," that is not only always attempting to force your hand in matters of identity but the carefully scrutinizing, judging, and persecuting those actions it has itself prompted.
posted by mittens at 9:28 AM on June 18, 2015 [15 favorites]
There were 4 posts on this. They have different deletion reasons because we write the reasons per-post, we usually don't copy-paste them, and they aren't meant to capture everything that goes into a given post's deletion, there's just not room. (People can always contact us for fuller explanations.) These were all basically deleted for the same reason, which is the Dolezal story can't work here right now for the many reasons described upthread.
1
2
3
4
So: it's breaking-newsfilter, it's news of the weird, it's gawk at this one seemingly troubled lady, it's outragefilter because she's doing something prima facie wildly offensive (but we'll get some folks who want to defend it, or explore how someone might defend it), and it's inevitable offensive talking point filter (because the media coverage has put the "transracial" thing into the public's mind as an interesting superficially ok thing to talk about in the abstract, so any discussion of this will have person after person showing up wanting to talk about that, no matter how many deletions and mod notes there are). We gave the second post a shot, because we figured people would keep wanting to talk about it and we might at least give it a try, but yeah, it quickly went in the direction we had thought was inevitable.
In general we want people to be able to discuss tough topics. It's vanishingly rare that we think a topic really can't work at all here, at least for a given time. (The examples that come to mind are mostly I/P related.) I don't think this Dolezal thing represents a change in mod policy.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:33 AM on June 18, 2015 [15 favorites]
1
2
3
4
So: it's breaking-newsfilter, it's news of the weird, it's gawk at this one seemingly troubled lady, it's outragefilter because she's doing something prima facie wildly offensive (but we'll get some folks who want to defend it, or explore how someone might defend it), and it's inevitable offensive talking point filter (because the media coverage has put the "transracial" thing into the public's mind as an interesting superficially ok thing to talk about in the abstract, so any discussion of this will have person after person showing up wanting to talk about that, no matter how many deletions and mod notes there are). We gave the second post a shot, because we figured people would keep wanting to talk about it and we might at least give it a try, but yeah, it quickly went in the direction we had thought was inevitable.
In general we want people to be able to discuss tough topics. It's vanishingly rare that we think a topic really can't work at all here, at least for a given time. (The examples that come to mind are mostly I/P related.) I don't think this Dolezal thing represents a change in mod policy.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:33 AM on June 18, 2015 [15 favorites]
"Sometimes. Not always."
No, pretty much by definition whether or not someone is an asshole is a matter of opinion. I know saying "fact" makes for a simpler argument, but that assertion is the very reason why your retorts were not rebuttals to the comment you were addressing. You were basically responding to someone saying "Group opinion matters," with "My opinion is objective." It's why "don't be an asshole" doesn't scale as a guideline — to adhere to it, everyone has to agree what "asshole" means. Since it's nominally been the guideline since day one, it's pretty self evident that what people consider being an asshole has changed. Further, in this very thread there's a fair amount of contention over what constitutes being an asshole. So treating it as an objective fact is either dishonest or delusional.
People sometimes like to pretend their opinions are facts because they don't believe that opinions themselves are able to escape a relativist dismissal, but group norms are pretty much all just opinions that govern group interactions. Opinions don't have to be facts to matter.
posted by klangklangston at 9:35 AM on June 18, 2015 [8 favorites]
No, pretty much by definition whether or not someone is an asshole is a matter of opinion. I know saying "fact" makes for a simpler argument, but that assertion is the very reason why your retorts were not rebuttals to the comment you were addressing. You were basically responding to someone saying "Group opinion matters," with "My opinion is objective." It's why "don't be an asshole" doesn't scale as a guideline — to adhere to it, everyone has to agree what "asshole" means. Since it's nominally been the guideline since day one, it's pretty self evident that what people consider being an asshole has changed. Further, in this very thread there's a fair amount of contention over what constitutes being an asshole. So treating it as an objective fact is either dishonest or delusional.
People sometimes like to pretend their opinions are facts because they don't believe that opinions themselves are able to escape a relativist dismissal, but group norms are pretty much all just opinions that govern group interactions. Opinions don't have to be facts to matter.
posted by klangklangston at 9:35 AM on June 18, 2015 [8 favorites]
"I don't think this Dolezal thing represents a change in mod policy."
The bigger shift in mod policy has been aggressive deletions in MeTa, a shift not necessarily defined by novel practice (we've had some deletions in MeTa before) but in both scope and quantity.
posted by klangklangston at 9:38 AM on June 18, 2015 [6 favorites]
The bigger shift in mod policy has been aggressive deletions in MeTa, a shift not necessarily defined by novel practice (we've had some deletions in MeTa before) but in both scope and quantity.
posted by klangklangston at 9:38 AM on June 18, 2015 [6 favorites]
what, specifically, is it about Dolezal that you think is important or interesting enough that we should discuss it?
rtha, this is kind of a bad question in the thread where mods have explicitly said they don't want people talking about aspects of the Dolezal situation. Like, I don't think you're a bad person for asking it or that that was intentional, but I do think it'd be impossible to safely answer.
posted by corb at 9:38 AM on June 18, 2015 [6 favorites]
rtha, this is kind of a bad question in the thread where mods have explicitly said they don't want people talking about aspects of the Dolezal situation. Like, I don't think you're a bad person for asking it or that that was intentional, but I do think it'd be impossible to safely answer.
posted by corb at 9:38 AM on June 18, 2015 [6 favorites]
"You are always being forced to react. You are left (if we're throwing cultural theory stuff around) with a Winnicottish "environment that insists on being important," that is not only always attempting to force your hand in matters of identity but the carefully scrutinizing, judging, and persecuting those actions it has itself prompted."
Free will is probably an illusion anyway, so the room to maneuver may not even exist. Happy Meat Robot Day everyone!
posted by klangklangston at 9:42 AM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
Free will is probably an illusion anyway, so the room to maneuver may not even exist. Happy Meat Robot Day everyone!
posted by klangklangston at 9:42 AM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
One of the problems with this sort of post- or hyper-Althusserian characterization of identity is that it basically leaves one no room to maneuver.
That's why I posted it, I thought it brought that concern into some relief for a non-specialist like me.
It strikes me that many identity politics plays are used to create the excluded middle problems that plague these discussions. It's a trollish, peer-policing behaviour that reframes discussion into extreme positions. If we can recognize it as such, we can stop it.
posted by bonehead at 9:42 AM on June 18, 2015 [4 favorites]
That's why I posted it, I thought it brought that concern into some relief for a non-specialist like me.
It strikes me that many identity politics plays are used to create the excluded middle problems that plague these discussions. It's a trollish, peer-policing behaviour that reframes discussion into extreme positions. If we can recognize it as such, we can stop it.
posted by bonehead at 9:42 AM on June 18, 2015 [4 favorites]
I was trying to get at what it is Mid/others want to talk about. Race? Racial/cultural appropriation? Gender identity/presentation? Apparently, it is not those things, since topics on those have, do, and will exist on the blue. That is the point I keep trying and apparently failing to make. It is possible to say that those are things you want to discuss, and discuss them, without mentioning this woman at all.
posted by rtha at 9:42 AM on June 18, 2015 [12 favorites]
posted by rtha at 9:42 AM on June 18, 2015 [12 favorites]
The bigger shift in mod policy has been aggressive deletions in MeTa, a shift not necessarily defined by novel practice (we've had some deletions in MeTa before) but in both scope and quantity.
Nah, I think most of the deletions have been because people were dragging the topic back into this metatalk thread. Which has been a metatalk principle since forever - it’s just that because of the way the topic is central to the reasons for the original posts’ deletions it’s been more likely that the discussion here spills over into discussing the original topic all over again than it would be for the usual metatalk deletion discussion.
rtha: I don’t think corb can answer your question honestly without dragging into the thread exactly the topics which our QUILTBAG members have emphasised are hurtful. It seems to me to be a question that can only get corb in trouble if she answers it honestly, but leaves her looking like she’s avoiding the question if she doesn’t answer. I hope you didn’t do that intentionally, but if you did it’s really not playing fair.
posted by pharm at 9:46 AM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
Nah, I think most of the deletions have been because people were dragging the topic back into this metatalk thread. Which has been a metatalk principle since forever - it’s just that because of the way the topic is central to the reasons for the original posts’ deletions it’s been more likely that the discussion here spills over into discussing the original topic all over again than it would be for the usual metatalk deletion discussion.
rtha: I don’t think corb can answer your question honestly without dragging into the thread exactly the topics which our QUILTBAG members have emphasised are hurtful. It seems to me to be a question that can only get corb in trouble if she answers it honestly, but leaves her looking like she’s avoiding the question if she doesn’t answer. I hope you didn’t do that intentionally, but if you did it’s really not playing fair.
posted by pharm at 9:46 AM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
> I'll throw one more vote on the pile of disagreements with the idea that the Dolezal story, or any story, *should* be discussed on metafilter. In fact, by my understanding of what constitutes a good post for this place, the very idea that we "should be" discussing something is a warning sign that the theoretical post is on shaky ground. The heuristic is find things that are interesting for people to read or see or learn about, rather than to find things that, in the poster's estimation, people need to be informed of.
Quoted for truth. Since the earliest years of MetaFilter there have been plenty of members who, for understandable reasons (this is a great place to discuss things, after all), have felt strongly that everything they want to discuss should be posted here so they can discuss it. But that is not now, nor has it ever been, how this place is supposed to work. You're supposed to say "Hey, this is neat, I'll bet MeFites would like to see it!"—not "OMG, this is an outrage, MeFites need to see it."
posted by languagehat at 9:48 AM on June 18, 2015 [9 favorites]
Quoted for truth. Since the earliest years of MetaFilter there have been plenty of members who, for understandable reasons (this is a great place to discuss things, after all), have felt strongly that everything they want to discuss should be posted here so they can discuss it. But that is not now, nor has it ever been, how this place is supposed to work. You're supposed to say "Hey, this is neat, I'll bet MeFites would like to see it!"—not "OMG, this is an outrage, MeFites need to see it."
posted by languagehat at 9:48 AM on June 18, 2015 [9 favorites]
treating it as an objective fact is either dishonest or delusional.
I submit that if you think that you should be able to discuss what you think is a fascinating abstract subject while people for whom it's not an abstraction are saying "you know, we'd really prefer you not doing this, because we really don't want to hear it", you are objectively an asshole. Full stop.
And the whole "transracial" thing is horribly offensive and stupid; it's the same level of ignorance as "black people are culturally pathological because they have lower intelligence! IQ tests say so!" or "homosexuality is clearly an aberrant disorder, probably caused by a dysfunctional family environment!" These are clearly opinions that would make one an asshole, now; they may not have done in the not-too-distant past, but the world has moved on since then. It hasn't moved as far, yet, on some things; it will, eventually, I think, but in the meantime there are an awful lot of reactionaries who are upset at not being able to be assholes, anymore.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 9:50 AM on June 18, 2015 [6 favorites]
I submit that if you think that you should be able to discuss what you think is a fascinating abstract subject while people for whom it's not an abstraction are saying "you know, we'd really prefer you not doing this, because we really don't want to hear it", you are objectively an asshole. Full stop.
And the whole "transracial" thing is horribly offensive and stupid; it's the same level of ignorance as "black people are culturally pathological because they have lower intelligence! IQ tests say so!" or "homosexuality is clearly an aberrant disorder, probably caused by a dysfunctional family environment!" These are clearly opinions that would make one an asshole, now; they may not have done in the not-too-distant past, but the world has moved on since then. It hasn't moved as far, yet, on some things; it will, eventually, I think, but in the meantime there are an awful lot of reactionaries who are upset at not being able to be assholes, anymore.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 9:50 AM on June 18, 2015 [6 favorites]
WRT to identity politics, I found this to be a useful introduction that's fairly accessible. Particularly relevant to this discussion:
This was written by Dr. Cressida Heyes. She's a Chair in the philosophy of gender and sexuality at U of Alberta, and has written books and essays about both trans people and her belief that people can "change race." She's thoughtful and opinionated, and imo, makes a lot of assumptions about racial appropriation, ethic identity and motivations that are too complex to go into here. (Plus, it's not really appropriate in MeTa to do so.) I honestly don't know enough about the topics to understand if her assumptions are accurate, but she asserts them as facts, which makes me wonder.
I personally wouldn't take anything she said as a primer on identity politics, especially when it comes to trans folks, without also looking at other sources. YMMV, of course.
posted by zarq at 9:50 AM on June 18, 2015 [7 favorites]
This was written by Dr. Cressida Heyes. She's a Chair in the philosophy of gender and sexuality at U of Alberta, and has written books and essays about both trans people and her belief that people can "change race." She's thoughtful and opinionated, and imo, makes a lot of assumptions about racial appropriation, ethic identity and motivations that are too complex to go into here. (Plus, it's not really appropriate in MeTa to do so.) I honestly don't know enough about the topics to understand if her assumptions are accurate, but she asserts them as facts, which makes me wonder.
I personally wouldn't take anything she said as a primer on identity politics, especially when it comes to trans folks, without also looking at other sources. YMMV, of course.
posted by zarq at 9:50 AM on June 18, 2015 [7 favorites]
You're supposed to say "Hey, this is neat, I'll bet MeFites would like to see it!"—not "OMG, this is an outrage, MeFites need to see it."
Yeah, while I think the "good old days" had their positive moments as well as the oft-mentioned negative ones, one very constant pillar of moderation then was the "best of the web" element, where both news-as-news and outrage posts would get deleted pretty quickly.
So in the old days mods would have left "transracial" comments up but probably deleted the post on other grounds.
posted by GuyZero at 9:52 AM on June 18, 2015
Yeah, while I think the "good old days" had their positive moments as well as the oft-mentioned negative ones, one very constant pillar of moderation then was the "best of the web" element, where both news-as-news and outrage posts would get deleted pretty quickly.
So in the old days mods would have left "transracial" comments up but probably deleted the post on other grounds.
posted by GuyZero at 9:52 AM on June 18, 2015
"I submit that if you think that you should be able to discuss what you think is a fascinating abstract subject while people for whom it's not an abstraction are saying "you know, we'd really prefer you not doing this, because we really don't want to hear it", you are objectively an asshole. Full stop. "
I submit that if you think that people whom you consider assholes are objectively assholes, you are an asshole and your arguments on assholes will not convince the people whom you consider assholes.
Like I said, something doesn't have to be objective to be true or valid, and pretending it does only weakens the argument that any given person's opinions on an issue are weighty enough to be persuasive.
posted by klangklangston at 10:09 AM on June 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
I submit that if you think that people whom you consider assholes are objectively assholes, you are an asshole and your arguments on assholes will not convince the people whom you consider assholes.
Like I said, something doesn't have to be objective to be true or valid, and pretending it does only weakens the argument that any given person's opinions on an issue are weighty enough to be persuasive.
posted by klangklangston at 10:09 AM on June 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
> rtha: I don’t think corb can answer your question honestly without dragging into the thread exactly the topics which our QUILTBAG members have emphasised are hurtful. It seems to me to be a question that can only get corb in trouble if she answers it honestly, but leaves her looking like she’s avoiding the question if she doesn’t answer. I hope you didn’t do that intentionally, but if you did it’s really not playing fair.
What? No, and I wasn't asking corb: I was replying to corb's question. corb's been pretty clear since a couple days ago anyway that she understands what it is about the Dolezal story that is (currently) off-limits. I was asking other people for clarification on what "topic" about this they think is banned (for now).
posted by rtha at 10:09 AM on June 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
What? No, and I wasn't asking corb: I was replying to corb's question. corb's been pretty clear since a couple days ago anyway that she understands what it is about the Dolezal story that is (currently) off-limits. I was asking other people for clarification on what "topic" about this they think is banned (for now).
posted by rtha at 10:09 AM on June 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
Honestly if it wasn't for this place I would entertain the idea of transracial being at least possibly a thing. I'm sure if I hung out with a lot of trans* people or read trans* writing I would learn that transracial is a goofball idea, but that would take a lot of time and energy that I don't have. Here, I can just learn from people by passively reading comments.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:10 AM on June 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:10 AM on June 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
Please don't call people assholes, even in a conditional - it doesn't make this stuff go better.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 10:11 AM on June 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 10:11 AM on June 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
rtha: I don’t think corb can answer your question honestly without dragging into the thread exactly the topics which our QUILTBAG members have emphasised are hurtful. It seems to me to be a question that can only get corb in trouble if she answers it honestly, but leaves her looking like she’s avoiding the question if she doesn’t answer. I hope you didn’t do that intentionally, but if you did it’s really not playing fair.
It seems to me that the legitimate aspects of the specific incident are easily addressed (and, in some cases are being addressed in FPPs right now). The only "illegitimate" aspect of the story (beyond its status as breaking news outragefilter) was the weird backhand against trans people. If that's what you want to address, yeah, I think it's off the table (and would take an insanely well-constructed FPP to tackle, with the proviso that the people actually able to frame that imaginary FPP have likely no interest in doing so, because it's an awful topic).
posted by GenjiandProust at 10:16 AM on June 18, 2015
It seems to me that the legitimate aspects of the specific incident are easily addressed (and, in some cases are being addressed in FPPs right now). The only "illegitimate" aspect of the story (beyond its status as breaking news outragefilter) was the weird backhand against trans people. If that's what you want to address, yeah, I think it's off the table (and would take an insanely well-constructed FPP to tackle, with the proviso that the people actually able to frame that imaginary FPP have likely no interest in doing so, because it's an awful topic).
posted by GenjiandProust at 10:16 AM on June 18, 2015
I just wanted to quote Ashen's wonderful comment above for emphasis. It seems like people are trying to assert that wanting to talk about this issue at all makes one an asshole, with which I strongly disagree. There are plenty of reasons to want to talk about Dolezal that don't make you an asshole. That isn't to say that those reasons are sufficient to protect a post from deletion here, because after this thread I'm definitely convinced that ignorant shitty comments will ruin it for us, but there are absolutely reasons why people would want to talk about this that do not just come from bigotry and I don't think it's really fair to argue or imply that anyone who wants to talk about this must have some weird ulterior motive or whatever.
I strongly disagree with this [that Dolezal doesn't matter]. The Dolezal fiasco is endemic to the same racial dynamics that helped to create the environment for the church shooting. Those dynamics need to be dragged out into the light and discussed. Both events have value. As a Black person who has watched people debate whether Black womanhood should even warrant protection from appropriation, and who is bracing themselves for the oncoming wave of people giving this dude the benefit of the doubt, those topics also have value to me. I do not believe I am alone in that.
posted by dialetheia at 10:19 AM on June 18, 2015 [11 favorites]
I strongly disagree with this [that Dolezal doesn't matter]. The Dolezal fiasco is endemic to the same racial dynamics that helped to create the environment for the church shooting. Those dynamics need to be dragged out into the light and discussed. Both events have value. As a Black person who has watched people debate whether Black womanhood should even warrant protection from appropriation, and who is bracing themselves for the oncoming wave of people giving this dude the benefit of the doubt, those topics also have value to me. I do not believe I am alone in that.
posted by dialetheia at 10:19 AM on June 18, 2015 [11 favorites]
Rtha - it's not really disputable that the mods took action to stop people from talking about something. It's weird to keep demanding that non-mods provide a definition of what the mods wanted people to stop talking about. I get your point that the general topics of race/gender/etc are not banned. That's a fair point. But to keep saying that nothing was banned - it just doesn't square with multiple deletions. Clearly, this specific story is off-limits for some period.
posted by Mid at 10:22 AM on June 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Mid at 10:22 AM on June 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
how is my comment less legitimate than pharm's comments or anyone else's comment about site policy if the mods have already told us what site policy is?
I never said it wasn't legitimate -- this is the grey, and so comments about site policy belong here. However, while it isn't illegitimate, it is nonetheless pointless.
This is an enormous thread, and has likely taken up the majority of mod time in the past few days. The mods have been pretty consistent in explaining how this is an edge case, and that this does not reflect any kind of ban on a topic, or any kind of policy change. Despite that, you've decided that it's really important to continue the argument against the very policy change that's not happening and is not (as far as can be told) even up for discussion.
There's about as much point in that as there is in arguing about the looming dangers of Reddit-style shadowbanning, or mods silently editing peoples' comments, or any number of other things that maybe would be bad except oh hey they're not policy and the mods have made it abundantly clear that they never will be.
posted by tocts at 10:23 AM on June 18, 2015
I never said it wasn't legitimate -- this is the grey, and so comments about site policy belong here. However, while it isn't illegitimate, it is nonetheless pointless.
This is an enormous thread, and has likely taken up the majority of mod time in the past few days. The mods have been pretty consistent in explaining how this is an edge case, and that this does not reflect any kind of ban on a topic, or any kind of policy change. Despite that, you've decided that it's really important to continue the argument against the very policy change that's not happening and is not (as far as can be told) even up for discussion.
There's about as much point in that as there is in arguing about the looming dangers of Reddit-style shadowbanning, or mods silently editing peoples' comments, or any number of other things that maybe would be bad except oh hey they're not policy and the mods have made it abundantly clear that they never will be.
posted by tocts at 10:23 AM on June 18, 2015
Clearly, this specific story is off-limits for some period.
Off-limits for a little while is not the same as "banned."
posted by zarq at 10:24 AM on June 18, 2015 [4 favorites]
Off-limits for a little while is not the same as "banned."
posted by zarq at 10:24 AM on June 18, 2015 [4 favorites]
I guess I'm just getting frustrated at seeing the same language being used to dismiss the experience of Black women on this subject (the idea that Dolezal doesn't matter at all, that it's just news of the weird crazy white folks stuff) also being used to justify the decision not to have a post about this. Surely we can talk about all this without being too dismissive of people who do want to talk about this story for 100% solid reasons.
posted by dialetheia at 10:25 AM on June 18, 2015 [13 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 10:25 AM on June 18, 2015 [13 favorites]
rtha: (that was to corb.)
You can see why I might be confused?
Genji: I don’t want to discuss it. Or at least I don’t see that having that discussion right now is worth the pain inflicted.
posted by pharm at 10:30 AM on June 18, 2015
You can see why I might be confused?
Genji: I don’t want to discuss it. Or at least I don’t see that having that discussion right now is worth the pain inflicted.
posted by pharm at 10:30 AM on June 18, 2015
dialetheia: I think that people are saying there is nothing specific to the Dolezal case that is important to talk about, not that there is nothing important to talk about regarding the more general experience of Black women and other related issues.
The issues that you want to talk about can be covered in other FPPs that don't mention Dolezal and thus don't drag in all the icky baggage that has sprung up around her due to the successful hijacking of the story and associated talking points by the anti-transgender bigotry brigade.
posted by Jacqueline at 10:33 AM on June 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
The issues that you want to talk about can be covered in other FPPs that don't mention Dolezal and thus don't drag in all the icky baggage that has sprung up around her due to the successful hijacking of the story and associated talking points by the anti-transgender bigotry brigade.
posted by Jacqueline at 10:33 AM on June 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
"I just wanted to quote Ashen's wonderful comment above for emphasis."
I'm glad you made that comment and quoted Ashen because, yeah, the thing that bothered me about the comments to which Ashen was responding was not so much that they implied that wanting to talk about Dolezal was wrong, but that it was inherently trivial. I mean, I understand that some of those comments were well-intended and implicitly contrasting an arguably confused and odd woman with the terrorist murders that happened last night -- but as Ashen pointed out, there are things implicit in what Dolezal did that really do matter, and in ways that represent larger problems and, more to the point, numerous black people here and in the deleted thread have expressed that the whole incident deeply upsets them. So dismissing it as unimportant or trivial is ... not good. It was a misstep, it was well-intended to make a different point, but inadvertently reveals a white privilege of a) not really getting why Dolezal is upsetting to many people, and b) not really listening when those people have expressed that they're upset. And so it is, sadly, not unlike the very problems that were present in the deleted thread.
And, again, that doesn't mean that anyone is a bad person. I'm personally weirdly grateful that the Dolezal posts were deleted because I have no confidence that I wouldn't have written something poorly-considered and hurtful. We all have blind spots, we all have to constantly work to correct them. But to do that we really have to be willing to listen and think and not just react because where we have relative privilege, our unthinking reactions are highly likely to involve throwing that privilege around.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 10:35 AM on June 18, 2015 [13 favorites]
I'm glad you made that comment and quoted Ashen because, yeah, the thing that bothered me about the comments to which Ashen was responding was not so much that they implied that wanting to talk about Dolezal was wrong, but that it was inherently trivial. I mean, I understand that some of those comments were well-intended and implicitly contrasting an arguably confused and odd woman with the terrorist murders that happened last night -- but as Ashen pointed out, there are things implicit in what Dolezal did that really do matter, and in ways that represent larger problems and, more to the point, numerous black people here and in the deleted thread have expressed that the whole incident deeply upsets them. So dismissing it as unimportant or trivial is ... not good. It was a misstep, it was well-intended to make a different point, but inadvertently reveals a white privilege of a) not really getting why Dolezal is upsetting to many people, and b) not really listening when those people have expressed that they're upset. And so it is, sadly, not unlike the very problems that were present in the deleted thread.
And, again, that doesn't mean that anyone is a bad person. I'm personally weirdly grateful that the Dolezal posts were deleted because I have no confidence that I wouldn't have written something poorly-considered and hurtful. We all have blind spots, we all have to constantly work to correct them. But to do that we really have to be willing to listen and think and not just react because where we have relative privilege, our unthinking reactions are highly likely to involve throwing that privilege around.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 10:35 AM on June 18, 2015 [13 favorites]
> You can see why I might be confused?
I was replying to her question. Not asking her. We chatted over memail. It's fine. Sorry it was so confusing.
posted by rtha at 10:36 AM on June 18, 2015 [6 favorites]
I was replying to her question. Not asking her. We chatted over memail. It's fine. Sorry it was so confusing.
posted by rtha at 10:36 AM on June 18, 2015 [6 favorites]
hooray for people actually taking it to memail
posted by Jacqueline at 10:37 AM on June 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Jacqueline at 10:37 AM on June 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
oh yeah sorry, went to memail and didn't alert the thread, no issues with rtha.
posted by corb at 10:49 AM on June 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by corb at 10:49 AM on June 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
It seems like people are trying to assert that wanting to talk about this issue at all makes one an asshole
Not at all. People wanting to talk about that "transracial" nonsense, and comparing Dolezal to Caitlyn Jenner? THOSE are the assholes, here. If that's what you want to talk about and how you want to approach this issue, then it's a problem. (It doesn't matter if you can find a person of colour making those arguments, as though that gives them validity.) Those assholes are precisely why this whole discussion was deleted in the first place (along with a pretty fair number of posts in this thread). There is possibly an interesting discussion to be had about race, identity, and "passing", but not as long as people are going to try to make "transracial" a thing.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 10:56 AM on June 18, 2015 [5 favorites]
Not at all. People wanting to talk about that "transracial" nonsense, and comparing Dolezal to Caitlyn Jenner? THOSE are the assholes, here. If that's what you want to talk about and how you want to approach this issue, then it's a problem. (It doesn't matter if you can find a person of colour making those arguments, as though that gives them validity.) Those assholes are precisely why this whole discussion was deleted in the first place (along with a pretty fair number of posts in this thread). There is possibly an interesting discussion to be had about race, identity, and "passing", but not as long as people are going to try to make "transracial" a thing.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 10:56 AM on June 18, 2015 [5 favorites]
Off-limits for a little while is not the same as "banned."
It's like rationing water here in California right now. Sometimes, no, we can't make 100 water balloons.* But we can when the climate is a little bit better.
please feel free to nominate me for the bad analogy of the month award.
*mefites are not water balloons.
posted by SpacemanStix at 10:57 AM on June 18, 2015 [4 favorites]
It's like rationing water here in California right now. Sometimes, no, we can't make 100 water balloons.* But we can when the climate is a little bit better.
please feel free to nominate me for the bad analogy of the month award.
*mefites are not water balloons.
posted by SpacemanStix at 10:57 AM on June 18, 2015 [4 favorites]
Honestly if it wasn't for this place I would entertain the idea of transracial being at least possibly a thing. I'm sure if I hung out with a lot of trans* people or read trans* writing I would learn that transracial is a goofball idea, but that would take a lot of time and energy that I don't have. Here, I can just learn from people by passively reading comments.
That's very good that you're gaining exposure from comments this way, but an important distinction needs to be made about the conditions in which people are writing their comments under. In the Dolezal discussions, people were actively baiting trans people into fights by tossing out transphobic garbage. This is a far cry from trans people writing insightful comments on their own terms. We need way, way less of the former, especially since it's kind of exhausting and shellshocking people from doing the latter. Not just for trans people, but pretty much all minorities - the Dolezal FPPs just stand as a very glaring example of this trope because there should really be no reason why trans people should be dragged into defending their basic humanity in a thread about racial relations. But basically, any time anyone throws out dogwhistles - "objective analyses", "innocent questions", "arguments minorities probably haven't considered", etc - they are dragging minorities into this exact type of fight.
It is a shitty and unlevel playing field with no way to win. If people don't call that shit out, it stands, gets absorbed into the background of Metafilter, and incrementally moves Metafilter into a space actively hostile towards minorities. If people do call that shit out, they get subject to a long, emotionally tiring battle. Conditions are actively leveled against them. If they show the least bit of hostility - or even directness rather than ass-sucking - they get accused of being hostile and shouty. If they use a term that is incredibly useful but might not be familiar to even a single person in the conversation, they get accused of jargon and not trying to educate people. If they say "hey, this argument is kind of offensive", they get accused of creating "safe-space echo chamber censorship". If they dare talk about their feelings of marginalization, exhaustion, anger or pain, they get accused of being too sensitive and fragile for "the truth'. And even if they somehow manage to conjure a perfectly crafted comment that avoids all of those pitfalls - by default of challenging default viewpoints from an identity intimate to it - they get accused of being too close to the issue, too emotionally entangled in it to be able to "debate" it from an "objective viewpoint" - objective like how the default cis white male contrarian viewpoint always conveniently ends up being.
Fuck that noise. People on metafilter need to stop orchestrating situations where they drag minorities into dancing for their own amusement, even if it "furthers their own education."
posted by Conspire at 10:59 AM on June 18, 2015 [43 favorites]
That's very good that you're gaining exposure from comments this way, but an important distinction needs to be made about the conditions in which people are writing their comments under. In the Dolezal discussions, people were actively baiting trans people into fights by tossing out transphobic garbage. This is a far cry from trans people writing insightful comments on their own terms. We need way, way less of the former, especially since it's kind of exhausting and shellshocking people from doing the latter. Not just for trans people, but pretty much all minorities - the Dolezal FPPs just stand as a very glaring example of this trope because there should really be no reason why trans people should be dragged into defending their basic humanity in a thread about racial relations. But basically, any time anyone throws out dogwhistles - "objective analyses", "innocent questions", "arguments minorities probably haven't considered", etc - they are dragging minorities into this exact type of fight.
It is a shitty and unlevel playing field with no way to win. If people don't call that shit out, it stands, gets absorbed into the background of Metafilter, and incrementally moves Metafilter into a space actively hostile towards minorities. If people do call that shit out, they get subject to a long, emotionally tiring battle. Conditions are actively leveled against them. If they show the least bit of hostility - or even directness rather than ass-sucking - they get accused of being hostile and shouty. If they use a term that is incredibly useful but might not be familiar to even a single person in the conversation, they get accused of jargon and not trying to educate people. If they say "hey, this argument is kind of offensive", they get accused of creating "safe-space echo chamber censorship". If they dare talk about their feelings of marginalization, exhaustion, anger or pain, they get accused of being too sensitive and fragile for "the truth'. And even if they somehow manage to conjure a perfectly crafted comment that avoids all of those pitfalls - by default of challenging default viewpoints from an identity intimate to it - they get accused of being too close to the issue, too emotionally entangled in it to be able to "debate" it from an "objective viewpoint" - objective like how the default cis white male contrarian viewpoint always conveniently ends up being.
Fuck that noise. People on metafilter need to stop orchestrating situations where they drag minorities into dancing for their own amusement, even if it "furthers their own education."
posted by Conspire at 10:59 AM on June 18, 2015 [43 favorites]
There is possibly an interesting discussion to be had about race, identity, and "passing", but not as long as people are going to try to make "transracial" a thing.
Stop trying to make "transracial" happen! It's not going to happen!
posted by Jacqueline at 11:00 AM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
Stop trying to make "transracial" happen! It's not going to happen!
posted by Jacqueline at 11:00 AM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
And, again, that doesn't mean that anyone is a bad person. I'm personally weirdly grateful that the Dolezal posts were deleted because I have no confidence that I wouldn't have written something poorly-considered and hurtful. We all have blind spots, we all have to constantly work to correct them. But to do that we really have to be willing to listen and think and not just react because where we have relative privilege, our unthinking reactions are highly likely to involve throwing that privilege around.
I think some topics are just begging for reactions that have the potential to hurt people rather than encourage critical thinking and empathy. Maybe this is already obvious, but I would be okay if this is a criteria that we actually use to decide whether or not a post is worthy of staying. I think this is often what the moderators often convey in their rationale, but to include that understanding as part of our broader narrative on explaining why things occasionally get deleted would be okay with me.
posted by SpacemanStix at 11:01 AM on June 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
I think some topics are just begging for reactions that have the potential to hurt people rather than encourage critical thinking and empathy. Maybe this is already obvious, but I would be okay if this is a criteria that we actually use to decide whether or not a post is worthy of staying. I think this is often what the moderators often convey in their rationale, but to include that understanding as part of our broader narrative on explaining why things occasionally get deleted would be okay with me.
posted by SpacemanStix at 11:01 AM on June 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
What is one to actually do with the identity you have been given? If your culture continually assaults you over the identity they have handed you, how can you not develop a sort of politics of pain?
I have to agree. I've seen less obtuse versions of the argument you're responding to, and it basically boils down to "your $IDENTITY is just a reactive and aggressive stance". Two immediate problems with this are a) assuming a more precise identity that reflects who you are is only a threatening aggression to people who think a change to the status quo is in itself aggression, and b) this argument also assumes that one can't also be building bridges and trying to make people understand what this identity is all about while at the same time fighting oppression, too. And that's before we even get to what, exactly, is the "proper" way to push back against oppression. Someone who thinks just clarifying your identity is an act of aggression in itself is not likely to offer any kind of way to combat oppression that meets their standards of what constitutes non-aggressive. I also have to wonder why aggression is of itself a bad thing. If someone is punching you in the face, you had better be aggressive; trying to stop them by offering to educate them on the finger points of what's wrong with face-punching is not likely to make much progress.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 11:07 AM on June 18, 2015 [6 favorites]
I have to agree. I've seen less obtuse versions of the argument you're responding to, and it basically boils down to "your $IDENTITY is just a reactive and aggressive stance". Two immediate problems with this are a) assuming a more precise identity that reflects who you are is only a threatening aggression to people who think a change to the status quo is in itself aggression, and b) this argument also assumes that one can't also be building bridges and trying to make people understand what this identity is all about while at the same time fighting oppression, too. And that's before we even get to what, exactly, is the "proper" way to push back against oppression. Someone who thinks just clarifying your identity is an act of aggression in itself is not likely to offer any kind of way to combat oppression that meets their standards of what constitutes non-aggressive. I also have to wonder why aggression is of itself a bad thing. If someone is punching you in the face, you had better be aggressive; trying to stop them by offering to educate them on the finger points of what's wrong with face-punching is not likely to make much progress.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 11:07 AM on June 18, 2015 [6 favorites]
Or the finer points, for that matter, you know, whichever works ...
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 11:13 AM on June 18, 2015
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 11:13 AM on June 18, 2015
I think another assumption behind that is that we actually could assimilate into the dominant culture if we didn't adopt this oppositional stance. And, to shine a light on my personal baggage, I get a bit sick of theoretical discussions of my identity that don't directly confront either the historic harms of assimilation, or the current harms that kill thousands of us every year.
And I see that as a stark difference to ethnic and national identity where groups that are insulated from the worst forms of discrimination and prejudice tend to assimilate into the larger culture, often voluntarily.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 11:38 AM on June 18, 2015 [6 favorites]
And I see that as a stark difference to ethnic and national identity where groups that are insulated from the worst forms of discrimination and prejudice tend to assimilate into the larger culture, often voluntarily.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 11:38 AM on June 18, 2015 [6 favorites]
This is a weird edge case where the rhetoric surrounding it in the media was hijacked by bad actors and you cannot generalise from this case.
something tells me that the FPP that will finally work with regard to this situation will focus on stuff that takes this sort of tack ...
posted by philip-random at 11:48 AM on June 18, 2015
something tells me that the FPP that will finally work with regard to this situation will focus on stuff that takes this sort of tack ...
posted by philip-random at 11:48 AM on June 18, 2015
Fuck that noise. People on metafilter need to stop orchestrating situations where they drag minorities into dancing for their own amusement, even if it "furthers their own education."
Okay, no. Look, I'm not trying to make any monkeys dance here, I'm interested in not being the kind of asshole that causes people in positions of non-power pain, and that's at a minimum. The goal is to be able to help a bit, or a lot.
You say discussion of a given type is hurtful, fine - I won't say a damned thing about it, ever again. But understand that unless and until you DO say it, I don't frigging know, because the goddamn knapsack comes with blinders, much as I wish it didn't.
Done now. Sorry if I offend.
posted by Mooski at 12:13 PM on June 18, 2015
Okay, no. Look, I'm not trying to make any monkeys dance here, I'm interested in not being the kind of asshole that causes people in positions of non-power pain, and that's at a minimum. The goal is to be able to help a bit, or a lot.
You say discussion of a given type is hurtful, fine - I won't say a damned thing about it, ever again. But understand that unless and until you DO say it, I don't frigging know, because the goddamn knapsack comes with blinders, much as I wish it didn't.
Done now. Sorry if I offend.
posted by Mooski at 12:13 PM on June 18, 2015
That's a really unfortunate word choice, Mooski. Just wanted to point that out.
posted by bgal81 at 12:22 PM on June 18, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by bgal81 at 12:22 PM on June 18, 2015 [5 favorites]
Mooski: "Fuck that noise. People on metafilter need to stop orchestrating situations where they drag minorities into dancing for their own amusement, even if it "furthers their own education."
Okay, no. Look, I'm not trying to make any monkeys dance here, I'm interested in not being the kind of asshole that causes people in positions of non-power pain, and that's at a minimum. The goal is to be able to help a bit, or a lot.
You say discussion of a given type is hurtful, fine - I won't say a damned thing about it, ever again. But understand that unless and until you DO say it, I don't frigging know, because the goddamn knapsack comes with blinders, much as I wish it didn't.
Done now. Sorry if I offend."
I think there's a distinction to be made, and most people on MetaFilter make it on a regular basis, between genuine ignorance and disingenuousness.
The problem is that intent is almost impossible to read accurately 100% of the time when you're dealing with text, and that's where past history, both in a thread and across MetaFilter, comes into the picture.
There's also a big difference between saying "I don't understand this concept, even though I've read about it, please help me understand" and "I read about this concept and this concept is stupid/here is my hot new iconoclastic take".
Because there's never a bright line, there are people who, for whatever reason, like to camouflage the second behavior as the first. And there's not much we as a community can do about that sort of, I guess, rules-lawyering, JAQing-off behavior.
posted by scrump at 12:26 PM on June 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
Okay, no. Look, I'm not trying to make any monkeys dance here, I'm interested in not being the kind of asshole that causes people in positions of non-power pain, and that's at a minimum. The goal is to be able to help a bit, or a lot.
You say discussion of a given type is hurtful, fine - I won't say a damned thing about it, ever again. But understand that unless and until you DO say it, I don't frigging know, because the goddamn knapsack comes with blinders, much as I wish it didn't.
Done now. Sorry if I offend."
I think there's a distinction to be made, and most people on MetaFilter make it on a regular basis, between genuine ignorance and disingenuousness.
The problem is that intent is almost impossible to read accurately 100% of the time when you're dealing with text, and that's where past history, both in a thread and across MetaFilter, comes into the picture.
There's also a big difference between saying "I don't understand this concept, even though I've read about it, please help me understand" and "I read about this concept and this concept is stupid/here is my hot new iconoclastic take".
Because there's never a bright line, there are people who, for whatever reason, like to camouflage the second behavior as the first. And there's not much we as a community can do about that sort of, I guess, rules-lawyering, JAQing-off behavior.
posted by scrump at 12:26 PM on June 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
She's thoughtful and opinionated, and imo, makes a lot of assumptions about racial appropriation, ethic identity and motivations that are too complex to go into here.
Academic viewpoints, like all others, are never neutral. She's writing from an non-American context too. Everything has to be read critically. This has been a long thread, and I appreciate that, but I think
I personally wouldn't take anything she said as a primer on identity politics, especially when it comes to trans folks, without also looking at other sources. YMMV, of course.
Yes, she has directly addresses trans-racialism in that article , and, tangential to this discussion, I found her other writings helpful for understanding specifically why the analogy to trans sexual identity isn't defensible (If you follow zarq's link, it's liked to directly off of her home page). With respect zarq, your brief summary and my understanding of her writings are not in agreement. I posted that section in particular however, because she reviews the issues of identity politics raised here, and illuminates many of those same concerns.
Case in point, linking to an article in this thread that explicitly triggers the exact fucking reason the other FPPs were deleted, as explained in comment #1 of this thread, is not a useful contribution, and it's insulting to try and slip that under the radar by claiming "oh a POC wrote it!" or "here's a useful primer!"
I've been trying to get my head around the issue by doing a lit review. This article is one of the best and most accessible I've found from a source that's about as mainstream as you can get. I'm not trying to put one over on anyone. She doesn't appear to self-identify as anything beyond an academic in that article, or that I can find elsewhere. This purports to be a main stream summary from someone with what appear to be significant academic chops. the article had been through significant peer review, and is subject to regular update (if you believe the editorial statements on the site). I will grant you that it many not be the last word on these issue, but it appears to be, it represents itself as, an summary of expert thought in these areas.
Why raise it here? while it does touch on issues raised in the deleted posts, it also specifically discusses the issues surrounding moderation here, and the problems that can result from specific constructions, identity politics. Moderation policy is based on lived-experience here most of the time, but that's not the only way to tackle these issues. Heyes' work is directly applicable to the questions about attacks made using imposed identities and marginalization though the use of identity politics and, further, she identifies mitigation for that.
posted by bonehead at 1:00 PM on June 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
Academic viewpoints, like all others, are never neutral. She's writing from an non-American context too. Everything has to be read critically. This has been a long thread, and I appreciate that, but I think
I personally wouldn't take anything she said as a primer on identity politics, especially when it comes to trans folks, without also looking at other sources. YMMV, of course.
Yes, she has directly addresses trans-racialism in that article , and, tangential to this discussion, I found her other writings helpful for understanding specifically why the analogy to trans sexual identity isn't defensible (If you follow zarq's link, it's liked to directly off of her home page). With respect zarq, your brief summary and my understanding of her writings are not in agreement. I posted that section in particular however, because she reviews the issues of identity politics raised here, and illuminates many of those same concerns.
Case in point, linking to an article in this thread that explicitly triggers the exact fucking reason the other FPPs were deleted, as explained in comment #1 of this thread, is not a useful contribution, and it's insulting to try and slip that under the radar by claiming "oh a POC wrote it!" or "here's a useful primer!"
I've been trying to get my head around the issue by doing a lit review. This article is one of the best and most accessible I've found from a source that's about as mainstream as you can get. I'm not trying to put one over on anyone. She doesn't appear to self-identify as anything beyond an academic in that article, or that I can find elsewhere. This purports to be a main stream summary from someone with what appear to be significant academic chops. the article had been through significant peer review, and is subject to regular update (if you believe the editorial statements on the site). I will grant you that it many not be the last word on these issue, but it appears to be, it represents itself as, an summary of expert thought in these areas.
Why raise it here? while it does touch on issues raised in the deleted posts, it also specifically discusses the issues surrounding moderation here, and the problems that can result from specific constructions, identity politics. Moderation policy is based on lived-experience here most of the time, but that's not the only way to tackle these issues. Heyes' work is directly applicable to the questions about attacks made using imposed identities and marginalization though the use of identity politics and, further, she identifies mitigation for that.
posted by bonehead at 1:00 PM on June 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
your brief summary and my understanding of her writings are diametrically opposed.
OK.
For whatever it's worth, I really, really didn't think you were trying to "put one over on anyone." Didn't even occur to me. If I gave you or anyone else that impression, I sincerely apologize.
posted by zarq at 1:05 PM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
OK.
For whatever it's worth, I really, really didn't think you were trying to "put one over on anyone." Didn't even occur to me. If I gave you or anyone else that impression, I sincerely apologize.
posted by zarq at 1:05 PM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
Mooski: A while back, I participated in a thread about a trans service member. In doing so, I used the word "transgendered", after other people had already said that "transgender" was the preferred term -- more accurately, that it was the correct term. I apologized, and the thread moved on. Later in the thread, someone else argued with the "correctness" of that word choice -- literally saying "You don't get to choose which words are not allowed in the language", and it became a thing that required mod intervention.
So why didn't I bristle at being corrected? Because a kinda snotty comment about my use of a word is roughly one billionth of the agita over trans issues that any trans person experiences. I don't need to get that nano-aggression point back to restore myself to balance.
posted by Etrigan at 1:07 PM on June 18, 2015 [15 favorites]
So why didn't I bristle at being corrected? Because a kinda snotty comment about my use of a word is roughly one billionth of the agita over trans issues that any trans person experiences. I don't need to get that nano-aggression point back to restore myself to balance.
posted by Etrigan at 1:07 PM on June 18, 2015 [15 favorites]
No animus on this side of the table.
To finish my thought above: This has been a long thread, and I appreciate that, but I think she brings some perspective here about the forcing of identity onto people that haven't yet been considered.
posted by bonehead at 1:09 PM on June 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
To finish my thought above: This has been a long thread, and I appreciate that, but I think she brings some perspective here about the forcing of identity onto people that haven't yet been considered.
posted by bonehead at 1:09 PM on June 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
I think it's a problem that "about as mainstream as you can get" is considered desirable in a source, or that not being Black or trans makes somebody more credible. That's just exacerbating the problem of talking about people instead of listening to them. And that's where a lot of the problems in the discussion come from, I think.
posted by Lexica at 1:09 PM on June 18, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by Lexica at 1:09 PM on June 18, 2015 [8 favorites]
, or that not being Black or trans makes somebody more credible
Where was this said?
posted by OmieWise at 1:21 PM on June 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
Where was this said?
posted by OmieWise at 1:21 PM on June 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
I think it's a problem that "about as mainstream as you can get" is considered desirable in a source, or that not being Black or trans makes somebody more credible.
The flip side of that is what Conspire states above, that the marginalized are forced into being exemplars and the only authentic spokespeople, trapped in their identities externally defined by peer pressures and their own marginalization. That then becomes a tool for further marginalization. The identity politics trap works from both directions.
posted by bonehead at 1:22 PM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
The flip side of that is what Conspire states above, that the marginalized are forced into being exemplars and the only authentic spokespeople, trapped in their identities externally defined by peer pressures and their own marginalization. That then becomes a tool for further marginalization. The identity politics trap works from both directions.
posted by bonehead at 1:22 PM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
Or, you know, if we want to get really academic about it, we could get all anthropological and accept that if we want to know how a particular group experiences life as they live it, you can't do better than the source. They aren't "trapped" by their identities; they are trapped by (and can hopefully be free of, some day) the status quo social stigma that is heaped upon said identities.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 1:28 PM on June 18, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 1:28 PM on June 18, 2015 [4 favorites]
if we want to know how a particular group experiences life as they live it, you can't do better than the source.
Isn't that just further marginalizing? By forcing the marginalized to be their only advocates, by sticking them under your anthropological microscope? How will that make people free-er? Are certain members on the site required to speak up every time there's a issue touching their concerns?
posted by bonehead at 1:42 PM on June 18, 2015
Isn't that just further marginalizing? By forcing the marginalized to be their only advocates, by sticking them under your anthropological microscope? How will that make people free-er? Are certain members on the site required to speak up every time there's a issue touching their concerns?
posted by bonehead at 1:42 PM on June 18, 2015
Isn't that just further marginalizing?
No. It is literally the best way to know how a select group experiences the life they live. You actually, like, listen to how they describe, in their own words (and believe me, there are loads and loads of words written by all kinds of marginalized people without the goading of anthropologists and their insidious microscopes), how it is to live in said group, and how they experience how the status quo responds to them. This is not at all mutually exclusive with those outside these groups advocating for their liberation. We are not talking about either-or things here. Direct communication - whether reading/listening to their words or engaging and asking honest questions of them of your own - is what not only gives you the clearest perspective of their lived experience; it affords them the respect they deserve as peers in the human race, rather than abstract concepts to be speculated upon and judged on what an outsider thinks they should be doing differently.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 1:53 PM on June 18, 2015 [6 favorites]
No. It is literally the best way to know how a select group experiences the life they live. You actually, like, listen to how they describe, in their own words (and believe me, there are loads and loads of words written by all kinds of marginalized people without the goading of anthropologists and their insidious microscopes), how it is to live in said group, and how they experience how the status quo responds to them. This is not at all mutually exclusive with those outside these groups advocating for their liberation. We are not talking about either-or things here. Direct communication - whether reading/listening to their words or engaging and asking honest questions of them of your own - is what not only gives you the clearest perspective of their lived experience; it affords them the respect they deserve as peers in the human race, rather than abstract concepts to be speculated upon and judged on what an outsider thinks they should be doing differently.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 1:53 PM on June 18, 2015 [6 favorites]
> Isn't that just further marginalizing? By forcing the marginalized to be their only advocates, by sticking them under your anthropological microscope?
Nothing about us without us.
posted by rtha at 1:56 PM on June 18, 2015 [23 favorites]
Nothing about us without us.
posted by rtha at 1:56 PM on June 18, 2015 [23 favorites]
Not to speak for Conspire, but I believe the distinction being drawn in that comment was between people… actively baiting trans people into fights by tossing out transphobic garbage vs. trans people writing insightful comments on their own terms, not between Black and trans people speaking about their own experiences vs. having non-Black and non-trans people speak on their behalf.
(Conspire, please correct me if I've misinterpreted your comment.)
posted by Lexica at 1:58 PM on June 18, 2015
(Conspire, please correct me if I've misinterpreted your comment.)
posted by Lexica at 1:58 PM on June 18, 2015
Isn't that just further marginalizing? By forcing the marginalized to be their only advocates, by sticking them under your anthropological microscope? How will that make people free-er? Are certain members on the site required to speak up every time there's a issue touching their concerns?
I mean, sometimes?
Personally, I don't think there's a satisfactory policy-like, "always do this" answer to this question. It's something that I think about a lot both as a trans-ish queer person who is sort of non-standard-looking in other ways* and as a white person who leads a majority white science fiction reading group where some of what we read is by authors of color.
Sometimes it feels really messed up to have to speak up all the time, but at the same time it feels really messed up to hear some of the things people say in my defense. Sometimes it feels messed up to be a white person saying "in this book, look at this [issue pertaining to people of color], majority white group!" Sometimes it feels messed up to be a majority white group reading scholarship about Afrofuturism, for instance, because it feels weirdly anthropological.
Basically, I think that when you're in the non-marginalized/privileged position in a situation, you just have to try to act with grace and sensitivity and to be observant - what does the best choice seem to be in this particular situation? Does it seem like a situation where priviledged people should step up to advocate for marginalized people? Who is already in the conversation? What does the conversation need to achieve? Who is available to participate?
I often end up feeling kind of crappy about this stuff, no matter whether I am wearing my trans/queer hat or my white person hat. (I mean really there's only one hat - the trans/queer white person hat - but it seems like it looks different from different angles.) I don't think there's a good answer that is going to guarantee that a person can always do the right thing and never feel bad or full of self-doubt. I think that sometimes even a conversation that is a net good can have bad aspects, and the issue can only be "does the good outweigh the bad, and on whom does the bad fall"?
*In college I once got a call from some student group who wanted me to come and speak to them not because I was visibly queer and out but because I was punk rock and fat (well, fat for a private liberal arts college in the nineties, so not actually fat, just not a lithe lacrosse-playing scion of privilege) , and they wanted me to speak about the prejudice they assumed that I faced based on my appearance. These were people who didn't know me at all but had tracked me down based on what I infer was on-campus fame as a weirdo.
posted by Frowner at 2:10 PM on June 18, 2015 [18 favorites]
I mean, sometimes?
Personally, I don't think there's a satisfactory policy-like, "always do this" answer to this question. It's something that I think about a lot both as a trans-ish queer person who is sort of non-standard-looking in other ways* and as a white person who leads a majority white science fiction reading group where some of what we read is by authors of color.
Sometimes it feels really messed up to have to speak up all the time, but at the same time it feels really messed up to hear some of the things people say in my defense. Sometimes it feels messed up to be a white person saying "in this book, look at this [issue pertaining to people of color], majority white group!" Sometimes it feels messed up to be a majority white group reading scholarship about Afrofuturism, for instance, because it feels weirdly anthropological.
Basically, I think that when you're in the non-marginalized/privileged position in a situation, you just have to try to act with grace and sensitivity and to be observant - what does the best choice seem to be in this particular situation? Does it seem like a situation where priviledged people should step up to advocate for marginalized people? Who is already in the conversation? What does the conversation need to achieve? Who is available to participate?
I often end up feeling kind of crappy about this stuff, no matter whether I am wearing my trans/queer hat or my white person hat. (I mean really there's only one hat - the trans/queer white person hat - but it seems like it looks different from different angles.) I don't think there's a good answer that is going to guarantee that a person can always do the right thing and never feel bad or full of self-doubt. I think that sometimes even a conversation that is a net good can have bad aspects, and the issue can only be "does the good outweigh the bad, and on whom does the bad fall"?
*In college I once got a call from some student group who wanted me to come and speak to them not because I was visibly queer and out but because I was punk rock and fat (well, fat for a private liberal arts college in the nineties, so not actually fat, just not a lithe lacrosse-playing scion of privilege) , and they wanted me to speak about the prejudice they assumed that I faced based on my appearance. These were people who didn't know me at all but had tracked me down based on what I infer was on-campus fame as a weirdo.
posted by Frowner at 2:10 PM on June 18, 2015 [18 favorites]
What this is about, in the context of this thread, is how we approach posting particularly in contentious threads.
We all agree that first-hand experience is valuable. But many in that position are forced into a constant identity of marginalization that has been repeatedly identified as exhausting, both above and elsewhere.
My point is that that forcing of identity happens not just in opposition, but also in support (favourites being one of the ways this works here, imo, though I realize I'm in a minority). I think this pattern is also often contributory. I think it's something to keep in mind in these contexts.
posted by bonehead at 2:14 PM on June 18, 2015
We all agree that first-hand experience is valuable. But many in that position are forced into a constant identity of marginalization that has been repeatedly identified as exhausting, both above and elsewhere.
My point is that that forcing of identity happens not just in opposition, but also in support (favourites being one of the ways this works here, imo, though I realize I'm in a minority). I think this pattern is also often contributory. I think it's something to keep in mind in these contexts.
posted by bonehead at 2:14 PM on June 18, 2015
stanford.plato is an incredibly valuable resource, but I would not excerpt half a paragraph from deep inside an academic text. Because that particular paragraph is about describing what certain poststructuralist philosophers said about a particular model of identity politics. Out of original context, it almost looks as if the author's opinion/analysis is precisely this one model, which would be totally a wrong reading of the encyclopedia entry. I think it's good to link to outside references, but it is important that our comments do the work of constructing our own thinking about issues.
posted by polymodus at 2:15 PM on June 18, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by polymodus at 2:15 PM on June 18, 2015 [9 favorites]
Rtha wrote: Nothing about us without us.
I hadn't encountered the phrase before, but I thought it was neat, so I looked it up. Huh.
I really do learn a lot here.
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:36 PM on June 18, 2015 [11 favorites]
I hadn't encountered the phrase before, but I thought it was neat, so I looked it up. Huh.
I really do learn a lot here.
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:36 PM on June 18, 2015 [11 favorites]
The bigger shift in mod policy has been aggressive deletions in MeTa, a shift not necessarily defined by novel practice (we've had some deletions in MeTa before) but in both scope and quantity.
Yep. I don't see how people can argue this isn't the case. They may argue that this is a good thing but thats a different argument.
posted by Justinian at 2:59 PM on June 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
Yep. I don't see how people can argue this isn't the case. They may argue that this is a good thing but thats a different argument.
posted by Justinian at 2:59 PM on June 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
But are these actually a new sort of deletion in MeTa or were a lot of people just really bad about breaking the old rules in this particular MeTa?
posted by Jacqueline at 3:01 PM on June 18, 2015
posted by Jacqueline at 3:01 PM on June 18, 2015
IIRC, the mods have stated previously they do not tolerate as much here as they used to.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:07 PM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 3:07 PM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yeah, that was a shift in policy when the mods got lessened iirc.
posted by corb at 3:10 PM on June 18, 2015
posted by corb at 3:10 PM on June 18, 2015
OK but that was over a year ago. Not something new as of this thread. What are the actual *new* changes to moderation that people are perceiving? Because it seems like the same policies as before but that a lot more people than usual were breaking them this time.
posted by Jacqueline at 3:14 PM on June 18, 2015
posted by Jacqueline at 3:14 PM on June 18, 2015
Yeah, the fact that we actually delete stuff in Metatalk sometimes is not brand new; it's been something we've been easing into over a period of years. The age of "basically nothing ever gets deleted from Metatalk" ended a long time ago, but the mythos has sort of lagged behind partly just because the way cultural memory on the site works. We talked about being further willing to clamp down on shit last May, but even before that I know that jess and I in particular had talked a few times about coming around the corner on seeing value in being willing to nix stuff in here to keep things from being quite the thunderdome clusterfuck they'd been in the past.
It's still, by far, the least likely part of the site to see comment deletions on average. But you take a case like this where there's a pretty clearly stated "please don't do x" framework laid out by a mod in the first comment, combine that with a lot of cases of people choosing to do x anyway for one reason or another, and throw on the added heat of a difficult, long discussion, and it's gonna be a standout example of how and when it's likely to happen.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:15 PM on June 18, 2015 [13 favorites]
It's still, by far, the least likely part of the site to see comment deletions on average. But you take a case like this where there's a pretty clearly stated "please don't do x" framework laid out by a mod in the first comment, combine that with a lot of cases of people choosing to do x anyway for one reason or another, and throw on the added heat of a difficult, long discussion, and it's gonna be a standout example of how and when it's likely to happen.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:15 PM on June 18, 2015 [13 favorites]
I think also the difference is that in this thread, a broad bit of discussion was considered to be...gravely offensive? So where maybe mods would have been like 'just stop' in other threads, my impression in this one is that deletions were faster on the ball than in most MeTas because the harm of leaving things up was judged as greater.
posted by corb at 3:20 PM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by corb at 3:20 PM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
Cortex deleted a comment of mine in meta years and years ago for picking a fight and telling someone that "reading comprehension obviously wasn't their strong suit." Personal attacks have been axed here for years. Even lame ones. :)
posted by zarq at 3:23 PM on June 18, 2015
posted by zarq at 3:23 PM on June 18, 2015
As klang said it's not the fact of deletions but the scope that looks new. How many comments in this thread have been deleted? It seems like it's probably the most of any metatalk in history though I don't know if the data is available for that sort of thing.
posted by Justinian at 3:32 PM on June 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 3:32 PM on June 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
And as Jacqueline and cortex said, it's equally plausible that it's not more aggressive enforcement, but a higher number of infractions in this thread. I mean, three (maybe more?) people buttoned or were banned. You don't usually get to that level of conflagration without some smaller flames needing to be doused first.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:44 PM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by tonycpsu at 3:44 PM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's hard to see how an unusual number of comment deletions could have been avoided. The topic was whether the several deletions of FPPs concerning Dolezal were good deletions. Groundrules for this discussion, right up at the top, were "don't discuss race, gender, or Dolezal." Very hard it turned out to be to talk about the merits of the deleted posts without talking about any of those (with varying degrees of heat) and any number of people slipped up.
posted by jfuller at 4:02 PM on June 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by jfuller at 4:02 PM on June 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
It certainly feels like there were many more deletions then I've seen in other Metas. And I think it is a direct response to expressed community desires for more aggressive moderation across the site, including MetaTalk. Just go back and read the tail end of the lower back tattoo thread to see folks asking for just this type of increased moderator intervention. I don't think it is good or bad. It is interesting, though, to see how the community rules change as the community itself changes. Myself, I've been keeping quiet, observing and learning.
posted by Roger Dodger at 4:05 PM on June 18, 2015
posted by Roger Dodger at 4:05 PM on June 18, 2015
Very hard it turned out to be to talk about the merits of the deleted posts without talking about any of those (with varying degrees of heat) and any number of people slipped up.
Huh, I found it pretty easy, actually. "Do not re-argue the content of the deleted posts" is not a complex condition, nor is it difficult to follow if you are trying not to re-argue the threads. If you really want to re-argue the threads and are trying to deniably sneak around what the mods have asked you to refrain from, yeah, that's hard. Or if you are so caught up in the issues of the threads (rather than the issues of deletions and deletion policy), that's also hard. Or, if you just really really want to talk about that specific situation right now (as opposed to issues of, say, race and identity, which are being discussed on the Blue as we speak), that's also hard. But what, exactly do you want the mods to do? State what is and isn't allowed in this thread, and then ignore people crossing those lines? That's no kind of moderation at all.
posted by GenjiandProust at 4:20 PM on June 18, 2015 [5 favorites]
Huh, I found it pretty easy, actually. "Do not re-argue the content of the deleted posts" is not a complex condition, nor is it difficult to follow if you are trying not to re-argue the threads. If you really want to re-argue the threads and are trying to deniably sneak around what the mods have asked you to refrain from, yeah, that's hard. Or if you are so caught up in the issues of the threads (rather than the issues of deletions and deletion policy), that's also hard. Or, if you just really really want to talk about that specific situation right now (as opposed to issues of, say, race and identity, which are being discussed on the Blue as we speak), that's also hard. But what, exactly do you want the mods to do? State what is and isn't allowed in this thread, and then ignore people crossing those lines? That's no kind of moderation at all.
posted by GenjiandProust at 4:20 PM on June 18, 2015 [5 favorites]
I think it should probably be abundantly clear at this point, based on past history of "contentious topics" and the sorts of threads and deletions that inspire these epic MeTas, that a significant number of white, upper-middle-class, able-bodied neurotypical cisgender heterosexuals (and particularly men who fall into those categories) are incapable of having a discussion that touches on issues of race, class, gender, mental illness and sexuality that isn't horribly alienating and insulting to a lot of people who aren't white, upper-middle-class, able-bodied neurotypical cisgender heterosexuals
And that is a HUGE and unwarrented assumption about the user base.
Unless there is some kind of gender/race/income/health/neuro-status description on every user page that I am completely incapable of seeing, you don't always know what the gender, race, income, health or mental health status are of other posters. A few have chosen to disclose this; others have not.
Before I listed my (not unproblematic) gender on the site, people assumed from some of my comments that I present as male. In real life, people erroneously assume that I was raised middle class, based on my race and accent. And I choose to disclose my mental health status to very few people (and only will talk occasionally here because I am mostly anonymous).
But if I present something of a less-than-radical idea, am I assumed to be speaking from a place of privilege? Or am I calling someone "crazy" because I see something of my own mental struggles in their behaviour?
Some of the most vulnerable people I know - queer, poor, disabled, and/or neuro-atypical - are sufficiently marginalised that the whole language of social justice is meaningless to them. That's a language for those with education and access to the Internet. They live in a different world.
posted by jb at 4:30 PM on June 18, 2015 [11 favorites]
And that is a HUGE and unwarrented assumption about the user base.
Unless there is some kind of gender/race/income/health/neuro-status description on every user page that I am completely incapable of seeing, you don't always know what the gender, race, income, health or mental health status are of other posters. A few have chosen to disclose this; others have not.
Before I listed my (not unproblematic) gender on the site, people assumed from some of my comments that I present as male. In real life, people erroneously assume that I was raised middle class, based on my race and accent. And I choose to disclose my mental health status to very few people (and only will talk occasionally here because I am mostly anonymous).
But if I present something of a less-than-radical idea, am I assumed to be speaking from a place of privilege? Or am I calling someone "crazy" because I see something of my own mental struggles in their behaviour?
Some of the most vulnerable people I know - queer, poor, disabled, and/or neuro-atypical - are sufficiently marginalised that the whole language of social justice is meaningless to them. That's a language for those with education and access to the Internet. They live in a different world.
posted by jb at 4:30 PM on June 18, 2015 [11 favorites]
I just spent a few minutes doing a rough count and analysis; there were about 63 total comments deleted out of the 1565 total posted so far, though most of that is stuff that was in reply to a smaller number of start-of-the-chain comments. There were about 17 start-of-chain comments. Two or three of those were things the commenter themself asked us to remove, so, call it 15 times out of 1500 where a mod made a concrete decision to say, no, this should go. Or about 1% of the things someone in the thread decided was a good idea to add to the discussion.
Of that, several were stuff specifically getting into the Dolezal specifics in some way, or the question of use of "transracial"; the rest were mostly one-off snark or name-calling of some sort.
63 comments is a lot to delete from a Metatalk thread, but it's not a crazy amount to delete from a fifteen hundred comment Metatalk thread, and looking at it in terms of comments-plus-replies as units makes a lot of sense in which case we're talking about a little more than a dozen times when a mod had to get into deletion mode. Even those are sort of clumped in places.
So, I don't know. I don't really think I have an answer to the subjective sense that a weird amount was deleted; it's been a long, fast-moving thread and so deletions have been pretty visible as a component of it, and anyone coming away from that feeling like "man, a lot got deleted in here compared to normal" isn't really wrong to feel that way. But that subjective sense taken out of context doesn't really say much, is my general feeling. The work done in this thread basically aligns well with my sense of where we want people to be in terms of (a) not assuming Metatalk is a nutso Thunderdome free-for-all and (b) accepting that in the odd cases where mods go to the effort of laying out a "really, really, don't do x" guideline in a thread, we're generally going to follow that up by actually deleting x.
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:33 PM on June 18, 2015 [22 favorites]
Of that, several were stuff specifically getting into the Dolezal specifics in some way, or the question of use of "transracial"; the rest were mostly one-off snark or name-calling of some sort.
63 comments is a lot to delete from a Metatalk thread, but it's not a crazy amount to delete from a fifteen hundred comment Metatalk thread, and looking at it in terms of comments-plus-replies as units makes a lot of sense in which case we're talking about a little more than a dozen times when a mod had to get into deletion mode. Even those are sort of clumped in places.
So, I don't know. I don't really think I have an answer to the subjective sense that a weird amount was deleted; it's been a long, fast-moving thread and so deletions have been pretty visible as a component of it, and anyone coming away from that feeling like "man, a lot got deleted in here compared to normal" isn't really wrong to feel that way. But that subjective sense taken out of context doesn't really say much, is my general feeling. The work done in this thread basically aligns well with my sense of where we want people to be in terms of (a) not assuming Metatalk is a nutso Thunderdome free-for-all and (b) accepting that in the odd cases where mods go to the effort of laying out a "really, really, don't do x" guideline in a thread, we're generally going to follow that up by actually deleting x.
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:33 PM on June 18, 2015 [22 favorites]
(Conspire, please correct me if I've misinterpreted your comment.)
Your reading is correct! There's a big difference between setting up a space where black/trans people can speak freely versus forcing them to defend themselves by saying racist/transphobic shit that they have to refute (and then a big difference between saying it once and getting corrected and leaving it, versus buckling down and arguing, tossing out false equivalencies and hypotheticals, trying to lure folks into gotchas, asking the same thing 10 people did right before and was answered, or any other number of shitty things people do.)
The other thing about Dolezal specifically is - look, I'm all for intersectionality, but there's no reason why trans people should be dragged into this dialogue about racial relations. That's not to say they shouldn't participate, especially when coming from an intersectional experience, but there is no reason why they should be experiencing so much transphobic bigotry over this that basically every trans person has to sit down and gently explain their humanity to ignorant folks in their life. I'm not even kidding: every trans person I know in my life has been basically morphed into a spokesperson on this issue against their will because people keep dragging gender identity into this for no reason other than Caitlyn Jenner being prominent around the same time, despite race being a total separate issue from gender identity. This is doubly shitty for the white trans people I know because they're now expected to explain race to ignorant folks, and understandably a lot of them are panicky about that because they don't feel like they can speak to it and because they're aware of their privileged voice on this axis. There should be no reason why a trans person needs to be part of this outside of their will, and while we might not be able to influence that current expectation anywhere else, at very least it needs not be on Mefi.
posted by Conspire at 4:34 PM on June 18, 2015 [29 favorites]
Your reading is correct! There's a big difference between setting up a space where black/trans people can speak freely versus forcing them to defend themselves by saying racist/transphobic shit that they have to refute (and then a big difference between saying it once and getting corrected and leaving it, versus buckling down and arguing, tossing out false equivalencies and hypotheticals, trying to lure folks into gotchas, asking the same thing 10 people did right before and was answered, or any other number of shitty things people do.)
The other thing about Dolezal specifically is - look, I'm all for intersectionality, but there's no reason why trans people should be dragged into this dialogue about racial relations. That's not to say they shouldn't participate, especially when coming from an intersectional experience, but there is no reason why they should be experiencing so much transphobic bigotry over this that basically every trans person has to sit down and gently explain their humanity to ignorant folks in their life. I'm not even kidding: every trans person I know in my life has been basically morphed into a spokesperson on this issue against their will because people keep dragging gender identity into this for no reason other than Caitlyn Jenner being prominent around the same time, despite race being a total separate issue from gender identity. This is doubly shitty for the white trans people I know because they're now expected to explain race to ignorant folks, and understandably a lot of them are panicky about that because they don't feel like they can speak to it and because they're aware of their privileged voice on this axis. There should be no reason why a trans person needs to be part of this outside of their will, and while we might not be able to influence that current expectation anywhere else, at very least it needs not be on Mefi.
posted by Conspire at 4:34 PM on June 18, 2015 [29 favorites]
not assuming Metatalk is a nutso Thunderdome free-for-all
It feels more like Fury Road to me. Lot's of working stuff out in very long direction in which you might have casualties, but if all goes well, you eventually turn around and go home and everyone gets hugs.
or at least fresh water.
posted by SpacemanStix at 4:41 PM on June 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
It feels more like Fury Road to me. Lot's of working stuff out in very long direction in which you might have casualties, but if all goes well, you eventually turn around and go home and everyone gets hugs.
or at least fresh water.
posted by SpacemanStix at 4:41 PM on June 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
WHAT A LOVELY THREAD
[sprays silver paint into mouth]
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:43 PM on June 18, 2015 [25 favorites]
[sprays silver paint into mouth]
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:43 PM on June 18, 2015 [25 favorites]
I don't know whether an unusual amount of comments have been deleted from the thread, but I do feel like this thread has been particularly worse than usual even for "long, contentious MeTas" in terms of having productive discussions of any kind.
That's not a call to shut it down, or anything, but of the last half-dozen or so of these threads, I feel like I've gotten the least out of this one, even in terms of just seeing where people I don't agree with are coming from, or seeing people on "my side" articulate things better than I've been able to or addressing aspects or nuances or aspects I hadn't properly appreciated.
It feels in a lot of ways the Dolezal stuff and related deletions are largely a pretext for a more generalized disgruntlement with the direction of the site and not that particular issue itself, in a way that recent-ish threads about women/boyzone/trans inclusiveness/anti-Semitism/"brown people" when used by white people in a certain way/etc have not been.
posted by The Master and Margarita Mix at 4:51 PM on June 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
That's not a call to shut it down, or anything, but of the last half-dozen or so of these threads, I feel like I've gotten the least out of this one, even in terms of just seeing where people I don't agree with are coming from, or seeing people on "my side" articulate things better than I've been able to or addressing aspects or nuances or aspects I hadn't properly appreciated.
It feels in a lot of ways the Dolezal stuff and related deletions are largely a pretext for a more generalized disgruntlement with the direction of the site and not that particular issue itself, in a way that recent-ish threads about women/boyzone/trans inclusiveness/anti-Semitism/"brown people" when used by white people in a certain way/etc have not been.
posted by The Master and Margarita Mix at 4:51 PM on June 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
> But what, exactly do you want the mods to do? State what is and isn't allowed in this thread, and
> then ignore people crossing those lines? That's no kind of moderation at all.
What they did is fine with me. However, considering the perfect-storm Dolezal situation in combination with the "Don't talk about the perfect storm" stricture I did come into the thread expecting to see a fair number of hoplites fall. And it did seem to me, as to others, that that was happening. But Cortex says not so I just have to guess it was a case of seeing what you expect to see.
posted by jfuller at 4:51 PM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
> then ignore people crossing those lines? That's no kind of moderation at all.
What they did is fine with me. However, considering the perfect-storm Dolezal situation in combination with the "Don't talk about the perfect storm" stricture I did come into the thread expecting to see a fair number of hoplites fall. And it did seem to me, as to others, that that was happening. But Cortex says not so I just have to guess it was a case of seeing what you expect to see.
posted by jfuller at 4:51 PM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
And, uh, to actually make the point, I think that might be affecting some people's perceptions of the deletion. God knows the boyzone thread had a lot of stuff deleted in it, but I still think the signal:grar ratio was vastly higher.
posted by The Master and Margarita Mix at 4:52 PM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by The Master and Margarita Mix at 4:52 PM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
I post! It's deleted! I post again, with edits!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:56 PM on June 18, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:56 PM on June 18, 2015 [9 favorites]
I guess since only the mods can see the comments which are deleted there's no way to get around it being, when it comes down to brass tax, a subjective judgment.
posted by Justinian at 5:19 PM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 5:19 PM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
I think also, speaking only for self, as someone who had a comment deleted, some of the confusion that I at least had initially with the mod note was whether the initial 'this is not the place to talk about Dolezal/transracialism' referred to the usual 'don't re-litigate the thread' that applies to most MeTas, or a stricter definition. I thought the former - that we weren't supposed to argue with each other about the case, like usual in MeTa, but that talking about 'hey, a new aspect came out, that makes this FPP post-worthy' would be allowed, as has been the case in other threads about deletions and whether they were right or not. This also got muddled a little bit as some users were bringing up aspects of the Dolezal case and saying that they meant that the post should merit deletion, or that those aspects were bad, with those comments not being deleted.
So I think, for me, that's why this thread felt like it had more deletions than usual - because while the namecalling stuff would normally have been deleted and raised no eyebrows, usually, those kind of 'this is an aspect that I think is worth discussing' comments would have been allowed to stay in MeTa.
posted by corb at 5:30 PM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
So I think, for me, that's why this thread felt like it had more deletions than usual - because while the namecalling stuff would normally have been deleted and raised no eyebrows, usually, those kind of 'this is an aspect that I think is worth discussing' comments would have been allowed to stay in MeTa.
posted by corb at 5:30 PM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
I think the Dolezal story has largely been driven from the base parts of our collective unconscious. The part that goes OMG that lady is crazy gossip / watch the freak show go viral. The pockets of our society who want to use this incident to blow dog whistles to their base decrying it at political correctness gone too far, an example of the terrible social justice warriors, liberal academia, Elizabeth Warren's claims Native American roots, Jenner, etc.
The appeal of this story to those parts of human nature combined with the scale of site like Metafilter creates a toxic hell stew of comments. Until the gossipy part dies down and those trying to bring their pet political issue in by proxy move on, we shouldn't try to force a post on the Blue.
posted by humanfont at 7:20 PM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
The appeal of this story to those parts of human nature combined with the scale of site like Metafilter creates a toxic hell stew of comments. Until the gossipy part dies down and those trying to bring their pet political issue in by proxy move on, we shouldn't try to force a post on the Blue.
posted by humanfont at 7:20 PM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
I realize that this isn't the place to go over the actual story in the deleted threads, but as a point of contrast I wanted to bring up this thread I posted a few years ago about “a tiny town in the Appalachian foothills of Ohio where, for a century, residents have shared the common bond of identifying as African-American despite the fact that they look white.” It passed through the site pretty much without notice.
While different threads are different, current events aren't well-produced radio stories, and 2015 isn't 2013, I do think that the thread makes the case that content on "race 201" issues doesn't necessarily result in a lot of conflict.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:51 PM on June 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
While different threads are different, current events aren't well-produced radio stories, and 2015 isn't 2013, I do think that the thread makes the case that content on "race 201" issues doesn't necessarily result in a lot of conflict.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:51 PM on June 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
1. Interesting story but is it the same criteria wise.
2. I had no idea Applachia reached into Ohio.
posted by clavdivs at 8:03 PM on June 18, 2015
2. I had no idea Applachia reached into Ohio.
posted by clavdivs at 8:03 PM on June 18, 2015
It seems to me that a big part of what is on display here is a tension between metafilter not being a "safe space" and the conception of metafilter as a community. The concept of community has been a perennial trait of our species from its emergence around 200,000 years ago continuing to the present. Human communities, whatever the form they have taken, have almost without exception been specifically places of safety and comfort. These two longstanding assumptions about community (comfort and safety) have led humans to exhibit two behaviors. The first is to police the community for norms, and the second has been to aggressively defend the community; violently if necessary. In fact, if we look at nature this seems to be true of just about every species one can think of.
I don't really know if this contributes anything useful to the thread, but there it is.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:34 PM on June 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
I don't really know if this contributes anything useful to the thread, but there it is.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:34 PM on June 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
Just to clarify, I don't intend any negative connotations when I mentioned policing community norms. It is what it is. Natural.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:36 PM on June 18, 2015
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:36 PM on June 18, 2015
1. Interesting story but is it the same criteria wise.
It's the same in that people could get angry that folks who appear to be lily-white self-identify as black. It's different in a lot of other respects, though, so I don't want to stress the comparison overmuch.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:57 PM on June 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
It's the same in that people could get angry that folks who appear to be lily-white self-identify as black. It's different in a lot of other respects, though, so I don't want to stress the comparison overmuch.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:57 PM on June 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
It seems to me that a big part of what is on display here is a tension between metafilter not being a "safe space" and the conception of metafilter as a community. The concept of community has been a perennial trait of our species from its emergence around 200,000 years ago continuing to the present. Human communities, whatever the form they have taken, have almost without exception been specifically places of safety and comfort. These two longstanding assumptions about community (comfort and safety) have led humans to exhibit two behaviors. The first is to police the community for norms, and the second has been to aggressively defend the community; violently if necessary. In fact, if we look at nature this seems to be true of just about every species one can think of.
I don't really know if this contributes anything useful to the thread, but there it is.
I think that's very useful. The other tension is between community, and ideas.
posted by Sebmojo at 9:06 PM on June 18, 2015
I don't really know if this contributes anything useful to the thread, but there it is.
I think that's very useful. The other tension is between community, and ideas.
posted by Sebmojo at 9:06 PM on June 18, 2015
Pedant moments:
1. For clavdivs: The Appalachian Mountains run from Newfoundland and Labrador to Alabama and include bits of 18 US states and 5 Canadian provinces and territories. The Appalachian cultural region is restricted to the central and southern parts of the range and formally includes "all of West Virginia, 14 counties in New York, 52 in Pennsylvania, 32 in Ohio, 3 in Maryland, 54 in Kentucky, 25 counties and 8 cities in Virginia, 29 in North Carolina, 52 in Tennessee, 6 in South Carolina, 37 in Georgia, 37 in Alabama, and 24 in Mississippi."
2. For Justinian: brass tacks.
posted by gingerest at 9:11 PM on June 18, 2015 [6 favorites]
1. For clavdivs: The Appalachian Mountains run from Newfoundland and Labrador to Alabama and include bits of 18 US states and 5 Canadian provinces and territories. The Appalachian cultural region is restricted to the central and southern parts of the range and formally includes "all of West Virginia, 14 counties in New York, 52 in Pennsylvania, 32 in Ohio, 3 in Maryland, 54 in Kentucky, 25 counties and 8 cities in Virginia, 29 in North Carolina, 52 in Tennessee, 6 in South Carolina, 37 in Georgia, 37 in Alabama, and 24 in Mississippi."
2. For Justinian: brass tacks.
posted by gingerest at 9:11 PM on June 18, 2015 [6 favorites]
A big difference about Going to Maine's post is the amount of text one reads to get to the "contentious" point.
Also, race has been in the news nearly constantly since Michael Brown and Ferguson.
One of the things that's been interesting through this collective process of confronting wrong beliefs - and I do have hope this is growing pains what we're going through - is how the shared vocabulary starts to take shape. I think, that since racial issues have been in the news, we are all learning new terms, and putting names to things we ignored before.
Some people don't take the new knowledge well, and the new words are like bee stings.
posted by frecklefaerie at 9:13 PM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
Also, race has been in the news nearly constantly since Michael Brown and Ferguson.
One of the things that's been interesting through this collective process of confronting wrong beliefs - and I do have hope this is growing pains what we're going through - is how the shared vocabulary starts to take shape. I think, that since racial issues have been in the news, we are all learning new terms, and putting names to things we ignored before.
Some people don't take the new knowledge well, and the new words are like bee stings.
posted by frecklefaerie at 9:13 PM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
2. For Justinian: brass tacks.
Dang I knew that, I must have been in a hurry. No biscuit for me.
posted by Justinian at 9:40 PM on June 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
Dang I knew that, I must have been in a hurry. No biscuit for me.
posted by Justinian at 9:40 PM on June 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
i'll eat justinian's biscuit for him if there are biscuits being distributed in this thread
posted by Jacqueline at 9:56 PM on June 18, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Jacqueline at 9:56 PM on June 18, 2015 [4 favorites]
"It's different in a lot of other respects, though, so I don't want to stress the comparison"
I tend to agree and the story you linked is excellent, I learned something. But perhaps there in lies the difference, your link points to people who have lived this way for awhile, the story has been written and studied or reviewed. The story or facts in this new case would only led to speculation or review of this persons life. There is a post here at some point, the Apalacha story could be part of it. Context is not really an issue without more facts. I think more facts are needed before an excellent post can be crafted.
posted by clavdivs at 10:06 PM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
I tend to agree and the story you linked is excellent, I learned something. But perhaps there in lies the difference, your link points to people who have lived this way for awhile, the story has been written and studied or reviewed. The story or facts in this new case would only led to speculation or review of this persons life. There is a post here at some point, the Apalacha story could be part of it. Context is not really an issue without more facts. I think more facts are needed before an excellent post can be crafted.
posted by clavdivs at 10:06 PM on June 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
Biscuits? Oh hell no, he needs to send more gold first.
posted by clavdivs at 10:10 PM on June 18, 2015
posted by clavdivs at 10:10 PM on June 18, 2015
I think, that since racial issues have been in the news, we are all learning new terms, and putting names to things we ignored before.
Some people don't take the new knowledge well, and the new words are like bee stings.
If this is a general comment, grand. If it's a reference to "transracialism" specifically, then I really suggest you (re-)read this thread.
posted by Dysk at 12:05 AM on June 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
Some people don't take the new knowledge well, and the new words are like bee stings.
If this is a general comment, grand. If it's a reference to "transracialism" specifically, then I really suggest you (re-)read this thread.
posted by Dysk at 12:05 AM on June 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
I didn't read the deleted threads, but my impression was that it was mostly bad timing in that it followed right on the heels of the Caitlyn Jenner story, which opened the door to some offensive comparisons.
If the story had broken a month before or after my guess is that the conversation might have survived.
posted by kanewai at 12:58 AM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
If the story had broken a month before or after my guess is that the conversation might have survived.
posted by kanewai at 12:58 AM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
I hold out the hope that it would be both possible & productive to discuss the parallels (and anti-parallels {perpendiculars?}) between this event and trans identity politics in a mutually respectful fashion. But right now with the right-wing-trollosphere in full on "Ha ha! Gotcha!" mode & people understandably going into hedgehog mode with bristles out in response? It doesn’t look like it.
But it also might be the case that discussing this particular issue at all is extremely painful for our trans members, for a variety of reasons, and we as a community have to choose whether metafilter being a safe-space is more important than the topics in question. Historically, the mods have explicitly said that metafilter is not a “safe-space” in this sense, but the deletion of this post because it went down that path (at least in part) does seem to be part of a general move in that direction. (Unless there has a whole pile of awful comments deleted that are no longer visible & it was those convinced the mods that the thread was going off the rails?)
I suspect many mefi members feel conflicted about this: it’s a point where two perfectly good and reasonable values (freedom of discussion & not excluding / hurting a subset of the members) come into conflict & there are no clear answers that don’t result in dropping one of those values. (Real world ethical choices are not clear cut: news at 11.) Hence this endless thread.
posted by pharm at 3:23 AM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
But it also might be the case that discussing this particular issue at all is extremely painful for our trans members, for a variety of reasons, and we as a community have to choose whether metafilter being a safe-space is more important than the topics in question. Historically, the mods have explicitly said that metafilter is not a “safe-space” in this sense, but the deletion of this post because it went down that path (at least in part) does seem to be part of a general move in that direction. (Unless there has a whole pile of awful comments deleted that are no longer visible & it was those convinced the mods that the thread was going off the rails?)
I suspect many mefi members feel conflicted about this: it’s a point where two perfectly good and reasonable values (freedom of discussion & not excluding / hurting a subset of the members) come into conflict & there are no clear answers that don’t result in dropping one of those values. (Real world ethical choices are not clear cut: news at 11.) Hence this endless thread.
posted by pharm at 3:23 AM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
Personal lexical enrichment, as gained just from this thread:
- SJW (defined previously)
- TERF
- CHWD/CHUD
- transracial (as pertaining to adoption)
- noping out
- buttoning
Thanks!
posted by progosk at 3:23 AM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
- SJW (defined previously)
- TERF
- CHWD/CHUD
- transracial (as pertaining to adoption)
- noping out
- buttoning
Thanks!
posted by progosk at 3:23 AM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
(and anti-parallels {perpendiculars?})
Speaking of lexical enrichment, I learned the word "disanalogy" thanks to the thread, "the failure or lack of an analogy." I plan to use it FOREVER!
posted by mittens at 3:49 AM on June 19, 2015 [7 favorites]
Speaking of lexical enrichment, I learned the word "disanalogy" thanks to the thread, "the failure or lack of an analogy." I plan to use it FOREVER!
posted by mittens at 3:49 AM on June 19, 2015 [7 favorites]
dialethia: ... those usual-suspect folks poison the well so thoroughly; since people already know these people have no desire to be in-community with them, they (rightfully!) feel no compunction about calling them out. Then bystanders, who don't know any of the history of why the called-out person clearly has no interest in having a real conversation and don't understand the context, only see the fighty pushback and think that same presumption of 'guilt' is applied to everyone who makes ignorant comments. To me, it's not that at all - it's that those people have burned through close to a decade's worth of benefit of the doubt already.
This is a huge factor in my perception of Metafilter's community as a relative newbie here. Whenever I see that dynamic on the blue, I think, "holy shit, you step the tiniest bit out of line here and they eat you alive." The context of "well, everyone knows that person's not acting in good faith" is almost totally invisible to an outsider.
posted by 4th number at 6:19 AM on June 19, 2015 [20 favorites]
This is a huge factor in my perception of Metafilter's community as a relative newbie here. Whenever I see that dynamic on the blue, I think, "holy shit, you step the tiniest bit out of line here and they eat you alive." The context of "well, everyone knows that person's not acting in good faith" is almost totally invisible to an outsider.
posted by 4th number at 6:19 AM on June 19, 2015 [20 favorites]
Whenever I see that dynamic on the blue, I think, "holy shit, you step the tiniest bit out of line here and they eat you alive."
This entire site is supposed to be built on an "you get tons of chances" ethos. It works well in some ways, not as well in others.
People are not supposed to be nasty to each other anywhere on the site -- the mods try to curtail that. AskMe has the most stringent interaction rules, to maintain it as an effective resource. MetaTalk has the loosest. We're encouraged to assume good faith of others.
Comments and even threads get deleted quietly, invisibly, so they don't disrupt conversations and people don't continue arguments. And yet, there's a lot of transparency: our comment histories are available on our profile pages, and searchable by every member.
Mods don't ban people for minor offenses. It takes tremendous effort to get banned here. There's also a policy called "Brand New Day" (BND). If you get banned, promise not to do whatever it was that got you banned in the first place, the mods will usually let you come back under a new username. (Assuming that what you were banned for wasn't harassing other users.) There are a few people here who are on their third usernames.
posted by zarq at 7:07 AM on June 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
This entire site is supposed to be built on an "you get tons of chances" ethos. It works well in some ways, not as well in others.
People are not supposed to be nasty to each other anywhere on the site -- the mods try to curtail that. AskMe has the most stringent interaction rules, to maintain it as an effective resource. MetaTalk has the loosest. We're encouraged to assume good faith of others.
Comments and even threads get deleted quietly, invisibly, so they don't disrupt conversations and people don't continue arguments. And yet, there's a lot of transparency: our comment histories are available on our profile pages, and searchable by every member.
Mods don't ban people for minor offenses. It takes tremendous effort to get banned here. There's also a policy called "Brand New Day" (BND). If you get banned, promise not to do whatever it was that got you banned in the first place, the mods will usually let you come back under a new username. (Assuming that what you were banned for wasn't harassing other users.) There are a few people here who are on their third usernames.
posted by zarq at 7:07 AM on June 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
... But it also might be the case that discussing this particular issue at all is extremely painful for our trans members...
This particular issue (transracialism) is bullshit. It's painful because it's bullshit and it's bullshit being propogated by arseholes who want to make transgender issues a joke. Painful as in lame. Painful as in spraining eyeballs because of rolling them so hard.
Basically, the mods see through this and they're trying to avoid a shitstorm where people attempt to thrash this out at the expense of people who are actually living through this experience and not just analysing it from their desks. I really don't see how this is a bad thing.
posted by h00py at 7:11 AM on June 19, 2015 [10 favorites]
This particular issue (transracialism) is bullshit. It's painful because it's bullshit and it's bullshit being propogated by arseholes who want to make transgender issues a joke. Painful as in lame. Painful as in spraining eyeballs because of rolling them so hard.
Basically, the mods see through this and they're trying to avoid a shitstorm where people attempt to thrash this out at the expense of people who are actually living through this experience and not just analysing it from their desks. I really don't see how this is a bad thing.
posted by h00py at 7:11 AM on June 19, 2015 [10 favorites]
This particular issue (transracialism) is bullshit. It's painful because it's bullshit and it's bullshit being propogated by arseholes who want to make transgender issues a joke. Painful as in lame. Painful as in spraining eyeballs because of rolling them so hard.
I actually think it goes deeper than that. There's this awful, disgustingly insidious meme in mainstream culture (promulgated for decades in songs, movies, and many other areas) that portrays trans people as deceptive liars. Lying about their sexuality and who they really are. When the truth of the matter is, they're simply trying to be true to themselves. No one here on mefi seems to talk about this openly, but I am completely convinced that attitude and belief lies at the heart of many of the complaints raised against trans folks and trans activists here.
Why else would people aggressively push back against using preferred spacing in words, or basic rights like bathroom privileges, or whether someone should be allowed to self-identify however they want? If they have any goddamned empathy at all, why wouldn't they want to be kind to others and help them? In some twisted, warped way, they probably think they're being deceived. It's stupid and wrong and offensive that they continue to promote that idea, and defend it so vociferously -- to the detriment of our fellow trans mefites.
This has been touched on in threads before but never really addressed directly, and I think that if more people did so -- and stomped on it hard when it comes up, -- we'd all benefit.
posted by zarq at 7:32 AM on June 19, 2015 [17 favorites]
I actually think it goes deeper than that. There's this awful, disgustingly insidious meme in mainstream culture (promulgated for decades in songs, movies, and many other areas) that portrays trans people as deceptive liars. Lying about their sexuality and who they really are. When the truth of the matter is, they're simply trying to be true to themselves. No one here on mefi seems to talk about this openly, but I am completely convinced that attitude and belief lies at the heart of many of the complaints raised against trans folks and trans activists here.
Why else would people aggressively push back against using preferred spacing in words, or basic rights like bathroom privileges, or whether someone should be allowed to self-identify however they want? If they have any goddamned empathy at all, why wouldn't they want to be kind to others and help them? In some twisted, warped way, they probably think they're being deceived. It's stupid and wrong and offensive that they continue to promote that idea, and defend it so vociferously -- to the detriment of our fellow trans mefites.
This has been touched on in threads before but never really addressed directly, and I think that if more people did so -- and stomped on it hard when it comes up, -- we'd all benefit.
posted by zarq at 7:32 AM on June 19, 2015 [17 favorites]
h00py: I can’t argue with you because that would be having the discussion we’re not allowed to have, even though I think you’re wrong. To be precise: I think you’re absolutely right that the right-wing-nutosphere has jumped all over this like it’s some kind of clever “gotcha!” moment & poisoned the well, but at the same time I also believe that there are deeper truths buried under there that are worth paying attention to.
But it’s not the end of the world if that more nuanced discussion can’t happen on metafilter for reasons.
posted by pharm at 7:44 AM on June 19, 2015
But it’s not the end of the world if that more nuanced discussion can’t happen on metafilter for reasons.
posted by pharm at 7:44 AM on June 19, 2015
The question will always be, pharm, do the deeper truths come from people who are living the experience or those who are analyzing it from the outside? Maybe now's the time to just step back and listen.
posted by h00py at 7:58 AM on June 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by h00py at 7:58 AM on June 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
So... uh, yes, I think it's untrue to say that Metafilter isn't discussing this openly.
OK. That's perfectly fair.
posted by zarq at 9:21 AM on June 19, 2015
OK. That's perfectly fair.
posted by zarq at 9:21 AM on June 19, 2015
Maybe I'm wrong sometimes and they're just ignorant of what they're saying, but absolutely the usual mode of my response is rage because of how common it is to encounter people who actively and vociferously hate us...
Yeah. Somewhere in between low-key ignorance and burning hatred is a big group of (cis) people practicing knee-jerk denial. And while denial is not identical to hatred, I would guess it is still super harmful to encounter. I would find it both threatening and rage-worthy.
posted by puddledork at 9:37 AM on June 19, 2015 [5 favorites]
Yeah. Somewhere in between low-key ignorance and burning hatred is a big group of (cis) people practicing knee-jerk denial. And while denial is not identical to hatred, I would guess it is still super harmful to encounter. I would find it both threatening and rage-worthy.
posted by puddledork at 9:37 AM on June 19, 2015 [5 favorites]
"This particular issue (transracialism) is bullshit. It's painful because it's bullshit and it's bullshit being propogated by arseholes who want to make transgender issues a joke. Painful as in lame. Painful as in spraining eyeballs because of rolling them so hard."
One of the things that keeps bugging me about this is that while I recognize that "transracial" in the Dolezal context is a Trojan horse for a lot of transphobic tropes, the connection between the incoherence of racial and gender categories is a valid topic for scholarship and tied to intersectional civil rights struggles. You actually do see this topic a lot in transgender scholarship, particularly transgender legal scholarship. For example, the dismantling of legal racial classification systems is used analogously to work toward legal models of equality for intersex people specifically through the comparison to multiracial people, which features in the work of Julie Greenberg. She's neither trans nor intersex as far as I know, but Shannon Minter, former head of the Transgender Law Center, specifically praises Greenberg for that work as part of a larger recognition of Greenberg's contribution to legal scholarship advancing the rights of transgender people. Jillian Weiss, a transgender woman and an expert in transgender workplace law, has written similar pieces (also citing Greenberg) that tie an anti-essentialist concept of gender to a framework of "gender autonomy" that implies a racial autonomy. Greenberg's article is also cited by the Transgender Road Map as part of its Transgender Survival Pack. Chinyere Ezie, a black attorney now working for the Southern Poverty Law Center and currently suing the Department of Justice to ensure proper care for a transgender inmate, has contributed legal scholarship explicitly analogizing race and gender in an anti-essentialist framework and using that analogy to argue that discrimination against transgender people must be regarded as suspect and subject to strict scrutiny. Black trans man Kai Green, currently a gender and sexuality scholar at Northwestern, explicitly rejects the contention of obvious dissimilarity in his writings about Dolezal (he concludes that he doesn't have an answer due to his personal relationship with his racial and gender identity). Julian Gills-Peterson, also a trans academic, has written a lot on racial and gender "atomism" and their connections, specifically focusing on transhumanist and cybernetic ideas of psychopharmacology (as well as childhood development of racial and gender identities). Susan Stryker, a trans woman and editor of the Transgender Studies Reader, engages the topic in her writing on biopolitics. Marie-Ameile George, whose gender identity I don't know but who is cited by transgender scholars, explicitly uses the cross-racial migration and historical legal status of mulattos to advocate for intersex and transgender civil rights. Sally Haslanger, whose gender identity I also don't know but who has also been cited approvingly by transgender scholars, has also done explicit philosophical work on identity categories through anti-essentialist treatments of both race and gender.
Not all of these scholars agree with each other, and many of them explicitly recognize and critique the differences between political identity strategy often used by transgender activists (especially in the context of broader LGBT activism) and conceptions and theories of gender and race used by scholars, often explicitly noting the current political utility of essentializing narratives while highlighting their conceptual weaknesses and longterm possible harms.
The use of "transracial" as some sort of gotcha against Jenner is bullshit. The anti-essentialist comparison of social constructions of racial and gender identities as unstable and mutable, able to be crossed and transcended, is both an active area of scholarship and an important tool in securing civil rights for transgender people.
posted by klangklangston at 10:15 AM on June 19, 2015 [37 favorites]
One of the things that keeps bugging me about this is that while I recognize that "transracial" in the Dolezal context is a Trojan horse for a lot of transphobic tropes, the connection between the incoherence of racial and gender categories is a valid topic for scholarship and tied to intersectional civil rights struggles. You actually do see this topic a lot in transgender scholarship, particularly transgender legal scholarship. For example, the dismantling of legal racial classification systems is used analogously to work toward legal models of equality for intersex people specifically through the comparison to multiracial people, which features in the work of Julie Greenberg. She's neither trans nor intersex as far as I know, but Shannon Minter, former head of the Transgender Law Center, specifically praises Greenberg for that work as part of a larger recognition of Greenberg's contribution to legal scholarship advancing the rights of transgender people. Jillian Weiss, a transgender woman and an expert in transgender workplace law, has written similar pieces (also citing Greenberg) that tie an anti-essentialist concept of gender to a framework of "gender autonomy" that implies a racial autonomy. Greenberg's article is also cited by the Transgender Road Map as part of its Transgender Survival Pack. Chinyere Ezie, a black attorney now working for the Southern Poverty Law Center and currently suing the Department of Justice to ensure proper care for a transgender inmate, has contributed legal scholarship explicitly analogizing race and gender in an anti-essentialist framework and using that analogy to argue that discrimination against transgender people must be regarded as suspect and subject to strict scrutiny. Black trans man Kai Green, currently a gender and sexuality scholar at Northwestern, explicitly rejects the contention of obvious dissimilarity in his writings about Dolezal (he concludes that he doesn't have an answer due to his personal relationship with his racial and gender identity). Julian Gills-Peterson, also a trans academic, has written a lot on racial and gender "atomism" and their connections, specifically focusing on transhumanist and cybernetic ideas of psychopharmacology (as well as childhood development of racial and gender identities). Susan Stryker, a trans woman and editor of the Transgender Studies Reader, engages the topic in her writing on biopolitics. Marie-Ameile George, whose gender identity I don't know but who is cited by transgender scholars, explicitly uses the cross-racial migration and historical legal status of mulattos to advocate for intersex and transgender civil rights. Sally Haslanger, whose gender identity I also don't know but who has also been cited approvingly by transgender scholars, has also done explicit philosophical work on identity categories through anti-essentialist treatments of both race and gender.
Not all of these scholars agree with each other, and many of them explicitly recognize and critique the differences between political identity strategy often used by transgender activists (especially in the context of broader LGBT activism) and conceptions and theories of gender and race used by scholars, often explicitly noting the current political utility of essentializing narratives while highlighting their conceptual weaknesses and longterm possible harms.
The use of "transracial" as some sort of gotcha against Jenner is bullshit. The anti-essentialist comparison of social constructions of racial and gender identities as unstable and mutable, able to be crossed and transcended, is both an active area of scholarship and an important tool in securing civil rights for transgender people.
posted by klangklangston at 10:15 AM on June 19, 2015 [37 favorites]
I'm 99% sure that klang's excellent and thoughtful comment is going to get deleted. I understand why, but I just want to say that that's what makes this hard: there actually are some important things to think through here, and this site just isn't the place to do it, certainly not right now.
posted by anotherpanacea at 10:19 AM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by anotherpanacea at 10:19 AM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
Can we do this? Can we just agree that this is a sort of detailed conversation worth having in appropriate thread on the blue when it happens but also not something that digging into at the bottom of a long, difficult metatalk thread about the context of a subject-specific deletion where we've been trying to ask people not to pivot it into a proxy thread, and just leave it be?
Being stuck in this position of being implicitly antagonistic of efforts to discuss something substantially from folks who are well-meaning but for some reason also really, really unwilling to just stay away in this one specific discussion from that stuff we're asking them to stay away from sucks. Letting it be in here for now but then digging into it later somewhere else would be fine, and as much as I understand there's "yeah but it's relevant because" arguments to make it's also super, duper frustrating to have that be what happens rather than "okay, I'll talk about this later in a different thread" and then have the attendant no-win situation keep coming up like this.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:27 AM on June 19, 2015 [15 favorites]
Being stuck in this position of being implicitly antagonistic of efforts to discuss something substantially from folks who are well-meaning but for some reason also really, really unwilling to just stay away in this one specific discussion from that stuff we're asking them to stay away from sucks. Letting it be in here for now but then digging into it later somewhere else would be fine, and as much as I understand there's "yeah but it's relevant because" arguments to make it's also super, duper frustrating to have that be what happens rather than "okay, I'll talk about this later in a different thread" and then have the attendant no-win situation keep coming up like this.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:27 AM on June 19, 2015 [15 favorites]
The thing is that as long as the analogy that was used as a deletion reason is simplified down to simply forbidden because it can hurt members here, we aren't agreeing that this discussion is worth having in an appropriate thread on the blue. We're explicitly proscribing that conversation, and the mods have repeatedly deleted attempts to talk about what exactly we're proscribing. I know it sucks for you mods, but it sucks for members too, and the gloss that you're giving it is just not reflected in the collective moderating decisions that you guys have made.
posted by klangklangston at 10:33 AM on June 19, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by klangklangston at 10:33 AM on June 19, 2015 [9 favorites]
Can we do this? Can we just agree that this is a sort of detailed conversation worth having in appropriate thread on the blue when it happens ...
I think this is a key point: the conversation is going to come up again. It isn't censorship, it's a time out.
posted by kanewai at 10:37 AM on June 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
I think this is a key point: the conversation is going to come up again. It isn't censorship, it's a time out.
posted by kanewai at 10:37 AM on June 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
it sucks for members too,
Shit happens.
The userbase, you and I included, should be capable of acting like adults and delaying gratification for a little while. Especially since we've been told numerous times that the specific, derogatory comparisons between 'transracial' and 'trans' are basically hate speech, and yes, offensive to some people here on MeFi.
posted by zarq at 10:43 AM on June 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
Shit happens.
The userbase, you and I included, should be capable of acting like adults and delaying gratification for a little while. Especially since we've been told numerous times that the specific, derogatory comparisons between 'transracial' and 'trans' are basically hate speech, and yes, offensive to some people here on MeFi.
posted by zarq at 10:43 AM on June 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
The thing is that as long as the analogy that was used as a deletion reason is simplified down to simply forbidden because it can hurt members here, we aren't agreeing that this discussion is worth having in an appropriate thread on the blue.
But that's a flawed take in its own right, because as mods we haven't simplified this to "no one can ever have a discussion about the word 'transracial'". Arguing against that non-position gets us nowhere.
That people were objectively, on the internet at large and to an extent on metafilter when we let a thread run for a bit, doing a shitty job of talking about the Dolezal situation and of wrapping in the transracial qua transgender memeplex, is part of why we nuked that thread, and is why we asked people not to dig into that angle by proxy in this specific thread. We've tried to be pretty damned clear about both the idea of leaving it be in this thread and the idea that a better discussion about a lot of the things tied to this story could happen down the line at some point on the blue. That's not "it's simply forbidden". That's "have some patience, don't do it here, and do it with care when it does happen so that it isn't a shitty experience for our trans members and readers".
You are a smart and strong-willed conversationalist, klang, and that's something I like about you a lot of the time, but we get in these weird dynamics sometimes where it feels like you are as much as anything dedicated to not giving ground in some disagreement or other with the mods as a performance of principle rather than an actual attempt to, like, work with us on something. That's why it sucks. That's why "yeah but" in response to "please don't" is so frustrating. It's not that you disagree, it's that you use your disagreement as a sort of justification to just pull a kind of I Do What I Want routine that makes it harder, not easier, for us to end up at some sort of mutually agreeable long-term outcome on something like this.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:46 AM on June 19, 2015 [17 favorites]
But that's a flawed take in its own right, because as mods we haven't simplified this to "no one can ever have a discussion about the word 'transracial'". Arguing against that non-position gets us nowhere.
That people were objectively, on the internet at large and to an extent on metafilter when we let a thread run for a bit, doing a shitty job of talking about the Dolezal situation and of wrapping in the transracial qua transgender memeplex, is part of why we nuked that thread, and is why we asked people not to dig into that angle by proxy in this specific thread. We've tried to be pretty damned clear about both the idea of leaving it be in this thread and the idea that a better discussion about a lot of the things tied to this story could happen down the line at some point on the blue. That's not "it's simply forbidden". That's "have some patience, don't do it here, and do it with care when it does happen so that it isn't a shitty experience for our trans members and readers".
You are a smart and strong-willed conversationalist, klang, and that's something I like about you a lot of the time, but we get in these weird dynamics sometimes where it feels like you are as much as anything dedicated to not giving ground in some disagreement or other with the mods as a performance of principle rather than an actual attempt to, like, work with us on something. That's why it sucks. That's why "yeah but" in response to "please don't" is so frustrating. It's not that you disagree, it's that you use your disagreement as a sort of justification to just pull a kind of I Do What I Want routine that makes it harder, not easier, for us to end up at some sort of mutually agreeable long-term outcome on something like this.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:46 AM on June 19, 2015 [17 favorites]
What is the thread for, if not to discuss whether or not there are non-transphobic ways to have a discussion of the OP?
I take it klang has just demonstrated that there are: but it doesn't matter, because there are no ways to have an FPP that will only involve great comments by thoughtful people. So then there's no possible argument for having a Dolezal thread right now or any time in the future because it will always involve the whole userbase. There will not be a Metafilter that can tackle Dolezal in the foreseeable future because there will not be a Metafilter where everyone has a well-worked out theory of the metaphysics and politics of race and gender that is compatible with everyone else's well-worked out theory.
I get that you're saying we can do this sometime soon, just not now. I just don't understand what could change to make it possible. Maybe a round table format with a comment queue and white-listed commenters? (I joke, sort of, but can't imagine a non-technical solution.)
posted by anotherpanacea at 10:52 AM on June 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
I take it klang has just demonstrated that there are: but it doesn't matter, because there are no ways to have an FPP that will only involve great comments by thoughtful people. So then there's no possible argument for having a Dolezal thread right now or any time in the future because it will always involve the whole userbase. There will not be a Metafilter that can tackle Dolezal in the foreseeable future because there will not be a Metafilter where everyone has a well-worked out theory of the metaphysics and politics of race and gender that is compatible with everyone else's well-worked out theory.
I get that you're saying we can do this sometime soon, just not now. I just don't understand what could change to make it possible. Maybe a round table format with a comment queue and white-listed commenters? (I joke, sort of, but can't imagine a non-technical solution.)
posted by anotherpanacea at 10:52 AM on June 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
Klang’s comment embodies my hopes for a respectful discussion for me far more eloquently than I ever could. Bravo.
Perhaps it could be turned into an actual post with links to relevant work by the people referenced in a couple of weeks?
posted by pharm at 10:57 AM on June 19, 2015
Perhaps it could be turned into an actual post with links to relevant work by the people referenced in a couple of weeks?
posted by pharm at 10:57 AM on June 19, 2015
I get that you're saying we can do this sometime soon, just not now. I just don't understand what could change to make it possible.
Time—and I've said this a couple times already in here in one way or another—is a big factor. Not toward getting us to a perfect, 100% thoughtful, no-moderation-needed platonic ideal of a thread, but at least for significantly reducing the degree of likely cluelessness or knee-jerkery or reflexive gawky snarking from a distance.
Time for the Dolezal situation to go from being this brand new weird thing in the news to being something folks have had a chance to get over the immediate oddness of. Time for the details, on the Dolezal-specific side of things, to be much clearer than they were a few days ago. Time for the interesting angles that are only tangential to Dolezal herself to unlatch from that specific media spectacle so that people have a chance at all to have a conversation that doesn't go right back to her every five comments if that's not what a given post is actaully about.
Time for folks to read smart writing elsewhere, to digest, to reflect, to get to their own second or third round of thought on the subject instead of just immediately, urgently thinking out loud whatever inchoate and context-free and so more probably inadvertently offensive or hurtful thoughts come to mind while they're still just sort of freshly blinking at the raw WTF prompt that the situation has been.
I don't expect a thread about any of that to be non-bumpy, exactly. But I think it can be a whole lot better given a little time and distance. I think the nowness of the Dolezal situation specifically is basically the worst enemy that a workable discussion on Metafilter has, and that getting away from that a bit will be enormously helpful.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:02 AM on June 19, 2015 [7 favorites]
Time—and I've said this a couple times already in here in one way or another—is a big factor. Not toward getting us to a perfect, 100% thoughtful, no-moderation-needed platonic ideal of a thread, but at least for significantly reducing the degree of likely cluelessness or knee-jerkery or reflexive gawky snarking from a distance.
Time for the Dolezal situation to go from being this brand new weird thing in the news to being something folks have had a chance to get over the immediate oddness of. Time for the details, on the Dolezal-specific side of things, to be much clearer than they were a few days ago. Time for the interesting angles that are only tangential to Dolezal herself to unlatch from that specific media spectacle so that people have a chance at all to have a conversation that doesn't go right back to her every five comments if that's not what a given post is actaully about.
Time for folks to read smart writing elsewhere, to digest, to reflect, to get to their own second or third round of thought on the subject instead of just immediately, urgently thinking out loud whatever inchoate and context-free and so more probably inadvertently offensive or hurtful thoughts come to mind while they're still just sort of freshly blinking at the raw WTF prompt that the situation has been.
I don't expect a thread about any of that to be non-bumpy, exactly. But I think it can be a whole lot better given a little time and distance. I think the nowness of the Dolezal situation specifically is basically the worst enemy that a workable discussion on Metafilter has, and that getting away from that a bit will be enormously helpful.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:02 AM on June 19, 2015 [7 favorites]
I disagree that it sucks for members that we can't have in-depth discussions of trans scholarship and experience here. Trans people and people who have a more-than-average interest in these matters have plenty of other spaces on the internet to discuss these topics - spaces with different moderation standards, a more specific-interest community, and a stronger community ethos fostering trust and buy-in to actually expand on these topics. Metafilter, on the other hand, is a generalist website with a very small trans community, and has a nasty habit of users being actively transphobic towards trans members. Given that these users have demonstrated that they're more than willing to use dissent and nuance in scholarship to launch as "gotchas" against trans members, it's understandable when folks are wary about participating in these in-depth conversations. These aren't generally conversations that we can have on Metafilter unless they're very tightly framed - and that's fine, because anyone who's interested in these topics can go find other communities with different standards to discuss them.
klangklangston, I have you call you out on this. When you, as someone who identifies as straight and cis, drops a bunch of queer/trans academic theory into a thread where pretty much no queer or trans person is discussing it, the way it reads to me is that you're implicitly blaming us for the absence of discussion. It's not as if all of us are unaware of this theory, or haven't discussed it before, but we're intuitively aware: this is not the time and place for us to discuss it, and to do so would be personally harmful to us. It would be fine if that was the point you were making in isolation, but by actually dropping in a giant paragraph of namedrops on theories, it's as if you're trying to drag queer and trans people into a discussion we don't want to be having right now. Furthermore, you need to be aware as someone who is straight and cis, you are ironically regarded as more of an expert on our experiences than we are, by nature of holding a position that is "objective". And your comment, in the absence of queer and trans people actually putting forward this discussion, actively reinforces that - and further marginalizes our voices. This is not good allyship.
posted by Conspire at 11:03 AM on June 19, 2015 [20 favorites]
klangklangston, I have you call you out on this. When you, as someone who identifies as straight and cis, drops a bunch of queer/trans academic theory into a thread where pretty much no queer or trans person is discussing it, the way it reads to me is that you're implicitly blaming us for the absence of discussion. It's not as if all of us are unaware of this theory, or haven't discussed it before, but we're intuitively aware: this is not the time and place for us to discuss it, and to do so would be personally harmful to us. It would be fine if that was the point you were making in isolation, but by actually dropping in a giant paragraph of namedrops on theories, it's as if you're trying to drag queer and trans people into a discussion we don't want to be having right now. Furthermore, you need to be aware as someone who is straight and cis, you are ironically regarded as more of an expert on our experiences than we are, by nature of holding a position that is "objective". And your comment, in the absence of queer and trans people actually putting forward this discussion, actively reinforces that - and further marginalizes our voices. This is not good allyship.
posted by Conspire at 11:03 AM on June 19, 2015 [20 favorites]
Where did our courage go?
It doesn't take much courage to call somebody else's suffering artificially fragile.
posted by maxsparber at 11:03 AM on June 19, 2015 [7 favorites]
It doesn't take much courage to call somebody else's suffering artificially fragile.
posted by maxsparber at 11:03 AM on June 19, 2015 [7 favorites]
I take it klang has just demonstrated that there are: but it doesn't matter, because there are no ways to have an FPP that will only involve great comments by thoughtful people. So then there's no possible argument for having a Dolezal thread right now or any time in the future because it will always involve the whole userbase. There will not be a Metafilter that can tackle Dolezal in the foreseeable future because there will not be a Metafilter where everyone has a well-worked out theory of the metaphysics and politics of race and gender that is compatible with everyone else's well-worked out theory.
Again, there is a difference between posting about something when people feel agitated about it, than when people have a more dispassionate perspective brought on by a bit of distance and time. No one is declaring that time will create the perfect, ideal conditions for a Dolezal FPP that goes well, but it might decrease the number of people commenting who feel the need to thoughtlessly rant at the expense of other people here.
posted by zarq at 11:03 AM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
Again, there is a difference between posting about something when people feel agitated about it, than when people have a more dispassionate perspective brought on by a bit of distance and time. No one is declaring that time will create the perfect, ideal conditions for a Dolezal FPP that goes well, but it might decrease the number of people commenting who feel the need to thoughtlessly rant at the expense of other people here.
posted by zarq at 11:03 AM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
Well, considering you characterized a long discussion about the lived experience of trans people, in which they described in clear language how genuinely painful the deleted thread was to them, as follows:
we almost always end up getting into some kind of flamewar about how Johnny fucking touched us again when we were seatbelted in next to him, even though Mommy made us promise we'd be good.
It might be worth considering how you express yourself at the tail end of a long, contentious thread.
posted by maxsparber at 11:09 AM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
we almost always end up getting into some kind of flamewar about how Johnny fucking touched us again when we were seatbelted in next to him, even though Mommy made us promise we'd be good.
It might be worth considering how you express yourself at the tail end of a long, contentious thread.
posted by maxsparber at 11:09 AM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
I get that you're saying we can do this sometime soon, just not now. I just don't understand what could change to make it possible.
Time to breathe and think about the situation? Time to let the media stop waving it at people constantly off the site, for the onslaught of transphobia that our trans members are getting hit with to die off a little. Time for the news-of-the-weird gawkers to get bored and for the people who are thinking quietly to figure out how to phrase their thoughts.
Time for the context to change, both on and off the site. Time for people to feel less raw. Both about the Dolezal incident and its baggage and (I would argue) about the Charleston shooting, because that's not exactly helping people to think and trust each other and process. Time for people to stop reacting and pause.
I keep using the metaphor of chafing, because that's very much how I think about this. It's like... sometimes touch on a particular spot of skin on your ankle feels nice, like human contact or just a change of texture, right? And sometimes, if you've been wearing poorly fitting shoes all week and you have a raw spot, it hurts to be touched right there, no matter how nice the touch would have felt otherwise. Context matters, and it matters how raw people are feeling when we try to have this discussion. People who are directly affected--who are trans and black, primarily--are going to be much more raw than people who are not directly affected. It happens. Give it time. I'd argue that all this rules-lawyery "but WHEN" discussion is actually making that process harder, because you're not giving people enough time to step back and let the issue die down.
I don't see why this is a hard thing to get across. Sometimes the context of a discussion influences it just as strongly as the actual content of the first post. Sometimes the context is too bad to let a discussion go well no matter how perfect the first post is. The solution is to take a step back and let the context have a chance to change.
posted by sciatrix at 11:09 AM on June 19, 2015 [10 favorites]
Time to breathe and think about the situation? Time to let the media stop waving it at people constantly off the site, for the onslaught of transphobia that our trans members are getting hit with to die off a little. Time for the news-of-the-weird gawkers to get bored and for the people who are thinking quietly to figure out how to phrase their thoughts.
Time for the context to change, both on and off the site. Time for people to feel less raw. Both about the Dolezal incident and its baggage and (I would argue) about the Charleston shooting, because that's not exactly helping people to think and trust each other and process. Time for people to stop reacting and pause.
I keep using the metaphor of chafing, because that's very much how I think about this. It's like... sometimes touch on a particular spot of skin on your ankle feels nice, like human contact or just a change of texture, right? And sometimes, if you've been wearing poorly fitting shoes all week and you have a raw spot, it hurts to be touched right there, no matter how nice the touch would have felt otherwise. Context matters, and it matters how raw people are feeling when we try to have this discussion. People who are directly affected--who are trans and black, primarily--are going to be much more raw than people who are not directly affected. It happens. Give it time. I'd argue that all this rules-lawyery "but WHEN" discussion is actually making that process harder, because you're not giving people enough time to step back and let the issue die down.
I don't see why this is a hard thing to get across. Sometimes the context of a discussion influences it just as strongly as the actual content of the first post. Sometimes the context is too bad to let a discussion go well no matter how perfect the first post is. The solution is to take a step back and let the context have a chance to change.
posted by sciatrix at 11:09 AM on June 19, 2015 [10 favorites]
klangklangston, I have you call you out on this. When you, as someone who identifies as straight and cis, drops a bunch of queer/trans academic theory into a thread where pretty much no queer or trans person is discussing it, the way it reads to me is that you're implicitly blaming us for the absence of discussion.
I think with klangklangston (hopefully this is okay, he's talked about it on the blue) the thing is that he does a lot of policy work for LGBT issues and organizations, so he's pretty steeped in queer theory, more so than the average straight dude, not that he's bringing it up as some sort of gotcha.
posted by corb at 11:10 AM on June 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
I think with klangklangston (hopefully this is okay, he's talked about it on the blue) the thing is that he does a lot of policy work for LGBT issues and organizations, so he's pretty steeped in queer theory, more so than the average straight dude, not that he's bringing it up as some sort of gotcha.
posted by corb at 11:10 AM on June 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
Where did our courage go? Where did our humility and stability and self-reliance go? Why can't we find that, celebrate it, remember it, and move on? Why instead do we end up focusing on the hurt places, the shittiness, and never move on from there?
I think it's just nature of being on this website, where many of us are wary of the repeated homophobic and transphobic patterns we see on here - that's not fragility, that's just being savvy about environment. I have no doubt that if you and I were discussing things on a specialist trans/queer forum where there were more stringent moderation, better recognition of identity/ethos, and a better developed community, we'd be giving each other the benefit of the doubt more - I think it's weird to characterize the ways this environment in specific shapes our reactions to and discussion of arguments as an example of how trans/queer people interact with each other in general.
posted by Conspire at 11:11 AM on June 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
I think it's just nature of being on this website, where many of us are wary of the repeated homophobic and transphobic patterns we see on here - that's not fragility, that's just being savvy about environment. I have no doubt that if you and I were discussing things on a specialist trans/queer forum where there were more stringent moderation, better recognition of identity/ethos, and a better developed community, we'd be giving each other the benefit of the doubt more - I think it's weird to characterize the ways this environment in specific shapes our reactions to and discussion of arguments as an example of how trans/queer people interact with each other in general.
posted by Conspire at 11:11 AM on June 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
maxsparber, I am trans myself. Please stop lashing out at me.
I understand, and am not trying to seem like I am lashing out. Just attempting to point out that your description seemed to minimize the previous discussion as a fight between children, and, if that wasn't your intention, it read strangely.
posted by maxsparber at 11:12 AM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
I understand, and am not trying to seem like I am lashing out. Just attempting to point out that your description seemed to minimize the previous discussion as a fight between children, and, if that wasn't your intention, it read strangely.
posted by maxsparber at 11:12 AM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
Apologies if I sounded unnecessarily fighty, though.
posted by maxsparber at 11:12 AM on June 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by maxsparber at 11:12 AM on June 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
I don't expect a thread about any of that to be non-bumpy, exactly. But I think it can be a whole lot better given a little time and distance. I think the nowness of the Dolezal situation specifically is basically the worst enemy that a workable discussion on Metafilter has, and that getting away from that a bit will be enormously helpful.
Ok. I'd love it if in three weeks a post went up and a bunch of people memailed me to go "Neener neener!" because it went so well. (Ideally they'd also shout "FACE!" to celebrate the sick burn.)
posted by anotherpanacea at 11:14 AM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
Ok. I'd love it if in three weeks a post went up and a bunch of people memailed me to go "Neener neener!" because it went so well. (Ideally they'd also shout "FACE!" to celebrate the sick burn.)
posted by anotherpanacea at 11:14 AM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
I feel that if we constantly focus only on the shittiness done to us and on the dynamics of that disagreement we will find it challenging to move on to greater things.
Maybe it would be good to recognize that perhaps in moving onto goals, different people are at different stages of what they want. In the past, you've told me that you consider yourself very vocal and resistant to threat; but consider not everyone is like that. What might be an acceptable background level of transphobia/racism to you might be an active barrier to people who want to participate; highlighting shittiness is a way to bring recognition to it to reduce it, and might be the only thing that people have the energy to participate in at the moment. I truly believe that almost every person with lived experience on these matter has something vital to contribute to these discussions - and if they're coming off as someone who focuses on one-dimensional shittiness, that's not because they're lacking, but because the barriers are too great for them to actually express themselves. So I think the current focus on highlighting issues on this site is a way to open up more discourse for those who face disproportionate barriers in expressing their own experiences - it's great that you feel like you can move ahead on this personally, but I really would love it if it didn't sound like you were berating those who really need a lower level of bigotry and micro-aggression launched against them to participate.
posted by Conspire at 11:22 AM on June 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
Maybe it would be good to recognize that perhaps in moving onto goals, different people are at different stages of what they want. In the past, you've told me that you consider yourself very vocal and resistant to threat; but consider not everyone is like that. What might be an acceptable background level of transphobia/racism to you might be an active barrier to people who want to participate; highlighting shittiness is a way to bring recognition to it to reduce it, and might be the only thing that people have the energy to participate in at the moment. I truly believe that almost every person with lived experience on these matter has something vital to contribute to these discussions - and if they're coming off as someone who focuses on one-dimensional shittiness, that's not because they're lacking, but because the barriers are too great for them to actually express themselves. So I think the current focus on highlighting issues on this site is a way to open up more discourse for those who face disproportionate barriers in expressing their own experiences - it's great that you feel like you can move ahead on this personally, but I really would love it if it didn't sound like you were berating those who really need a lower level of bigotry and micro-aggression launched against them to participate.
posted by Conspire at 11:22 AM on June 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
Time doesn't just have the added benefit of (hopefully) decreasing the number of thoughtless comments (not just ranting ones, but clueless ones in general), but it gives members of the communities who feel burned out right now time to recover/decompress.
A post when general crappiness about the topic isn't so prominent just about every where you look could allow for more people to be willing and able to fully participate. I don't think saying hey, can we do this later is "focusing on the shittiness," it's acknowledging that there's even more of it than usual right now.
posted by ghost phoneme at 11:31 AM on June 19, 2015
A post when general crappiness about the topic isn't so prominent just about every where you look could allow for more people to be willing and able to fully participate. I don't think saying hey, can we do this later is "focusing on the shittiness," it's acknowledging that there's even more of it than usual right now.
posted by ghost phoneme at 11:31 AM on June 19, 2015
Please don't misunderstand my adventurousness, Conspire. I don't find any level of bias acceptable. I just don't let a lot of it stop me. I've always been wired like this, and I know not everyone is.
I'm not saying it's bad you're adventurous, but it really sounds as if you're taking what is a personal principle for you, and turning it into a moral fault for those who don't or can't adhere to it. In your original comment, you characterize yourself with "I am an adult human. I have courage. I have faith. I have charitableness. I have humility. I am not a massive ball of neurotic mess", and then you state the comments of others to be "whiny passive-aggressiveness, hurt feelings, and rules about what can and cannot be said." And then you say it's "artificial fragility", as if our expressions of concern were manufactured rather genuine. I get that you say: "I'm saying that we all have it, or have the potential to have it", but can you please see how your comments may be read as "my way of engaging with bigotry is superior, and your way of engaging with bigotry is childish"? Because not only do I disagree with that statement - I think it's healthy to have a wide range of strategies to counter bigotry - both call-outs and raising of issues, and sharing of experience are viable at different levels and in different situations - but my point is, many people can't engage on this site in ways identical to you out of lack of emotional energy to in addition to those who may not agree fully with the stance.
Again, no one is faulting you for having a personal stance on this, but from an outside reading, I really disagree that you're not unfairly criticizing or declaring moral superiority over those who don't adhere to your stance.
posted by Conspire at 11:37 AM on June 19, 2015 [5 favorites]
I'm not saying it's bad you're adventurous, but it really sounds as if you're taking what is a personal principle for you, and turning it into a moral fault for those who don't or can't adhere to it. In your original comment, you characterize yourself with "I am an adult human. I have courage. I have faith. I have charitableness. I have humility. I am not a massive ball of neurotic mess", and then you state the comments of others to be "whiny passive-aggressiveness, hurt feelings, and rules about what can and cannot be said." And then you say it's "artificial fragility", as if our expressions of concern were manufactured rather genuine. I get that you say: "I'm saying that we all have it, or have the potential to have it", but can you please see how your comments may be read as "my way of engaging with bigotry is superior, and your way of engaging with bigotry is childish"? Because not only do I disagree with that statement - I think it's healthy to have a wide range of strategies to counter bigotry - both call-outs and raising of issues, and sharing of experience are viable at different levels and in different situations - but my point is, many people can't engage on this site in ways identical to you out of lack of emotional energy to in addition to those who may not agree fully with the stance.
Again, no one is faulting you for having a personal stance on this, but from an outside reading, I really disagree that you're not unfairly criticizing or declaring moral superiority over those who don't adhere to your stance.
posted by Conspire at 11:37 AM on June 19, 2015 [5 favorites]
I was abroad when all this went down, and had very little to go on. I told myself "when I get home I'll see what Metafilter has to say!".
And I couldn't find a post at first, but went hunting, and eventually found this.
And..that's a lot of words. But I know a LOT more about it all, and I've found out a lot about how not to discuss and how to better discuss; more importantly, more about how not to hurt by discussing. That's more important than the facts of one incident.
Thanks to everyone. I'm still not sure what I think, but I'm not done looking and thinking.
posted by librosegretti at 12:10 PM on June 19, 2015 [6 favorites]
And I couldn't find a post at first, but went hunting, and eventually found this.
And..that's a lot of words. But I know a LOT more about it all, and I've found out a lot about how not to discuss and how to better discuss; more importantly, more about how not to hurt by discussing. That's more important than the facts of one incident.
Thanks to everyone. I'm still not sure what I think, but I'm not done looking and thinking.
posted by librosegretti at 12:10 PM on June 19, 2015 [6 favorites]
I certainly would not dream of speaking for kalessin, but I read that statement of demanding courage not just from trans members, but MeFites in general. Because, when we are talking about things like "fragility," I don't think that's "fragile trans members who can't take the heat," as I think some would read it. I think it means the cis members who can't see a trans-related thread without having an attack of the vapors. I think it means white members who can't see a race-related thread without having a defensive meltdown. I think it means male members who can't see a thread by women without trying to make it about them. And, really, if we could get over those fragilities, I think a lot of the pressure on disadvantaged members would be lifted, and there would be less angry pushback.
Because, while I think some of that angriness as counterproductive, I am never going to call out a member for lashing out against the daily bullshit of oppression. That's not courage, that's admitting defeat. I have a huge respect for peacemakers and the calm explainers, but that does not mean I have disregard or contempt for the people who have had enough. I'll even go as far to say that we need both, because while some people can learn through calm explanation, others need to be told off, because they are not going to get their on their own, and they really need to get there or get lost.
Anyway, I'm no longer sure whether I am arguing with or for kalessin any more, but I would really like to be part of a community where we can have these conversations. And, yeah, I guess you could say that we need to come together, but the privileged side is going to have to move a heck of a lot further and a fuckton harder because I am not happy where all of the heavy lifting is being done by an exhausted minority.
posted by GenjiandProust at 1:24 PM on June 19, 2015 [5 favorites]
Because, while I think some of that angriness as counterproductive, I am never going to call out a member for lashing out against the daily bullshit of oppression. That's not courage, that's admitting defeat. I have a huge respect for peacemakers and the calm explainers, but that does not mean I have disregard or contempt for the people who have had enough. I'll even go as far to say that we need both, because while some people can learn through calm explanation, others need to be told off, because they are not going to get their on their own, and they really need to get there or get lost.
Anyway, I'm no longer sure whether I am arguing with or for kalessin any more, but I would really like to be part of a community where we can have these conversations. And, yeah, I guess you could say that we need to come together, but the privileged side is going to have to move a heck of a lot further and a fuckton harder because I am not happy where all of the heavy lifting is being done by an exhausted minority.
posted by GenjiandProust at 1:24 PM on June 19, 2015 [5 favorites]
The talk about hurt feelings and offensiveness is a red herring when the issue is simply about a binary presence/lack of empathy for "Others". Most people lack it (IME), which is why social justice issues like this seem like a land mine of increasing "rules" that are impossible to keep up with ("which words are offensive now?").
If you took the basic humanity and dignity of trans women for granted, it would be impossible for the actions of a cis white woman to convince you to put trans people on the defensive to prove their humanity once again by questioning the legitimacy of a trans identity. If you took the basic humanity and dignity of black women for granted, it would be impossible for the actions of a cis white woman to convince you to put black people on the defensive forcing them to argue the legitimacy of a black identity.
A black trans woman with no connection to Germany in any way who nonetheless claimed to identify as German would not convince us to demand that any Germans define what "German-ness" really is. German-ness is obviously socially constructed, relatively recently so, and yet its ascribed to people whose agency we take as a given, so it's not up for (our) discussion.
It's more than "offensive" to be constantly on the defensive about your own humanity. That's not hyperbolic or metaphorical. Whether or not trans or black or plenty of other marginalized people should even exist is a mainstream question. The answer is "yes", simply because we do, which is why people who disagree often do so with violence.
So no, this is not about thin skin or hurt feelings. Putting people on trial for being isn't "just asking questions". Metafilter deciding to take the "debate" of whether or not people who aren't white guys have basic human dignity off the table is something to be welcomed.
posted by deathmaven at 1:27 PM on June 19, 2015 [8 favorites]
If you took the basic humanity and dignity of trans women for granted, it would be impossible for the actions of a cis white woman to convince you to put trans people on the defensive to prove their humanity once again by questioning the legitimacy of a trans identity. If you took the basic humanity and dignity of black women for granted, it would be impossible for the actions of a cis white woman to convince you to put black people on the defensive forcing them to argue the legitimacy of a black identity.
A black trans woman with no connection to Germany in any way who nonetheless claimed to identify as German would not convince us to demand that any Germans define what "German-ness" really is. German-ness is obviously socially constructed, relatively recently so, and yet its ascribed to people whose agency we take as a given, so it's not up for (our) discussion.
It's more than "offensive" to be constantly on the defensive about your own humanity. That's not hyperbolic or metaphorical. Whether or not trans or black or plenty of other marginalized people should even exist is a mainstream question. The answer is "yes", simply because we do, which is why people who disagree often do so with violence.
So no, this is not about thin skin or hurt feelings. Putting people on trial for being isn't "just asking questions". Metafilter deciding to take the "debate" of whether or not people who aren't white guys have basic human dignity off the table is something to be welcomed.
posted by deathmaven at 1:27 PM on June 19, 2015 [8 favorites]
kalessin, I'm really sorry that you feel this way, and I think taking a break to cool down is a good idea for anyone when they feel threatened. That being said, the only concrete thing I've asked you to do (in the absolute nicest terms I could) is not call, in your own words, the comments of others fragile, whiny, passive-aggressive, artificial, and rules-lawyering. I don't think that's an unreasonable request, nor do I think it's wrong for me to ask you not to do so in direct terms. Again, I'm sorry that you feel this way, but I feel like it's reasonable, and by no means demanding that your language and expression of opinion be perfect, to point this out.
posted by Conspire at 1:29 PM on June 19, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by Conspire at 1:29 PM on June 19, 2015 [7 favorites]
We'll never be able to discuss these issues because there will always be someone who is too tired, too angry, too "fragile", too hurt, too cis, too uninformed. We will never have a user base that meets all the requirements that are necessary for avoiding pain. Let's just finally have some closure on this: let's admit that it can't be done, and just not do it.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:37 PM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by five fresh fish at 1:37 PM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
We'll never be able to discuss these issues because there will always be someone who is too tired, too angry, too "fragile", too hurt, too cis, too uninformed.
And yet we discuss them productively every day! How is that possible?
posted by KathrynT at 1:41 PM on June 19, 2015 [18 favorites]
And yet we discuss them productively every day! How is that possible?
posted by KathrynT at 1:41 PM on June 19, 2015 [18 favorites]
let's admit that it can't be done, and just not do it.
Or, we could not pursue the perfect over the good, and try to do better every time.
That just takes good will and ready moderation.
posted by GenjiandProust at 1:43 PM on June 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
Or, we could not pursue the perfect over the good, and try to do better every time.
That just takes good will and ready moderation.
posted by GenjiandProust at 1:43 PM on June 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
That just takes good will and ready moderation.
And sometimes a whole lot of talking. I know a number of people get frustrated with these kinds of conversations, and feeling like we often repeat them, but I do think that we make progress over time.
A therapist friend of mine, when I admitted that conflict is hard for me, encouraged me to think that sometimes conflict is a path to good things in relationships, even though the discussions are difficult. The exact words were, "sometimes intimacy comes through honest conflict." I'm not sure that we are necessarily looking for intimacy, but I think the principle can be helpful when we feel that the discussions are tough while trying to gain a semblance of good community.
I think if we can fundamentally ask the question, what does to mean to be people of good will?, it's not only potentially helpful in making progress, but it can help cover a multitude of (unintentional) slights/sins. I also know that suggestions like this can sometimes seem simplistic, but I'm convinced that hard conversations can make progress, and discovering the kinds of people we can best be while having hard conversations is always one of the more helpful thing to consider.
posted by SpacemanStix at 1:59 PM on June 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
And sometimes a whole lot of talking. I know a number of people get frustrated with these kinds of conversations, and feeling like we often repeat them, but I do think that we make progress over time.
A therapist friend of mine, when I admitted that conflict is hard for me, encouraged me to think that sometimes conflict is a path to good things in relationships, even though the discussions are difficult. The exact words were, "sometimes intimacy comes through honest conflict." I'm not sure that we are necessarily looking for intimacy, but I think the principle can be helpful when we feel that the discussions are tough while trying to gain a semblance of good community.
I think if we can fundamentally ask the question, what does to mean to be people of good will?, it's not only potentially helpful in making progress, but it can help cover a multitude of (unintentional) slights/sins. I also know that suggestions like this can sometimes seem simplistic, but I'm convinced that hard conversations can make progress, and discovering the kinds of people we can best be while having hard conversations is always one of the more helpful thing to consider.
posted by SpacemanStix at 1:59 PM on June 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
When minority members and allies are being run off the site by their very own, I don't see there's much hope to be had. It can only lead to there being only one "right" voice, one "right" opinion, expressed only in the "right" way. Diversity is chased off. And without diversity, there's no discussion to be had.
Now perhaps it's because I'm having a shit day, but it irks me to see this repeated insistence that only X people can truly speak for X things — and then when a person who is legitimately X does speak up, their shot down by someone else claiming to speak for X.
It was kalessin's opinion, expressed as honestly as kalessin could express it, about his experience of the MetaFilter social environment. Either accept that he sees and feels differently about how people interact around here, or eff off. FFS, like all of us, he's doing the best he can.
Fuck, what a community. Give your fellow user a fucking break once in a while.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:59 PM on June 19, 2015 [16 favorites]
Now perhaps it's because I'm having a shit day, but it irks me to see this repeated insistence that only X people can truly speak for X things — and then when a person who is legitimately X does speak up, their shot down by someone else claiming to speak for X.
It was kalessin's opinion, expressed as honestly as kalessin could express it, about his experience of the MetaFilter social environment. Either accept that he sees and feels differently about how people interact around here, or eff off. FFS, like all of us, he's doing the best he can.
Fuck, what a community. Give your fellow user a fucking break once in a while.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:59 PM on June 19, 2015 [16 favorites]
I recognize that as a community we have a lot of trouble with trans posts. As a community and not just the mods, what can we do? There's collectively being more thoughtful before commenting, and calling out shitty stuff. When MetaFilter gets enough of a rainy season fund, could we explicitly search for a scholar knowledgeable about discriminated sexual and gender orientations?
SpacemanStix, I agree that conflict can be good, but don't think MeTas like these are helpful. The issue with MeTas is that at the beginning you get a lot of people popping in for quick shitty rebuttals, but at the end you have barely any voices left. Right now, there's a mix of rightful objections to offensive wording and statements, and accusatory statements that seem to be putting words in other's mouths. I've felt incredibly sad from this thread yet also afraid to comment because of the nitpicking every serious comment is getting.
posted by halifix at 2:07 PM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
SpacemanStix, I agree that conflict can be good, but don't think MeTas like these are helpful. The issue with MeTas is that at the beginning you get a lot of people popping in for quick shitty rebuttals, but at the end you have barely any voices left. Right now, there's a mix of rightful objections to offensive wording and statements, and accusatory statements that seem to be putting words in other's mouths. I've felt incredibly sad from this thread yet also afraid to comment because of the nitpicking every serious comment is getting.
posted by halifix at 2:07 PM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
I have a huge respect for peacemakers and the calm explainers, but that does not mean I have disregard or contempt for the people who have had enough.
Just wanted to point out that these are often the same people, at different times. Patiently explaining is a good route to quickly having had enough, in my experience.
posted by Dysk at 2:09 PM on June 19, 2015 [8 favorites]
Just wanted to point out that these are often the same people, at different times. Patiently explaining is a good route to quickly having had enough, in my experience.
posted by Dysk at 2:09 PM on June 19, 2015 [8 favorites]
Just wanted to point out that these are often the same people, at different times.
Oh, yes. I was talking roles, not people. Sorry for the confusion.
posted by GenjiandProust at 2:14 PM on June 19, 2015
Oh, yes. I was talking roles, not people. Sorry for the confusion.
posted by GenjiandProust at 2:14 PM on June 19, 2015
Just a note: It seems I was mistaken in thinking Conspire is trans.
AFAICT Conspire has been very forthright about being cis.
posted by KathrynT at 2:22 PM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
AFAICT Conspire has been very forthright about being cis.
posted by KathrynT at 2:22 PM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
SpacemanStix, I agree that conflict can be good, but don't think MeTas like these are helpful.
Yes, there can definitely be pretty crappy MeTa conversations. I think the idea of "continuing to talk" would include discussions on how to make MeTa discussions better when things don't go well. Those kinds of observations have worked at times here and in good ways, and sometimes they came from the ashes of prior poor conversations. I'm not convinced that it's all a lost cause simply because it's hard, or we need a do-over at times, or we look at a specific instance and say well that discussion sure burnt down to the ground fast. Let's keep trying, that's all I'm saying. I liked a lot of what kalessin said about courage. Let's have the courage to keep engaging and reflecting and refining. I think we're all tired, but let's encourage each other to stick around and work it out.
oh look, my glass is half full.
posted by SpacemanStix at 2:29 PM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yes, there can definitely be pretty crappy MeTa conversations. I think the idea of "continuing to talk" would include discussions on how to make MeTa discussions better when things don't go well. Those kinds of observations have worked at times here and in good ways, and sometimes they came from the ashes of prior poor conversations. I'm not convinced that it's all a lost cause simply because it's hard, or we need a do-over at times, or we look at a specific instance and say well that discussion sure burnt down to the ground fast. Let's keep trying, that's all I'm saying. I liked a lot of what kalessin said about courage. Let's have the courage to keep engaging and reflecting and refining. I think we're all tired, but let's encourage each other to stick around and work it out.
oh look, my glass is half full.
posted by SpacemanStix at 2:29 PM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
When minority members and allies are being run off the site by their very own,
Kalessin is trans. Conspire is not. So... not the same group. kalessin and you (and I!) thought they were.
Personally, I thought Conspire was presenting himself as a trans authority in this thread. I thought he did the same in the JuneBy thread, in his interactions with FFF. I thought for sure he was trans! Obviously I was wrong. Must have missed his comment, linked above. And my misinterpretation is my fault, not his.
We discussed in the JuneBy metas various reasons why folding T under the LGB umbrella can be problematic, and especially why it is a problem for people who are not trans to attempt to speak for that group, or worse, demand that they fit arbitrary criteria. Especially when it comes to lecturing people about their identity and tone.
I sincerely don't want to inappropriately insert myself in their discussion. I'm not queer or trans. And I apologize in advance if saying this offends anyone. But looking at their exchange as an outsider.... the entire situation bothers me. I don't want to see kalessin, whose contributions I think are valuable and helpful, feel like he is at odds with other members of mefi's trans community when Conspire isn't one.
posted by zarq at 2:31 PM on June 19, 2015 [14 favorites]
Kalessin is trans. Conspire is not. So... not the same group. kalessin and you (and I!) thought they were.
Personally, I thought Conspire was presenting himself as a trans authority in this thread. I thought he did the same in the JuneBy thread, in his interactions with FFF. I thought for sure he was trans! Obviously I was wrong. Must have missed his comment, linked above. And my misinterpretation is my fault, not his.
We discussed in the JuneBy metas various reasons why folding T under the LGB umbrella can be problematic, and especially why it is a problem for people who are not trans to attempt to speak for that group, or worse, demand that they fit arbitrary criteria. Especially when it comes to lecturing people about their identity and tone.
I sincerely don't want to inappropriately insert myself in their discussion. I'm not queer or trans. And I apologize in advance if saying this offends anyone. But looking at their exchange as an outsider.... the entire situation bothers me. I don't want to see kalessin, whose contributions I think are valuable and helpful, feel like he is at odds with other members of mefi's trans community when Conspire isn't one.
posted by zarq at 2:31 PM on June 19, 2015 [14 favorites]
I don't know, fff -- I don't think there is any choice but moving on, doing the best we can. What's the other option? Throw out our trans members so we can avoid seeing them feel bad? Just accept that the assholes and whiners will always be so much of a problem that we will never have the site we might want? I can't believe that, or I would button right now.
Looking back over some of those "Good Old Days" MeTas, it's clear that MetaFilter used to be a much much more hostile place for women, and it's only a lot of hard work by a lot of people. Similarly, it looks like race is handled much better here than in days past. That doesn't me "good enough," it just means "better." There is still loads of work to do, and we are just at the start of doing that work for trans issues. I think we are ahead of where we were last summer (where we had like 3 brutal MeTas in about 10 days on not being shitty to our trans members), so there is way way more work to be done here. So I can leave or I can keep trying to do the best work I can do.
posted by GenjiandProust at 2:36 PM on June 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
Looking back over some of those "Good Old Days" MeTas, it's clear that MetaFilter used to be a much much more hostile place for women, and it's only a lot of hard work by a lot of people. Similarly, it looks like race is handled much better here than in days past. That doesn't me "good enough," it just means "better." There is still loads of work to do, and we are just at the start of doing that work for trans issues. I think we are ahead of where we were last summer (where we had like 3 brutal MeTas in about 10 days on not being shitty to our trans members), so there is way way more work to be done here. So I can leave or I can keep trying to do the best work I can do.
posted by GenjiandProust at 2:36 PM on June 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
The edit window for my last comment is closed, but that should have read, "in his interactions with FFFM" (fearless fecal fearmongering) not FFF (five fresh fish).
TOO MANY F NAMES
posted by zarq at 2:59 PM on June 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
TOO MANY F NAMES
posted by zarq at 2:59 PM on June 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
I feel like the number of people have made the mistake of believing that anyone who cares passionately about trans issues and transmisogyny specifically MUST be trans, and have mentally assigned Conspire that identity on that basis even though he's never exactly been coy about his gender identity. And also I strenuously reject the idea that it's inappropriate for a cis man to call out transmisogyny when he sees it -- that's the road that leads to trans women being the only ones who bear the burden of trying to solve that problem. If you feel like he's fucking it up, or talking over other trans women, or presenting himself as an authority before people who have lived that experience, then address his statements on that basis rather than dismissing his comments on the basis of his identity.
Men are allowed to fight misogyny on their own grounds, because they don't want to live in a misogynist world. White people are allowed to fight racism and anti-Blackness just because we hate racism and anti-Blackness. Cis people can fight transphobia and transmisogyny just because we think those things are shitty, we don't have to be doing it on someone else's behalf. If you think he's doing it badly, then engage on that basis, but he hasn't misrepresented himself at all.
posted by KathrynT at 2:59 PM on June 19, 2015 [14 favorites]
Men are allowed to fight misogyny on their own grounds, because they don't want to live in a misogynist world. White people are allowed to fight racism and anti-Blackness just because we hate racism and anti-Blackness. Cis people can fight transphobia and transmisogyny just because we think those things are shitty, we don't have to be doing it on someone else's behalf. If you think he's doing it badly, then engage on that basis, but he hasn't misrepresented himself at all.
posted by KathrynT at 2:59 PM on June 19, 2015 [14 favorites]
Nevertheless, it seems pretty damn ironic that someone who isn’t trans but has made a big deal about policing what others can & can’t say about trans people in this thread has made a genuine trans individual feel that they have to take a break from the site because they perceive themselves as out of step with those expectations.
posted by pharm at 3:04 PM on June 19, 2015 [15 favorites]
posted by pharm at 3:04 PM on June 19, 2015 [15 favorites]
zarq: "Personally, I thought Conspire was presenting himself as a trans authority in this thread. I thought he did the same in the JuneBy thread, in his interactions with FFF."
I, a Certified Real Trans Woman and Experiencer Of Transmisogyny, am in regular contact with Conspire and I very much appreciate the work he does on Mefi advocating for trans women because I'm too goddamned exhausted to do so any more.
pharm: "Nevertheless, it seems pretty damn ironic that someone who isn’t trans but has made a big deal about policing what others can & can’t say about trans people in this thread has made a genuine trans individual feel that they have to take a break from the site because they perceive themselves as out of step with those expectations."
Should mention at this point that there is much difference of opinion and experience within the trans community, especially when it comes to trans women vs other trans people, enough that it doesn't necessarily always make sense to talk about a unified trans community; the greater trans and queer community actually often works actively against the interests of trans women. My point: someone who is trans but not a trans woman may well be less my ally than someone who is cis but considers trans women first in their activism.
posted by these are science wands at 3:10 PM on June 19, 2015 [11 favorites]
I, a Certified Real Trans Woman and Experiencer Of Transmisogyny, am in regular contact with Conspire and I very much appreciate the work he does on Mefi advocating for trans women because I'm too goddamned exhausted to do so any more.
pharm: "Nevertheless, it seems pretty damn ironic that someone who isn’t trans but has made a big deal about policing what others can & can’t say about trans people in this thread has made a genuine trans individual feel that they have to take a break from the site because they perceive themselves as out of step with those expectations."
Should mention at this point that there is much difference of opinion and experience within the trans community, especially when it comes to trans women vs other trans people, enough that it doesn't necessarily always make sense to talk about a unified trans community; the greater trans and queer community actually often works actively against the interests of trans women. My point: someone who is trans but not a trans woman may well be less my ally than someone who is cis but considers trans women first in their activism.
posted by these are science wands at 3:10 PM on June 19, 2015 [11 favorites]
This latest stuff feels really weird and a little rough and I think it would maybe be healthy if we just let it go?
posted by Corinth at 3:15 PM on June 19, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by Corinth at 3:15 PM on June 19, 2015 [7 favorites]
I did not read Conspire's comments about kalessin's dismissiveness as being trans-specific at all. I think it's valid to say "hey, when you categorize people who feel hurt by this kind of discourse as whiny, artifically fragile children, that is not great" regardless.
Also, there's a context that's missing here. kalessin isn't speaking of the reactions of trans people; they're speaking of the reactions of trans women. Unless I'm mistaken, kalessin identifies as transmasculine(*). The experiences of transmasculine people in society and are frequently very different than the experiences of transfeminine people, and it's a mistake to lump them all together as though those differences didn't matter.
*The "transfeminine" and "transmasculine" identifiers are ones I've become aware of fairly recently. I am using them here as appropriately and consistently as my current awareness allows, but I am definitely open to feedback on that usage.
posted by KathrynT at 3:15 PM on June 19, 2015 [7 favorites]
Also, there's a context that's missing here. kalessin isn't speaking of the reactions of trans people; they're speaking of the reactions of trans women. Unless I'm mistaken, kalessin identifies as transmasculine(*). The experiences of transmasculine people in society and are frequently very different than the experiences of transfeminine people, and it's a mistake to lump them all together as though those differences didn't matter.
*The "transfeminine" and "transmasculine" identifiers are ones I've become aware of fairly recently. I am using them here as appropriately and consistently as my current awareness allows, but I am definitely open to feedback on that usage.
posted by KathrynT at 3:15 PM on June 19, 2015 [7 favorites]
"Nevertheless, it seems pretty damn ironic that someone who isn’t trans but has made a big deal about policing what others can & can’t say about trans people in this thread has made a genuine trans individual feel that they have to take a break from the site because they perceive themselves as out of step with those expectations."
I think it's likely -- and kalessin mentioned this -- that it's more a function of the #JuneBy thread where kalessin actually was a lone dissenting voice among numerous trans* voices. This exchange in this thread exists within the context of that much more extended and difficult conversation and it's a mistake to take this small tail end of it as some sort of cautionary example. In fact, I think it's deeply problematic for outsiders to appropriate it for their own purposes in this thread.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 3:15 PM on June 19, 2015 [6 favorites]
I think it's likely -- and kalessin mentioned this -- that it's more a function of the #JuneBy thread where kalessin actually was a lone dissenting voice among numerous trans* voices. This exchange in this thread exists within the context of that much more extended and difficult conversation and it's a mistake to take this small tail end of it as some sort of cautionary example. In fact, I think it's deeply problematic for outsiders to appropriate it for their own purposes in this thread.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 3:15 PM on June 19, 2015 [6 favorites]
Even worse. So here we have admonishment that we cisetceteras should listen more than talk, a cisetceteras that talks so much that s/he's repeatedly mistaken for X, an X member run off the site by him/her, plus others who've said etailfuckitall and blew town.
Fucking terrible.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:16 PM on June 19, 2015
Fucking terrible.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:16 PM on June 19, 2015
Given that subject of this MeTa is originally a thread where people were failing to parse even basic "trans" stuff, I'm not sure driving down into further subdivisions in here is going to be super useful. Or, rather, I'm pretty sure that it's not going to be more useful than hurtful, overall.
posted by Corinth at 3:19 PM on June 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Corinth at 3:19 PM on June 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
fff: stop.
posted by these are science wands at 3:19 PM on June 19, 2015 [23 favorites]
posted by these are science wands at 3:19 PM on June 19, 2015 [23 favorites]
I think maybe this is mainly an interpersonal disagreement, and not necessarily representative of a larger dynamic but mainly informed by some specific personal history in recent threads like that JunebyQueers thread -- and for that reason it would probably be a kindness to not shine a spotlight on it? If we need to talk about a larger dynamic let's maybe do that without using this as an example?
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 3:21 PM on June 19, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 3:21 PM on June 19, 2015 [6 favorites]
I think it's just nature of being on this website, where many of us are wary of the repeated homophobic and transphobic patterns we see on here - that's not fragility, that's just being savvy about environment. I have no doubt that if you and I were discussing things on a specialist trans/queer forum where there were more stringent moderation, better recognition of identity/ethos, and a better developed community, we'd be giving each other the benefit of the doubt more - I think it's weird to characterize the ways this environment in specific shapes our reactions and discussion of arguments as an example of how trans/queer people interact with each other in general.
I gotta say, I.... strongly disagree with this. I have not found intra-queer-community discussions to be much less fraught than general discussions for myself. Unless you are referring specifically to the model of only being able to have these kinds of conversations with good friends that you have a long history with Conspire, I think this is pretty unlikely. There are too many intra-identity tensions here and too long a history of, let us say, hierarchical posturing within queer communities of who "really" counts and who "really" deserves to be here. If we're talking a general queer forum, well, unless people are watching for that, cis gay men and cis lesbians are not necessarily any better about trans issues or bisexuality issues than cis straight people are. Ditto intersex issues. There are tensions between trans men and cis lesbian/bi and nonbinary communities, too, and trans men and trans women, and trans women and cis lesbian/bi women. You saying "oh, well, Metafilter is too straight/cis for this" makes me raise my eyebrows, because it's not like interqueer communities don't have similar issues.
And, well, like I said I am coming from my perspective as an asexual woman; I expect pretty well no one outside of very specific communities of other ace people to be good at handling my issues at first. I have been harassed in my own ace-specific online communities by queer-identified people. I think I mentioned, I'm just now getting over actual panic attacks at the thought of entering offline queer spaces, because I've spent so much time chronicling the harassment of online ace spaces primarily by queer-identified people and people who believed themselves to be acting as allies. I don't think it's as glib as all that. I think that it's about deciding to trust that the people you are talking to right now are talking in good faith, assuming they will be respectful until they say something asinine, and then assuming they will respond to a correction--even a "Wow. Not cool" level correction--until otherwise. After that, well, I remember what they say. But everyone gets one chance to fuck up and one chance for it to be accidental. I try to trust people here.
And that is fucking hard to do. Really hard. But I think it is worth doing, and I too am uncomfortable at the pressure that expecting perfection puts on the community. I think that pressure can result in some pretty toxic dynamics, and I'm here specifically because the pressure of perfection that I feel in communities like many Tumblr spaces is something I find exhausting and terrible for my anxiety. I want to be in a space where we can at least pretend that we can trust each other in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
posted by sciatrix at 3:22 PM on June 19, 2015 [14 favorites]
I gotta say, I.... strongly disagree with this. I have not found intra-queer-community discussions to be much less fraught than general discussions for myself. Unless you are referring specifically to the model of only being able to have these kinds of conversations with good friends that you have a long history with Conspire, I think this is pretty unlikely. There are too many intra-identity tensions here and too long a history of, let us say, hierarchical posturing within queer communities of who "really" counts and who "really" deserves to be here. If we're talking a general queer forum, well, unless people are watching for that, cis gay men and cis lesbians are not necessarily any better about trans issues or bisexuality issues than cis straight people are. Ditto intersex issues. There are tensions between trans men and cis lesbian/bi and nonbinary communities, too, and trans men and trans women, and trans women and cis lesbian/bi women. You saying "oh, well, Metafilter is too straight/cis for this" makes me raise my eyebrows, because it's not like interqueer communities don't have similar issues.
And, well, like I said I am coming from my perspective as an asexual woman; I expect pretty well no one outside of very specific communities of other ace people to be good at handling my issues at first. I have been harassed in my own ace-specific online communities by queer-identified people. I think I mentioned, I'm just now getting over actual panic attacks at the thought of entering offline queer spaces, because I've spent so much time chronicling the harassment of online ace spaces primarily by queer-identified people and people who believed themselves to be acting as allies. I don't think it's as glib as all that. I think that it's about deciding to trust that the people you are talking to right now are talking in good faith, assuming they will be respectful until they say something asinine, and then assuming they will respond to a correction--even a "Wow. Not cool" level correction--until otherwise. After that, well, I remember what they say. But everyone gets one chance to fuck up and one chance for it to be accidental. I try to trust people here.
And that is fucking hard to do. Really hard. But I think it is worth doing, and I too am uncomfortable at the pressure that expecting perfection puts on the community. I think that pressure can result in some pretty toxic dynamics, and I'm here specifically because the pressure of perfection that I feel in communities like many Tumblr spaces is something I find exhausting and terrible for my anxiety. I want to be in a space where we can at least pretend that we can trust each other in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
posted by sciatrix at 3:22 PM on June 19, 2015 [14 favorites]
....and in the interests of not reiterating #JuneBy again, I'm going to be taking the rest of the evening off this thread. Sorry, guys, that's what I get for not hitting preview.
posted by sciatrix at 3:24 PM on June 19, 2015
posted by sciatrix at 3:24 PM on June 19, 2015
Also, there's a context that's missing here. kalessin isn't speaking of the reactions of trans people; they're speaking of the reactions of trans women.
I didn't get that sense.
I'm not talking about white fragility here, though that's certainly part of it. I'm talking about how we are going absolutely nuts trying to avoid unnecessary hardship for everyone.
I want to be able to have a level of mutual respect where I know you have that mettle, cortex, corb, zarq, Etrigan, NoraReed, Dysk, Conspire, Lexica, klangklangston, jessamyn, whomever. And I want you to know that I have it.
If there was subtext in the comment, I missed it. But I don't think I read the threads where it apparently came from so that is perfectly likely.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:27 PM on June 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
I didn't get that sense.
I'm not talking about white fragility here, though that's certainly part of it. I'm talking about how we are going absolutely nuts trying to avoid unnecessary hardship for everyone.
I want to be able to have a level of mutual respect where I know you have that mettle, cortex, corb, zarq, Etrigan, NoraReed, Dysk, Conspire, Lexica, klangklangston, jessamyn, whomever. And I want you to know that I have it.
If there was subtext in the comment, I missed it. But I don't think I read the threads where it apparently came from so that is perfectly likely.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:27 PM on June 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'm another trans person who agrees with kalessin and thinks it's super fucked up that cis people are telling trans members that they know what trans people want better than those trans people themselves. I'm not a two year old, and I don't need anyone to get offended on my behalf for what they imagine I should think, and then decide that if I don't agree with them about what they think I should think it turns out I'm the one who's wrong. They're not listening to trans people, they're listening to people who agree with what they already believe and then finding a trans person they can use as an example to try to justify it.
posted by CJF at 5:24 PM on June 19, 2015 [18 favorites]
posted by CJF at 5:24 PM on June 19, 2015 [18 favorites]
klangklangston, I have you call you out on this. When you, as someone who identifies as straight and cis, drops a bunch of queer/trans academic theory into a thread where pretty much no queer or trans person is discussing it, the way it reads to me is that you're implicitly blaming us for the absence of discussion. It's not as if all of us are unaware of this theory, or haven't discussed it before, but we're intuitively aware: this is not the time and place for us to discuss it, and to do so would be personally harmful to us. It would be fine if that was the point you were making in isolation, but by actually dropping in a giant paragraph of namedrops on theories, it's as if you're trying to drag queer and trans people into a discussion we don't want to be having right now. Furthermore, you need to be aware as someone who is straight and cis, you are ironically regarded as more of an expert on our experiences than we are, by nature of holding a position that is "objective". And your comment, in the absence of queer and trans people actually putting forward this discussion, actively reinforces that - and further marginalizes our voices. This is not good allyship.
You know, this is utter BS. It reads like a transparent attempt to limit and control the discussion, and it uses shame and charges of oppression to do it. There's no reason in any world I can think of why klang's comment is unacceptable from the perspective of being an ally. I can only conclude that his trump of all the unsupported claims that talking about race and transgender in any kind of equivalent way has to be shut down for fear of too directly challenging an unsupported orthodoxy.
This latest stuff feels really weird and a little rough and I think it would maybe be healthy if we just let it go?
posted by Corinth at 6:15 PM on June 19 [5 favorites +] [!]
I think maybe this is mainly an interpersonal disagreement, and not necessarily representative of a larger dynamic but mainly informed by some specific personal history in recent threads like that JunebyQueers thread -- and for that reason it would probably be a kindness to not shine a spotlight on it? If we need to talk about a larger dynamic let's maybe do that without using this as an example?
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 6:21 PM on June 19 [5 favorites +] [!]
These comments seem really problematic to me. In a thread where people have been accused of supporting bigotry right and left, and where people who have wanted to talk about an admittedly strange but nonetheless very interesting sociological event have been made to feel like that very desire is tantamount to transphobia, to call timeout when a cis* member, who happens to be a staunch ally of trans people at other times, shames a trans member into leaving, just feels too convenient. That there is mod support for viewing this differently from all the other transphobia we have been asked to be aware of, is very very strange to me. Why should this thread allow 10s of comments deriding cis members but then grant some sort of benefit of the doubt to Conspire? Where were the mods when digitalprimate wrote an honest if imperfect button reason and a bunch of people basically derided his imperfection in the thread afterward?
* I disagree, by the way, that Conspire has not been "coy" about being cis. My overall impression is that they have lumped themselves with trans members when talking about concerns and harms related to transphobia, in a way that exceeds simply ally rhetoric. Certainly we see that other people who care about these issues have been confused: kalessin and zarq.
posted by OmieWise at 5:25 PM on June 19, 2015 [16 favorites]
You know, this is utter BS. It reads like a transparent attempt to limit and control the discussion, and it uses shame and charges of oppression to do it. There's no reason in any world I can think of why klang's comment is unacceptable from the perspective of being an ally. I can only conclude that his trump of all the unsupported claims that talking about race and transgender in any kind of equivalent way has to be shut down for fear of too directly challenging an unsupported orthodoxy.
This latest stuff feels really weird and a little rough and I think it would maybe be healthy if we just let it go?
posted by Corinth at 6:15 PM on June 19 [5 favorites +] [!]
I think maybe this is mainly an interpersonal disagreement, and not necessarily representative of a larger dynamic but mainly informed by some specific personal history in recent threads like that JunebyQueers thread -- and for that reason it would probably be a kindness to not shine a spotlight on it? If we need to talk about a larger dynamic let's maybe do that without using this as an example?
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 6:21 PM on June 19 [5 favorites +] [!]
These comments seem really problematic to me. In a thread where people have been accused of supporting bigotry right and left, and where people who have wanted to talk about an admittedly strange but nonetheless very interesting sociological event have been made to feel like that very desire is tantamount to transphobia, to call timeout when a cis* member, who happens to be a staunch ally of trans people at other times, shames a trans member into leaving, just feels too convenient. That there is mod support for viewing this differently from all the other transphobia we have been asked to be aware of, is very very strange to me. Why should this thread allow 10s of comments deriding cis members but then grant some sort of benefit of the doubt to Conspire? Where were the mods when digitalprimate wrote an honest if imperfect button reason and a bunch of people basically derided his imperfection in the thread afterward?
* I disagree, by the way, that Conspire has not been "coy" about being cis. My overall impression is that they have lumped themselves with trans members when talking about concerns and harms related to transphobia, in a way that exceeds simply ally rhetoric. Certainly we see that other people who care about these issues have been confused: kalessin and zarq.
posted by OmieWise at 5:25 PM on June 19, 2015 [16 favorites]
The general thing of cis people stepping in to speak for trans people is something we can very much talk about.
I just meant that maybe we can take a deep breath if things seem to be turning into a kind of side-taking situation where people think it's important to pick apart either kalessin's or Conspire's particular comments in that one exchange, especially if they've stepped away from this conversation. I think that kind of focus on the particular (which can end up feeling highly personal when people are already very raw, and which in this case has some history that some people are aware of and others maybe aren't) is both possibly a distraction from the overall issue (if cis people are speaking for trans people) and also can be kind of hyper-personal in a way that isn't great.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 5:35 PM on June 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
I just meant that maybe we can take a deep breath if things seem to be turning into a kind of side-taking situation where people think it's important to pick apart either kalessin's or Conspire's particular comments in that one exchange, especially if they've stepped away from this conversation. I think that kind of focus on the particular (which can end up feeling highly personal when people are already very raw, and which in this case has some history that some people are aware of and others maybe aren't) is both possibly a distraction from the overall issue (if cis people are speaking for trans people) and also can be kind of hyper-personal in a way that isn't great.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 5:35 PM on June 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
I think klang's comment was kind of a bummer because, while it did indeed demonstrate that he's well-read on the topic, and there is discussion about it, a thread synthesizing all of those sources would go absolutely terribly. Hell, I don't think I could keep up on a deep, invested level with him about all of the scholarship he just dropped, and MeFi as a whole has just demonstrated that it can't even handle the basic building blocks of such a conversation.
Trying to have an FPP like klang's post would be like inviting a troop of baboons who haven't even managed to randomly bang out a single page of Goodnight Moon to staff NASA's Mission Control - you know ahead of time it wouldn't go well, and it would be completely irresponsible.
My plea was not to start separating out MeFi's trans users to set them against themselves when we're still dealing with the (continuing) general fallout from Not Getting Trans Stuff. I wasn't attempting to take any kind of side or imply that all trans people have to toe some line - if anything, I saw kalessin sort of getting thrown under the bus ridden in by other trans posters and I felt really squicky about the explanations being given for dismissing him. I just wanted that to stop, regardless of the merits either way, because it isn't necessary to address the purpose of this MeTa.
posted by Corinth at 5:45 PM on June 19, 2015 [15 favorites]
Trying to have an FPP like klang's post would be like inviting a troop of baboons who haven't even managed to randomly bang out a single page of Goodnight Moon to staff NASA's Mission Control - you know ahead of time it wouldn't go well, and it would be completely irresponsible.
My plea was not to start separating out MeFi's trans users to set them against themselves when we're still dealing with the (continuing) general fallout from Not Getting Trans Stuff. I wasn't attempting to take any kind of side or imply that all trans people have to toe some line - if anything, I saw kalessin sort of getting thrown under the bus ridden in by other trans posters and I felt really squicky about the explanations being given for dismissing him. I just wanted that to stop, regardless of the merits either way, because it isn't necessary to address the purpose of this MeTa.
posted by Corinth at 5:45 PM on June 19, 2015 [15 favorites]
I am okay with cis people stepping up to bat for trans issues when they're well-educated, eloquent and willing to concede to trans people when necessary. That's awesome. Commenting in these threads is super draining. I'm less okay with cis people stepping up to sort of argue trans people are wrong about something that affects them, even if they're still all of those nice things. I'm conflicted about trans people doing that; it's not okay, but it's probably not something that needs to get heated and ugly. I'm weirded out by the way, late in the dying thread, folks are coming in and sort of exaggerating mild disagreements and conversation to prove pet points or something.
I'm not fully understanding the whole "not literal children"/"fragile people"/"telling others what to be offended by" thread that came up, but I think I disagree? I can't tell, but it's parsing as a little insulting. I may be able to see where it's coming from but, again, feel like I'm missing a huge chunk of context. But disagreeing there's fine. Trans people aren't all a world-threatening homogenous hivemind.
Yet.
posted by byanyothername at 6:34 PM on June 19, 2015 [9 favorites]
I'm not fully understanding the whole "not literal children"/"fragile people"/"telling others what to be offended by" thread that came up, but I think I disagree? I can't tell, but it's parsing as a little insulting. I may be able to see where it's coming from but, again, feel like I'm missing a huge chunk of context. But disagreeing there's fine. Trans people aren't all a world-threatening homogenous hivemind.
Yet.
posted by byanyothername at 6:34 PM on June 19, 2015 [9 favorites]
To be honest, I'm fucking sick of that dynamic. I am an adult human. I have courage. I have faith. I have charitableness. I have humility. I am not a massive ball of neurotic mess. There is, among most of us, a mettle. I'm not saying this exists only in activists or only in conservatives, or only in the young or the old. I'm saying that we all have it, or have the potential to have it.
Those of us 'enforcing artificial fragility' and 'getting into flamewars about how Johnny fucking touched us again when were were seatbelted in next to him, even though Mommy made us promise we'd be good' are also adult humans, with courage, faith, charitableness, humility, and are not massive balls of neurotic messes. Speaking for myself, I don't particularly like having my position characterised as whiny passive-aggressiveness, and I also don't really enjoy having my position contrasted with one supposedly held by charitable, humble, courageous adults. It has a rather nasty implication, which, I just don't know what to say if you can't see that.
You don't have to effectively tell people they're being whiny little babies to disagree, even strenuously with someone. It's not a big ask to be treated with respect, and to have our perspectives and experiences considered valid, even if you don't agree with or share them.
posted by Dysk at 6:57 PM on June 19, 2015 [15 favorites]
Those of us 'enforcing artificial fragility' and 'getting into flamewars about how Johnny fucking touched us again when were were seatbelted in next to him, even though Mommy made us promise we'd be good' are also adult humans, with courage, faith, charitableness, humility, and are not massive balls of neurotic messes. Speaking for myself, I don't particularly like having my position characterised as whiny passive-aggressiveness, and I also don't really enjoy having my position contrasted with one supposedly held by charitable, humble, courageous adults. It has a rather nasty implication, which, I just don't know what to say if you can't see that.
You don't have to effectively tell people they're being whiny little babies to disagree, even strenuously with someone. It's not a big ask to be treated with respect, and to have our perspectives and experiences considered valid, even if you don't agree with or share them.
posted by Dysk at 6:57 PM on June 19, 2015 [15 favorites]
Corinth, I mainly read klangklangston's comment (I assume we're talking about the same comment here) as saying that however offensive many people might find the word/concept "transracial", people who use it shouldn't be automatically treated like they just said the N-word because look, here are a bunch of thoughtful people with serious bona fides who have worked with the concept and actually used it for good. I get how it can come across as "I'm about to drop a ton of names on you to show off". But I don't think he was proposing a thread based on his reading list.
posted by uosuaq at 7:08 PM on June 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by uosuaq at 7:08 PM on June 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
Given that 'transracial' means a completely different thing to how it's been used around the Dolezal case, I don't think it's likely that the thoughtful people with serious bona fides who have worked with the concept and actually use it for good were calling it 'transracial'. In fact, per klangklangston's comment, they were calling it things like 'racial and gender "atomism"' or just talking about the social construction of race and gender, &c.
So yes, using the word 'transracial' as analogous to 'transgender' is still basically purely a dogwhistle.
posted by Dysk at 7:13 PM on June 19, 2015 [7 favorites]
So yes, using the word 'transracial' as analogous to 'transgender' is still basically purely a dogwhistle.
posted by Dysk at 7:13 PM on June 19, 2015 [7 favorites]
Dysk: "So yes, using the word 'transracial' as analogous to 'transgender' is still basically purely a dogwhistle."
A dogwhistle is something that looks like it means something innocuous to those not in the know, but has a secret meaning to those in the know. If something only has a negative meaning, and not a non-negative meaning for the non-initiates, it's not a dogwhistle. So I don't know what a "pure dogwhistle" could mean. I personally think that transgender is a dogwhistle, in that sense.
posted by Bugbread at 7:25 PM on June 19, 2015
A dogwhistle is something that looks like it means something innocuous to those not in the know, but has a secret meaning to those in the know. If something only has a negative meaning, and not a non-negative meaning for the non-initiates, it's not a dogwhistle. So I don't know what a "pure dogwhistle" could mean. I personally think that transgender is a dogwhistle, in that sense.
posted by Bugbread at 7:25 PM on June 19, 2015
A dogwhistle is something that looks like it means something innocuous to those not in the know, but has a secret meaning to those in the know.
...that's how that sense of 'transracial' works. We've been through this upthread. The channers that originated this use of the term and trans people are well aware of what the term means, even if it looks completely innocuous to everyone else, including many of the people deploying it.
I personally think that transgender is a dogwhistle, in that sense.
...what? How?
posted by Dysk at 7:29 PM on June 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
...that's how that sense of 'transracial' works. We've been through this upthread. The channers that originated this use of the term and trans people are well aware of what the term means, even if it looks completely innocuous to everyone else, including many of the people deploying it.
I personally think that transgender is a dogwhistle, in that sense.
...what? How?
posted by Dysk at 7:29 PM on June 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
That's exactly what "transracial" has been in context: something that looks like it makes sense if you're not very well versed on trans stuff, but which is actually super wrong, offensive and double-barbed.
I am not really sure what's up with that comment, or any of the academic identity droppings in the latter stretch of the thread. At a glance, they are far too weighted down with abstraction to ever be realistically discussable here, and there was a sort of aggressive element of suggesting that academics spouting nonsense have a better grasp on identities than people living them because Objective Distance or something? that made me squirm a bit. It feels a bit like people want to use them as a roundabout way of discussing "transracial" garbage. As was pointed out way, way above, the phrase does have a separate, older meaning, but no one has really been using it for that.
posted by byanyothername at 7:29 PM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
I am not really sure what's up with that comment, or any of the academic identity droppings in the latter stretch of the thread. At a glance, they are far too weighted down with abstraction to ever be realistically discussable here, and there was a sort of aggressive element of suggesting that academics spouting nonsense have a better grasp on identities than people living them because Objective Distance or something? that made me squirm a bit. It feels a bit like people want to use them as a roundabout way of discussing "transracial" garbage. As was pointed out way, way above, the phrase does have a separate, older meaning, but no one has really been using it for that.
posted by byanyothername at 7:29 PM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
So I don't know what a "pure dogwhistle" could mean.
Nor do I, come to think of it. That's why I didn't mention a "pure dogwhistle", I described something as "purely a dogwhistle" - i.e. it is a dogwhistle only.
posted by Dysk at 7:31 PM on June 19, 2015
Nor do I, come to think of it. That's why I didn't mention a "pure dogwhistle", I described something as "purely a dogwhistle" - i.e. it is a dogwhistle only.
posted by Dysk at 7:31 PM on June 19, 2015
Seriously?
posted by clavdivs at 7:37 PM on June 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by clavdivs at 7:37 PM on June 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
Not clear what you're asking, clav.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:39 PM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:39 PM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
I think "concern trolling" is another term that sums up basically any use of the word "transracial" in the context of transgender people pretty well, if you are looking for something besides "dogwhistle." It seems like one of the most textbook cases of concern trolling I've ever seen.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:41 PM on June 19, 2015
posted by Drinky Die at 7:41 PM on June 19, 2015
Academic namedropping can easily be taken as a kind of "I'm smarter than you, so shut up" move, but in the case of The Klangklangston Comment I read it as "there are people who spend a lot of time thinking about this who are doing good work with the concept, so it's not necessarily as bad as you might think" -- and you'll notice that he went out of his way to point out how many of the people he was referring to *do* have lived experience. It's not worth fighting over; I just felt that his comment was being misinterpreted, when my take on it was much more innocuous.
posted by uosuaq at 7:42 PM on June 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by uosuaq at 7:42 PM on June 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
To be clear, it was the earlier conversation about Heyes etc. I was referring to as carrying the weird vibe about valuing abstract theories over lived experiences and practical realities, but I get a weird vibe from klang's comment as well. I am not sure what purpose either tangents are aiming for, but feel slightly cagey about them.
posted by byanyothername at 7:49 PM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by byanyothername at 7:49 PM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
Ah, i.e. "Dog whistle only." That is much clearer in context. Pure vs. purely a.
posted by clavdivs at 7:56 PM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by clavdivs at 7:56 PM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
Not clear what you're asking, clav.
Are we ever sure what clavdivs is saying? ;)
posted by futz at 7:56 PM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
Are we ever sure what clavdivs is saying? ;)
posted by futz at 7:56 PM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
He makes a lot more sense in his native Latin.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 8:05 PM on June 19, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 8:05 PM on June 19, 2015 [5 favorites]
I only find him confusing when he his disagreeing with me, otherwise he is refreshingly direct.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:06 PM on June 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 8:06 PM on June 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
Klang speaks fluent Clav. It's a fact.
So back to Klang...he often makes me feel cagey when exposing ignorance. Not to say that his comment above made me feel ignorant, I was just thinking it would have made a good addition to a post on the BLUE on this topic...the topic of this topic.
posted by clavdivs at 8:22 PM on June 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
So back to Klang...he often makes me feel cagey when exposing ignorance. Not to say that his comment above made me feel ignorant, I was just thinking it would have made a good addition to a post on the BLUE on this topic...the topic of this topic.
posted by clavdivs at 8:22 PM on June 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
To be clear, it was the earlier conversation about Heyes etc. I was referring to as carrying the weird vibe about valuing abstract theories over lived experiences and practical realities
Yeah, I mean, I love dipping my toe back into the murky water of theory, but when reading Heyes based on that earlier discussion, I hit this patch of, "Here's some TERFy shit, let's discuss it very theoretically at a distance because it will become part of this complex interesting point," and you just want to say, really? Come on, it's okay to take an explicit moral stand. Do it in a footnote or something, but do it. Just say it's not right to deny people their identity, in words of three syllables or less.
posted by mittens at 8:49 PM on June 19, 2015 [5 favorites]
Yeah, I mean, I love dipping my toe back into the murky water of theory, but when reading Heyes based on that earlier discussion, I hit this patch of, "Here's some TERFy shit, let's discuss it very theoretically at a distance because it will become part of this complex interesting point," and you just want to say, really? Come on, it's okay to take an explicit moral stand. Do it in a footnote or something, but do it. Just say it's not right to deny people their identity, in words of three syllables or less.
posted by mittens at 8:49 PM on June 19, 2015 [5 favorites]
Are we discussing that theory or not using that theory in theory in this thread.
posted by clavdivs at 9:04 PM on June 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by clavdivs at 9:04 PM on June 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
"Go out and learn stuff! Teach yourself!"
Here's what I found.
"Boo! Hiss!"
posted by five fresh fish at 9:06 PM on June 19, 2015 [8 favorites]
Here's what I found.
"Boo! Hiss!"
posted by five fresh fish at 9:06 PM on June 19, 2015 [8 favorites]
Ah, okay, I get what you mean now, Dysk. I was interpreting "purely a dogwhistle" as "a pure dogwhistle". I get what you're saying.
posted by Bugbread at 9:11 PM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Bugbread at 9:11 PM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
As far as Klang's comment, if you read it as a defense of "transracial", then, yeah, his comment would be shitty, but if you check, he doesn't defend the word transracial. He specifically says "I recognize that "transracial" in the Dolezal context is a Trojan horse for a lot of transphobic tropes...The use of "transracial" as some sort of gotcha against Jenner is bullshit."
But his comment wasn't about the dogwhistle term. His comment was about the actual concept that race may be mutable, and saying that there are actual folks who are well-versed in the subject, who are not transphobes, and who believe that race may be mutable.
I think part of the problem is that some people here just assume that the concept of race being mutable is ipso facto ridiculous, and therefore anyone suggesting that race could be mutable couldn't really believe that, but must be saying it as a stealth attack on trans people. I think Klang is saying that, sure, there are shitloads of those people. Those are the people using the word "transracial". But there are people who are not using the term "transracial" and who do in fact believe that race is mutable.
When I read Klang's comment, I thought, "Yeah, now this is how we could have a reasonable thread based on academic theory, avoiding the newsfilter and general weirdness of Dolezal's situation." I didn't imagine there would be any blowback. The fact that there is kinda signals to me that the Dolezal case has (temporarily) poisoned the entire topic. It'll die down eventually, and, who knows, in a year Klang could post that same thing as an FPP and it might go smooth as butter, but it's still just way too soon.
posted by Bugbread at 9:24 PM on June 19, 2015 [8 favorites]
But his comment wasn't about the dogwhistle term. His comment was about the actual concept that race may be mutable, and saying that there are actual folks who are well-versed in the subject, who are not transphobes, and who believe that race may be mutable.
I think part of the problem is that some people here just assume that the concept of race being mutable is ipso facto ridiculous, and therefore anyone suggesting that race could be mutable couldn't really believe that, but must be saying it as a stealth attack on trans people. I think Klang is saying that, sure, there are shitloads of those people. Those are the people using the word "transracial". But there are people who are not using the term "transracial" and who do in fact believe that race is mutable.
When I read Klang's comment, I thought, "Yeah, now this is how we could have a reasonable thread based on academic theory, avoiding the newsfilter and general weirdness of Dolezal's situation." I didn't imagine there would be any blowback. The fact that there is kinda signals to me that the Dolezal case has (temporarily) poisoned the entire topic. It'll die down eventually, and, who knows, in a year Klang could post that same thing as an FPP and it might go smooth as butter, but it's still just way too soon.
posted by Bugbread at 9:24 PM on June 19, 2015 [8 favorites]
Okay, can we all just take a step back and agree that whatever else is true, you don't feel cagey about someone else's comment.
That would mean the comment makes you feel reticent, evasive, or tight-lipped. You can be suspicious of a comment, but not cagey. At best you might *act* cagey in your own comments, by withholding information out of caution.
You know?!?
posted by anotherpanacea at 9:25 PM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
That would mean the comment makes you feel reticent, evasive, or tight-lipped. You can be suspicious of a comment, but not cagey. At best you might *act* cagey in your own comments, by withholding information out of caution.
You know?!?
posted by anotherpanacea at 9:25 PM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
five fresh fish, that's pointlessly uncharitable. You're always complaining about the quality of discourse here and then dropping stuff like that. Stop it.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:26 PM on June 19, 2015 [14 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:26 PM on June 19, 2015 [14 favorites]
As Bugbread says it is too soon. (hope I'm reading that correctly)
The decision to wait allows the community to bring in other links and data that are being discussed now, elsewhere. We can collate all that and truly make a fine FFP. The best of the web so to say.
posted by clavdivs at 10:14 PM on June 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
The decision to wait allows the community to bring in other links and data that are being discussed now, elsewhere. We can collate all that and truly make a fine FFP. The best of the web so to say.
posted by clavdivs at 10:14 PM on June 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
Out of all of FFF's comments, the one suggesting that telling people to go educate themselves on the "rest of the web" might have unintended consequences didn't strike me as anywhere near the worst, but maybe it's a camel/straw kind of thing.
posted by uosuaq at 10:16 PM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by uosuaq at 10:16 PM on June 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yes. People have asked us to be more forward about longtime camel/straw situations, so this is me doing that.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 10:42 PM on June 19, 2015 [14 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 10:42 PM on June 19, 2015 [14 favorites]
At least my comments have never driven another user off the site, however objectionable you may find them. Klang brought up excellent scholarship and got shit on. It is unfair and rude, just as driving off several other allied users was unfair and rude. What's next? Drive klang off? Drive me off? Who else that's on the side of people just being accommodating and decent needs to be shoved out?
posted by five fresh fish at 11:25 PM on June 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by five fresh fish at 11:25 PM on June 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
Klang brought up scholarship, people said they were reading and responding to it, and you characterized their responses as "boo hiss."
That's not advancing the cause of being accommodating and decent, it's not making people feel as if you have any interest in their concerns when they're stating them calmly - so it makes them feel like, why be civil if this is what we get in response? This kind of needling grump stuff is a big part of the problem. We need folks to back off this stuff so everybody can de-escalate some of the kneejerk suspicion that makes threads go worse than they need to. So I'm saying, please act like you're in a conversation with people you want to be talking to, if you're going to be in here.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 11:36 PM on June 19, 2015 [16 favorites]
That's not advancing the cause of being accommodating and decent, it's not making people feel as if you have any interest in their concerns when they're stating them calmly - so it makes them feel like, why be civil if this is what we get in response? This kind of needling grump stuff is a big part of the problem. We need folks to back off this stuff so everybody can de-escalate some of the kneejerk suspicion that makes threads go worse than they need to. So I'm saying, please act like you're in a conversation with people you want to be talking to, if you're going to be in here.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 11:36 PM on June 19, 2015 [16 favorites]
kalessin, we'll miss your contribution and I hope you'll be back soon.
(I'm not mentioning some other names, that's because they said they were leaving permanently, not because I won't miss them).
posted by TheophileEscargot at 12:10 AM on June 20, 2015 [2 favorites]
(I'm not mentioning some other names, that's because they said they were leaving permanently, not because I won't miss them).
posted by TheophileEscargot at 12:10 AM on June 20, 2015 [2 favorites]
I read klangklangston's comment and it made me uncomfortable. I read it alone before seeing any discussion that followed. And the following comment by Conspire touched on the main reasons why, for myself. As for the academic points I'd additionally suggest that many of the examples left unspecified just how their work connects to or uses any "transracial" concept. In:
For example, the dismantling of legal racial classification systems is used analogously to work toward legal models of equality for intersex people specifically through the comparison to multiracial people, which features in the work of Julie Greenberg,
my intuitive reaction is that a) multi- is totally not the same as trans-, and even if it were, b) the connection or analogy is made in the opposite direction of what is wanted. If you want to show the validity of a concept A through analogy, the analogy proposition has to be "A is analogous to B", i.e. going from concept B to concept A, not the other way around. In this example it is going from conceptual field of race to sex, not sex to race.
But again all this logic aside my initial reading did make me uncomfortable, a teensy bit.
posted by polymodus at 1:26 AM on June 20, 2015 [2 favorites]
For example, the dismantling of legal racial classification systems is used analogously to work toward legal models of equality for intersex people specifically through the comparison to multiracial people, which features in the work of Julie Greenberg,
my intuitive reaction is that a) multi- is totally not the same as trans-, and even if it were, b) the connection or analogy is made in the opposite direction of what is wanted. If you want to show the validity of a concept A through analogy, the analogy proposition has to be "A is analogous to B", i.e. going from concept B to concept A, not the other way around. In this example it is going from conceptual field of race to sex, not sex to race.
But again all this logic aside my initial reading did make me uncomfortable, a teensy bit.
posted by polymodus at 1:26 AM on June 20, 2015 [2 favorites]
LobsterMitten -- "Klang brought up scholarship, people said they were reading and responding to it, and you characterized their responses as 'boo hiss.'"
That characterization is incomplete to the point of being pretty unhelpful. Here's why:
Bugbread -- "When I read Klang's comment, I thought, 'Yeah, now this is how we could have a reasonable thread based on academic theory, avoiding the newsfilter and general weirdness of Dolezal's situation.'"
I want the academic theory, and I want the weirdness. I can handle both. I contain multitudes. As does MetaFilter.
posted by NortonDC at 1:45 AM on June 20, 2015 [14 favorites]
That characterization is incomplete to the point of being pretty unhelpful. Here's why:
[...]maybe consider you're on the side of a knowledge plateau where you know just so little about these social issues that there's no realistic way for you to engage with the more complex facets where actual amicable debate and fleshing of complexity occurs, because you just don't have the basic assumed ground-level knowledge to do so. And the only way to really remedy that is to educate yourself instead of trying to toss yourself into the debate over and over again and getting frustrated when it seems like it's everyone against you.Then klangklangston posts a comment at 1:15 PM on June 19 positively brimming with knowledge and nuance. And then here comes Conspire again:
posted by Conspire at 5:27 PM on June 16 [36 favorites +]
klangklangston, I have you call you out on this. When you, as someone who identifies as straight and cis, drops a bunch of queer/trans academic theory into a thread where pretty much no queer or trans person is discussing it, the way it reads to me is that you're implicitly blaming us for the absence of discussion. It's not as if all of us are unaware of this theory, or haven't discussed it before, but we're intuitively aware: this is not the time and place for us to discuss it, and to do so would be personally harmful to us. It would be fine if that was the point you were making in isolation, but by actually dropping in a giant paragraph of namedrops on theories, it's as if you're trying to drag queer and trans people into a discussion we don't want to be having right now. Furthermore, you need to be aware as someone who is straight and cis, you are ironically regarded as more of an expert on our experiences than we are, by nature of holding a position that is "objective". And your comment, in the absence of queer and trans people actually putting forward this discussion, actively reinforces that - and further marginalizes our voices. This is not good allyship.five fresh fish's comment was an entirely reasonable encapsulation of the Conspire-klangklangston-Conspire loop. Perhaps you wish that fff broadened his commentary beyond Conspire and klangklangston, but limiting the scope to those two didn't keep it from being accurate or insightful.
Bugbread -- "When I read Klang's comment, I thought, 'Yeah, now this is how we could have a reasonable thread based on academic theory, avoiding the newsfilter and general weirdness of Dolezal's situation.'"
I want the academic theory, and I want the weirdness. I can handle both. I contain multitudes. As does MetaFilter.
posted by NortonDC at 1:45 AM on June 20, 2015 [14 favorites]
I want the academic theory, and I want the weirdness.
Good for you. But there's a whole 1500+ comment thread above which details why exactly discussing the weirdness pretty much isn't going to happen, so it's hard to see what the purpose of dragging it up again is.
posted by Dysk at 2:11 AM on June 20, 2015 [9 favorites]
Good for you. But there's a whole 1500+ comment thread above which details why exactly discussing the weirdness pretty much isn't going to happen, so it's hard to see what the purpose of dragging it up again is.
posted by Dysk at 2:11 AM on June 20, 2015 [9 favorites]
NortonDC: We can't all handle the same things because we're in different situations and we are different people with different experiences. We have different levels of sensitivity and that's okay. But please be a little more sensitive to the simple fact that just because you can handle something, that doesn't mean everyone can.
posted by Too-Ticky at 2:16 AM on June 20, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Too-Ticky at 2:16 AM on June 20, 2015 [2 favorites]
Dysk, it's OK to say something even if you're the only one that thinks it. I'm certainly not the only one, but it would still be OK. BTW, "isn't going to happen" or "isn't going to happen now?" You seem to have changed your take on that.
posted by NortonDC at 2:35 AM on June 20, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by NortonDC at 2:35 AM on June 20, 2015 [2 favorites]
Hey NortonDC, if you are upset with the mods I think you should mostly stick with that as a focus if you have more to say. Your comment towards Dysk there is kinda pedantic and to my eye it looks like she has had enough random grief to deal with in this thread already.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:46 AM on June 20, 2015
posted by Drinky Die at 2:46 AM on June 20, 2015
I think the never/not now aspect slides around to the speaker's convenience, and that bothers me. It's bothered me since the very first comment, which expended a lot of words on reasons we can't do it, and three words on the possibility that we might someday be allowed. Dysk explicitly did it in relation to me, so I pointed it out. But it's true that that can read as disproportionstely focusing on one user for something that many have a hand in.
posted by NortonDC at 3:04 AM on June 20, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by NortonDC at 3:04 AM on June 20, 2015 [1 favorite]
If FFF's comment is being dismissed because it's the straw that broke the camel's back, and because it was rude, then as someone who (hopefully, fingers crossed) the mods don't consider t close to breaking any camel's backs, let me politely say that it is frustrating that there are calls for people to refrain from just jumping out with the first thing in their minds, but instead to do research and listen to what trans people and academics and trans academics have to say, and yet when someone does precisely that, they are accused of implicitly attacking trans members for doing so.
posted by Bugbread at 3:53 AM on June 20, 2015 [13 favorites]
posted by Bugbread at 3:53 AM on June 20, 2015 [13 favorites]
I don't think there has been much call for all that discussion to be hashed out in this thread. It's been much more of a, "For now, please just leave it alone," pretty consistently from the start.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:04 AM on June 20, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 4:04 AM on June 20, 2015 [2 favorites]
Out in the Blue, academic research is again being rejected for reasons of No True Scotsman.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:13 AM on June 20, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by five fresh fish at 4:13 AM on June 20, 2015 [4 favorites]
The link is being questioned because many trans people have extensive experience with the intersection of academia and our lives, and little of it is positive. Like, we have actual reasons for saying the stuff we do, we're not just being contrary for fun.
posted by these are science wands at 4:18 AM on June 20, 2015 [11 favorites]
posted by these are science wands at 4:18 AM on June 20, 2015 [11 favorites]
And before I get shitcanned around here, I want to note that I have never heard boo from moderators in email. If I'm presenting a long-running camel/straw problem, 10:42PM June 19 is the first I've heard of it.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:20 AM on June 20, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by five fresh fish at 4:20 AM on June 20, 2015 [1 favorite]
As far as I am aware, nothing Dysk offered in her first comment was scientifically incorrect. If there is a logical fallacy in that thread it is more hal's argument from authority...but it isn't even that... it's just hal being rude and disruptive to no productive aim.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:21 AM on June 20, 2015
posted by Drinky Die at 4:21 AM on June 20, 2015
Out in the Blue, academic research is again being rejected for reasons of No True Scotsman.
No, again a simple, polite, and minimal criticism on a single issue by a single trans member is going through the process of being morphed into another myth of the Transtapo raging into a thread to suppress free thought.
posted by zombieflanders at 4:34 AM on June 20, 2015 [32 favorites]
No, again a simple, polite, and minimal criticism on a single issue by a single trans member is going through the process of being morphed into another myth of the Transtapo raging into a thread to suppress free thought.
posted by zombieflanders at 4:34 AM on June 20, 2015 [32 favorites]
Five Fresh Fish, I don't know why you are on the attack about that thread now, but it's not reasonable to expect some One True Position To Rule Them All to somehow be established via a single post on an extremely complex topic. Obviously, it's fine for folks to reasonably point out what they may see as problems in theory, etc., especially when the topic is their own identity and experience.
Also, it looks like you have a non-working email address, and were asked via mefi mail to update it, but never did. I don't know if you also got the email that was sent to you also copied over to mefi mail, but it will help if we have a working email address to respond to.
posted by taz (staff) at 4:40 AM on June 20, 2015 [4 favorites]
Also, it looks like you have a non-working email address, and were asked via mefi mail to update it, but never did. I don't know if you also got the email that was sent to you also copied over to mefi mail, but it will help if we have a working email address to respond to.
posted by taz (staff) at 4:40 AM on June 20, 2015 [4 favorites]
I think the never/not now aspect slides around to the speaker's convenience, and that bothers me. It's bothered me since the very first comment, which expended a lot of words on reasons we can't do it, and three words on the possibility that we might someday be allowed. Dysk explicitly did it in relation to me, so I pointed it out. But it's true that that can read as disproportionstely focusing on one user for something that many have a hand in.
No, I didn't specify a temporal deadline. I didn't say 'never' and nor did I say 'not now' - I just said 'not' which is something that is true for the moment but does not necessarily entail it being the case forever. You also didn't say "I want to discuss this weirdness (but later)" you just said "I want to discuss this weirdness" which has indeed been established to be something we're not doing. Not won't do, ever, but something that isn't going to happen for the moment at least. My lack of specificity is not the damning indictment that you seem to think.
Out in the Blue, academic research is again being rejected for reasons of No True Scotsman.
...and this sort of thing is why I find it increasingly difficult to take any criticism seriously. 'Take it with a grain of salt' is hardly rejection, and nor was there a hint of a No True Scotsman argument there.
posted by Dysk at 5:25 AM on June 20, 2015 [16 favorites]
No, I didn't specify a temporal deadline. I didn't say 'never' and nor did I say 'not now' - I just said 'not' which is something that is true for the moment but does not necessarily entail it being the case forever. You also didn't say "I want to discuss this weirdness (but later)" you just said "I want to discuss this weirdness" which has indeed been established to be something we're not doing. Not won't do, ever, but something that isn't going to happen for the moment at least. My lack of specificity is not the damning indictment that you seem to think.
Out in the Blue, academic research is again being rejected for reasons of No True Scotsman.
...and this sort of thing is why I find it increasingly difficult to take any criticism seriously. 'Take it with a grain of salt' is hardly rejection, and nor was there a hint of a No True Scotsman argument there.
posted by Dysk at 5:25 AM on June 20, 2015 [16 favorites]
And before I get shitcanned around here, I want to note that I have never heard boo from moderators in email. If I'm presenting a long-running camel/straw problem, 10:42PM June 19 is the first I've heard of it.
Well yeah, you wouldn't expect to hear about it UNTIL the came's back breaks. That's kind of how the analogy works.
posted by Dysk at 5:26 AM on June 20, 2015 [1 favorite]
Well yeah, you wouldn't expect to hear about it UNTIL the came's back breaks. That's kind of how the analogy works.
posted by Dysk at 5:26 AM on June 20, 2015 [1 favorite]
The camels around here are actually quite polite about warning you well ahead of time about the straw load increasing towards the maximum safe recommended levels. Ya know, if you give them a working e-mail address and listen to what they are telling you.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:34 AM on June 20, 2015 [16 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 5:34 AM on June 20, 2015 [16 favorites]
...and this sort of thing is why I find it increasingly difficult to take any criticism seriously.
Just to clarify my own position, it's pretty clear (both from this an many previous incidents) that we're pretty much going to be accused of being unreasonable, or shrill, or SJW harpies or whatever regardless of how politely and calmly we engage. That leaves very little incentive not to throw the strongest possible invective at any situation because hey, it's not like doing otherwise actually gets us anywhere anyway.
posted by Dysk at 5:34 AM on June 20, 2015 [13 favorites]
Just to clarify my own position, it's pretty clear (both from this an many previous incidents) that we're pretty much going to be accused of being unreasonable, or shrill, or SJW harpies or whatever regardless of how politely and calmly we engage. That leaves very little incentive not to throw the strongest possible invective at any situation because hey, it's not like doing otherwise actually gets us anywhere anyway.
posted by Dysk at 5:34 AM on June 20, 2015 [13 favorites]
five fresh fish, I have certainly had a number of in-thread "seriously, cool it" interactions with you—cursing and snarling at us in followup comments when you get something deleted is a recurring thing—and gotten a few needlessly jerky/pushy mefimails from you about otherwise understandable site questions/requests, and as taz noted we've sent replies to contact form notes you've sent us only to see those bounce off an out-of-date email address.
If you have been waiting for a specific single email message saying "hey, this pattern of behavior of yours that we've had to address through moderation and discussion a number of times is a problem, cut it out" before any of that starts to take, I think that's an unreasonably narrow view into what form "hearing of it" should need to take, but, fine: it's a problem. It's been a recurring thing. It is, I totally believe, a product of some brand of grumpiness of yours combining with you generally caring about this place and the people here, but that product is really shitty to deal with and you need to find some way to remove the aggro part of those interactions from how you deal with us and other people in this place.
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:35 AM on June 20, 2015 [14 favorites]
If you have been waiting for a specific single email message saying "hey, this pattern of behavior of yours that we've had to address through moderation and discussion a number of times is a problem, cut it out" before any of that starts to take, I think that's an unreasonably narrow view into what form "hearing of it" should need to take, but, fine: it's a problem. It's been a recurring thing. It is, I totally believe, a product of some brand of grumpiness of yours combining with you generally caring about this place and the people here, but that product is really shitty to deal with and you need to find some way to remove the aggro part of those interactions from how you deal with us and other people in this place.
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:35 AM on June 20, 2015 [14 favorites]
What is the value in keeping this thread open, at this point? What's it for?
posted by anotherpanacea at 5:37 AM on June 20, 2015
posted by anotherpanacea at 5:37 AM on June 20, 2015
I'm curious, too. Goodnewsfortheinsane considered closing the thread but decided to keep it open for a little while longer. My impression is that the thread was better beyond that point than before that point, but I still don't see it as having produced any good, just less bad. But maybe I'm missing something, so I ask this as a non-rhetorical question, not a veiled challenge or complaint or whathaveyou: Mods, what value do you see in keeping this thread open?
posted by Bugbread at 5:42 AM on June 20, 2015
posted by Bugbread at 5:42 AM on June 20, 2015
I'm not seeing any value in it at this point. We've thoroughly discussed the actual post topic, as much as we can in 1,700+ comments, I think, and I would personally have no problem at all in closing.
posted by taz (staff) at 5:47 AM on June 20, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by taz (staff) at 5:47 AM on June 20, 2015 [6 favorites]
/hug to all who want one.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:50 AM on June 20, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 5:50 AM on June 20, 2015 [8 favorites]
Okay, folks, I'm going to go ahead and wrap it up. Thanks to everyone for participating in a difficult thread and trying to work through the various issues.
posted by taz (staff) at 6:07 AM on June 20, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by taz (staff) at 6:07 AM on June 20, 2015 [2 favorites]
This thread is closed to new comments.
Ok. Now to the substance.
We’ve deleted several posts about the Dolezal situation over the last couple of days. We’ve talked privately with several people about this already, but the question keeps coming up so here we are.
I get why people want to talk about it — it's an interesting “wtf?!” case, there's a ton of coverage and lots of people talking about it all over the internet. I get being optimistic about what an in-principle-best-world discussion of it could look like. But in actual fact, it’s a perfect storm of things that make posts go badly here, and I think (and r_n, taz, and gnfti have weighed in on this too) there's just no way for it to go okay on MeFi, no way for us to have that in-principle-best-world discussion, at this time.
It’s basically a news-of-the-weird case, of this one woman who’s in a very odd situation, the facts are maybe not all fully understood, maybe she’s got some mental illness issues, maybe just unhappy family issues, who knows. Then with the race and trans angles, the situation invites white/non-black and cis people to ask superficially-maybe-reasonable-sounding abstract questions, especially if they’ve been exposed to the media coverage of this…. but as it turns out these seemingly-innocuous questions are pretty roaringly offensive and not at all abstract to the people on the disadvantaged side of the race/transness divide here. So. A perfect setup for well-meaning people to say offensive things and then the ensuing grar-factory of callouts and hurt feelings all around.
This isn't theoretical. After deleting the first one, we left the second post on it up for a few hours the other day (on the theory “well, people really want to talk about it, let’s give it a shot”), and eventually deleted it because it was degenerating into something that black and trans members were saying was angering/painful for them —
http://www.metafilter.com/150418/When-Life-Imitiates-Art-Its-not-Always-As-Funny
After we closed that thread we immediately heard from other people that it was a relief to them not to have to watch white/cis people discussing this stuff in the abstract "oh isn't it interesting, all these ideas about identity" kind of way. Now, I'm a white cis person who would be interested in having that abstract discussion. But in the last few years we've been hearing more and more from members that it's not fair, or good for community, for those of us on the advantaged side of some of these divides to insist on our right to have abstract thought-experimenty discussions when it ruins the day of the folks with more skin in the game.
It's no criticism of any of the posts, they have been fine, and it’s no criticism of people who want to talk about this case.
But we want to prevent total blowout horrible threads if we can realistically foresee that a topic is going to go horribly. The site doesn't benefit from hosting horrible fights that make members (especially members who are on the disadvantaged side relative to a given issue) really miserable. Sure, fights will happen, and we deal, and we allow tons of posts on plenty of fighty topics. But still, there are some rare cases that are over the “this is really just going to go badly no matter what” threshold, and this seems to be one of those.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 2:07 PM on June 14, 2015 [149 favorites]