Discussion of Kamala Harris’ positions on Palestine verboten? August 21, 2024 1:57 PM Subscribe

A number of posts about the Harris campaign’s positions on the ongoing genocide in Palestine, and what steps people were or weren’t perceived to be taking in regards to that were deleted in the recent Harris campaign thread, with the mod suggestion to take it to a different, Palestine-focused thread instead. I disagree: numerous international threads have specifically requested not to be derailed by a focus on US politics, and questions about major campaign issues, even contentious ones like reproductive rights, have historically been appropriate for campaign threads. I understand there is ongoing mod decision making on this matter, but would like to seek community thoughts on this matter that might inform said decision making.
posted by corb to Etiquette/Policy at 1:57 PM (740 comments total) 16 users marked this as a favorite

Please remember that MetaTalk has lighter moderation than the other subsites, so please be mindful of our content policy and general guidelines before commenting here.
posted by loup (staff) at 2:05 PM on August 21 [2 favorites]

I just want to aknowledge that this is a very hard to moderate situation and while I agree that discussion of Palestine is very germane to the DNC thread and I hope it will be welcome there, I think escalating back and forth argument is not good on this website.

I've thought for a long time that once you've posted more than.. I don't know... 5 times in a thread, you should get a pop-up that suggests you take a break. I would benefit from such a reminder!
posted by latkes at 2:15 PM on August 21 [31 favorites]

I think it was an extremely bad call made worse by heavy handed moderation. Honesty every set of deletions on that thread felt tailor made to raise tempers and set users against each other. The refusal to discuss policy in a timely manner likewise raised temperatures. I would note that the DNC thread, with no such restrictions and no sign of heavy handed mod action went fine.

As for enacting a specific policy that silence on Gaza is the price of entry for general us-pol threads - if that policy is enacted I am done with this site. It is simply not morally acceptable to me.
posted by Artw at 2:19 PM on August 21 [26 favorites]

The initial moderator comment is here.

"Several deletions made. Please refresh and avoid derailing the conversation with the I/P conflict while there's an ongoing thread about it."

Note that the linked thread is an extremely heavy one about sexual violence and torture.

Later there was this comment:

"Extended meta-commentary derail re I/P deleted. I think at this point, it would be best for folks who want to drill down on Harris's IP stance but do not want to post in the I/P thread to go ahead and make a post that's specifically about I/P and the Harris/Walz campaign. (Even within that (proposed) post, please do not center discussion on yourself or other members or the site.)"

As it happens an FPP of that nature did pop up later, though after the DNC one which I note ran just fine without it. I'd also say that this is not a particularly good or practical long term suggestion if such a thread isn't running as it creates a massive burden onanyone mentioning Gaza even in passing.

Deletions and mod comments become much more common beyond that point and are increasingly strident in tone.
posted by Artw at 2:37 PM on August 21 [7 favorites]

>I understand there is ongoing mod decision making on this matter, but would like to seek community thoughts on this matter that might inform said decision making.

I love that they did it. But I haven't been on MeFi day in and day out like I used to be. But personally I love it. I hope they continue to do it. It's nothing that's getting even close to solved and it ultimately just feels like wanting to just take up space if continually discussing every single possible angle of a conflict that has been going on for eons.

It took me leaving this site for some time and spending years away, moderating sites elsewhere, to appreciate how much work moderation is, and when there just needs to be a halt on things that are just going to be endless arguing that devolves to being a whole mess.

But, there's an open thread that's humming right along with the usual takes. On "both sides" I'm sure the fact that there are real consequences at play and this isn't just academic bloviating makes people feel like they should either have access to the other people, or be cordoned off from them.

Anyway, I'm glad they did what they did. When they hadn't, I just tried to avoid those comments, as I feel the pain but I'm more in line with what Michelle and Barack were saying yesterday. So I support the moderator decisions in this case. But I'll be fine if they choose different, because at least from what I've experienced during my return, most people won't get aggressive or really even interact with you if you're not directing your comments at them. So there's a way to coexist somewhat. If that changes, there will be problems, but I doubt it would change. But then again, I can't see all the things the moderators are removing. So for all I know, some users are indeed calling other users "out their name" as my people would say.
posted by cashman at 2:48 PM on August 21 [6 favorites]

Issues like this are a no-win situation for a moderated site, so this current situation firmly falls into the things-mefi-doesn't-do-well pile.
It's no surprise that after months and months of the stress of a seemingly doomed Biden campaign, the unexpectedly positive news that Harris/Walz brings unleashes some relatively unexamined enthusiasm for the Democratic ticket. Cue the stream of FPP's filled with vibes-based bon homme and joy driven comments.
What a buzz-kill then to be reminded that the world is a complex place, and that no one in the political arena has clean hands.
I'm only one data point, and it bears noting that I consume MeFi on a desktop/laptop, not a mobile device, so I'm not so sensitive to thousand comment threads, and am happy to scroll past issues that don't interest me.
My opinion on the continuing discussion of the I/P genocide and its impact on the presidential race is thus:
Users should be able to mention significant events relating to the candidates' campaigns in campaign threads
Users should be able to mention significant events relating to the convention in the convention thread
These mentions should contain a suggestion that a nuanced or impassioned discussion is happening in other, more specific I/P posts and those posts should be linked.
Moderators should also suggest and link to those posts in order to foster deeper discussion where deeper discussion is happening
Users who don't feel that there is a better place to have the discussion should consider making a FPP specifically to create a place for the discussion that they want to have

If we want MeFi to be a place where we can have these discussions at all, we all have to play a part in remaining civil to each other. Remember as well that it's okay to FIAMO.
posted by OHenryPacey at 2:58 PM on August 21 [9 favorites]

It's like having a discussion with anti abortion protestors. Plug in your preferred side as analogous to the anti abortion protestors with all the passion of religious zealotry. Because of course. There's simply no resolution, no ground to be conceded, and never will be.
posted by 2N2222 at 3:22 PM on August 21 [6 favorites]

Speaking as a person who thinks the topic is worth discussing, I also think this community has members who are bad at talking about it, and continually resort to name-calling, judgementalism, condescension, oversimplification, etc. There are a couple of commenters I just have to totally ignore, not because I disagree with their politics (they are more or less on my "side" of the topic) but because they continue to be huge jerks in both the phrasing of their posts and their interactions with others, and I have a hard time not feeling the anger that comes from worrying they're making people who are on my "side" of the debate look like jerks by proxy.

That, and the fact that once the topic is introduced to a thread, that's what the thread is suddenly only about, like Agent Smith poking his hand into someone and turning them into Agent Smith. I can see how everyone who wanted to talk about, oh, Harris's campaign strategy vis a vis the Midwestern states, or Walz's use of "weird" or any of a hundred other campaign related topics might get really frustrated because every single thread about the campaign gets turned into The Thread About Gaza, Part 4012. So the mods' proposed compromise - carve out a space where Gaza talk can happen without turning every politics thread into The Thread About Gaza, Part NNNN, makes a kind of sense to me.
I think the Agent Smith thing happens because this is an intense issue about some really horrifying stuff and it's easy for tempers to get hot, and also easy for folks to import their baggage from the rest of the world to the thread. It's also easy, when folks have been jerks, to have a harder and harder time not misreading them; I know I've had to take a breath more than once because someone who's been a jerk has actually said something useful but on my first read I couldn't see it, due to my past experience of them.

I continue to be surprised that people simultaneously paint the mods as some kind of censorious group while also deliberately and proudly constantly pushing the boundaries they set, as if the conversations we have here are so important that you can't wait a couple days to get a Meta thread approved.

No one from the Harris campaign is reading these threads. Some of us may change the world; none of that will be because of what we write here. There is just no urgency. So when the mods say "for now, post I/P content on this thread, and discuss with us over email or in Meta" why not just abide by that til the meta issue gets resolved? Is it that important that people who don't want to discuss a topic be made to witness it being discussed?
posted by A Most Curious Rabbit at 3:23 PM on August 21 [91 favorites]

Counterpoint: why can't the people who only care about vibes just ignore posts linking to information about policy positions? In a 1000+ comment thread it seems like it'd be pretty easy to ignore a few relevant, on-topic posts that piss you off.
posted by adrienneleigh at 3:36 PM on August 21 [22 favorites]

Especially since there are a bunch of vibes FPPs still on the home page.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 3:42 PM on August 21 [7 favorites]

The main result of this policy turns out to be a bunch of “Trump would be worse” types wandering out of the vibes threads into the I/P threads to harangue everyone, so, possibly the group the mods are pouring their disfavor onto are not actually the problem group?

This is where the propensity to put the thumb on the scale to favor Hippybear type users really fails the site IMHO.
posted by Artw at 3:51 PM on August 21 [20 favorites]

I think the comparison to anti-abortion protestors is not accurate.

With anti-abortion, their are a lot of differences on matters of fact and morality that are extremely fundamental. Depending on the motivations of the debaters you can run into things like what makes a human life valuable, what is the role of suffering in morality, and how far bodily autonomy extends. Trying to bridge those gaps in one on one discussions over a political issue is basically intractable.

With a very few exceptions, I don't think there is anyone in the MetaFilter conversations around the presidential election and the genocide in Gaza who disagree with the idea that the genocide is bad, that choosing to arm the Israeli military is making things worse, and that we would like Trump as far from political power as possible.

The divisions are not deep paradigmatic questions. They are questions about what values should or shouldn't be compromised, and whose interests should take priority. Those are contentious issues, but they aren't intractable points where we share no common ground.

The reason for not putting the content relating to the genocide in a different thread is that it is relevant to the topic of the first thread. When someone says something like "Joe Biden is the greatest president of our lifetime", or something like that, there are solid grounds to make a counterargument. When someone says Kamala Harris is a candidate we can all rally around and feel good about supporting, it is reasonable to bring up the reasons some of us have to maintain very serious qualms.

we aren't changing the world here. But we are having a discussion. If the intent is to actually discuss a topic then it should be open to discussion, in terms of all relevant facts. The president and leader of the party for whom almost all American MeFites will vote being deeply involved in an ongoing genocide and attempting to blunt any international response to it is a big deal. It is going to cast a shadow over a lot of issues.

Ignoring it would be like trying to have a thread about Trump and Vance and saying "but no one bring up reproductive rights". It not only doesn't make sense, it shuts down a huge range of perspectives and responses shaped by how important that element of the campaign is.

If we don't want to have an actual discussion, and the goal is to have a space for encouragement, funny political memes, or generally participating in the social/fannish side of politics, I am unsure if MF is the right space for that, but if it is, just label those spaces properly instead of acting as though they are for potentially critical discussion of candidates in a messy, morally complex, sometimes very contentious political system.

Lastly, my experience is that it is very seldom discussion of Palestine and the genocide that results in derails. It is much more often people insisting that someone not making a promise to vote against Trump right now is a terrible thing, or that discussing the issue is going to make Trump win somehow, or yelling at people for bringing it up and responses to those kinds of posts that wind up choking the comments. It very seldom stays limited to discussion of the circumstances in Gaza or the political responses to them, or even our responses to those responses for very long.

And the same basic kind of responses happen whenever there is criticism on any other front about Harris, Biden, or Walz. Discussion of Harris' career as a prosecutor had very many of the same people who argued over whether it was legitimate to bring up Gaza (including myself) having arguments about whether it was acceptable to criticize her record. That makes me feel as though the issue is not so much between people who want to discuss the campaign in relation to genocide and those who don't, as those who want to be critical of Democrats and those who don't want them to be.

Sorry for the essay, I guess I had a lot of thoughts.
posted by pattern juggler at 3:52 PM on August 21 [51 favorites]

I couldn't agree with A Most Curious Rabbit's post more. Exactly.
posted by tiny frying pan at 3:56 PM on August 21 [9 favorites]

Wow, pattern juggler, thank you for writing that out. I couldn't have said it any better.
posted by ftrtts at 3:56 PM on August 21 [9 favorites]

the people who only care about vibes

If you want an example of what the "name-calling, judgementalism, condescension, oversimplification, etc." that A Most Curious Rabbit refers to looks like in practice, there's a prime example.
posted by neroli at 4:32 PM on August 21 [31 favorites]

I don't really see how this MeTa is going to go well, but I do hope we try not to be too mean to each other.
posted by Kitteh at 5:07 PM on August 21 [4 favorites]

On principal, I don't like protests being relegated to the "designated protest zone seven blocks away". Relegating all mention of I/P to the "place to discuss I/P" feels like that.

I think it's totally fine to post links, or news, or new commentary related to I/P in more general political threads.

That said, I would rather not have every thread become a restatement of arguments that have already been argued a thousand times before on this site, especially when they are laced with attacks on other members. I am perfectly fine having that moderated away.
posted by Winnie the Proust at 5:15 PM on August 21 [26 favorites]

in the latest thread, someone had to point out that Israeli torture camps are a current reality, not a scary hypothetical under a trump administration, as another comment suggested (although it wasn't clear to me exactly what the commenter knew and didn't know). it seems to me that we are not necessarily approaching the discussion from a shared awareness of the most salient basic facts (e.g. people unaware of the systematic torture and sexual abuse of Palestinian hostages by their Israeli captors might take a different view from people unaware of that). which is why the people who have been curating news relentlessly and to very high standards (if this MeTa gets too contentious I move to make it into a cendawanita appreciation thread instead, at least we can all agree on that, I hope) should not be siloed off in a thread that everyone can ignore but then still feel entitled to an opinion elsewhere while being unaware of basic and vital facts. so like either we talk about genocide in Palestine where relevant in arbitrary US politics threads or otherwise (much worse option) we don't, but in exchange the covered-ears crowd stays the fuck out of the Gaza threads if they don't want to learn.
posted by busted_crayons at 5:18 PM on August 21 [26 favorites]

I continue to be surprised that people simultaneously paint the mods as some kind of censorious group while also deliberately and proudly constantly pushing the boundaries they set

because they are outrageously biased on this one particular topic, and here we are, and wherever you happen to be, you shouldn't let bullshit slide if there's literally no cost to pushing back. I dunno if your irl circumstances have forced you to talk/think about the genocide regularly, but mine have and many others' here probably have (in more serious ways), and what I learned is that I need to pin down what people really think because people get ratfucked for their beliefs on this matter in ways I would previously have found unbelievable. including by people superficially on the right side. and the mods' weird behaviour on this topic is a major eyebrow-raiser; hopefully they'll chime in about their approach here and disabuse me of those suspicions.
posted by busted_crayons at 5:37 PM on August 21 [17 favorites]

Busted_crayons, ignorant scary hypotheticals about I/P should be deleted. Flag it.
posted by Winnie the Proust at 5:44 PM on August 21

the people who only care about vibes

If you want an example of what the "name-calling, judgementalism, condescension, oversimplification, etc." that A Most Curious Rabbit refers to looks like in practice, there's a prime example.

If you're going to go for an early MeTa gotcha, maybe don't actively be the thing you're critiquing as you're critiquing it.

The entirety of the sentence you snipped:

I also think this community has members who are bad at talking about it, and continually resort to name-calling, judgementalism, condescension, oversimplification, etc.

You're not name calling. I'll give you that. But the rest? Check check check for you. Unless you and your favoriteers thought this was an example of you being good at talking about these things? That would explain some of the disconnect on these topics.

(Disclaimer: I didn't say I was good at talking about these things. Just matching energies.)
posted by CPAnarchist at 5:48 PM on August 21 [2 favorites]

busted_crayons, your experience IRL sounds awful, and possibly painful, and I'm just extending my sympathies. I hope you're doing ok.
posted by A Most Curious Rabbit at 5:49 PM on August 21 [7 favorites]

We can't even have a thread of less than two dozen comments without it becoming members going after other members. That's why I'm OK with moving those comments to an I/P thread unless it directly relates to something going on in the campaign. It's been happening in thread after thread. Over and over. Usually confined to just a small group of people. The genocide is an important issue the campaign should be pressured on at all times until it stops. But this site is not the campaign. Making every single political thread about it does not help anyone at all and just makes us pissed at each other.
posted by downtohisturtles at 6:19 PM on August 21 [38 favorites]

Do we want to give veto power to anyone willing to start fights about topics they don't want discussed, though?
posted by pattern juggler at 6:26 PM on August 21 [18 favorites]

I for one like the idea of the separate thread, because the response to criticizing a favored establishment democrat on nearly any policy, results in derailing as half the site girds its loins to explain why you are wrong, the candidate is right, everything is good and nothing can ever change--and this only gets louder and more tense when the topic is genocide. So it would be nice to have a thread where you could just, like, discuss the problem without the inevitable trumpwouldbeworse. Like, a carefully moderated thread where anyone making a vibes-based argument would have their comment deleted as a derail. But then the problem is, we've had a metastasis of political threads lately, way too many to keep up with. More threads than there is news, really.

Still...yes. Let there be a thread where criticism of the candidate and her enablers is the topic and the point. And then people who would prefer a less-dark thread, would still have plenty to choose from.
posted by mittens at 6:33 PM on August 21 [4 favorites]

Counterpoint: why can't the people who only care about vibes just ignore posts linking to information about policy positions?

I suspect this comment is in re comments like this one; I could be wrong.
posted by phunniemee at 6:39 PM on August 21 [3 favorites]

phunniemee: Why yes, that user and another user were the two i was thinking of specifically.
posted by adrienneleigh at 7:26 PM on August 21 [1 favorite]

So it would be nice to have a thread where you could just, like, discuss the problem without the inevitable trumpwouldbeworse. Like, a carefully moderated thread where anyone making a vibes-based argument would have their comment deleted as a derail.

mittens: we tried that today and what happened is that immediately several people showed up to lecture us genocide-carer-abouters that we're all terrible people for not shutting up and voting for Democrats because Trump is worse.
posted by adrienneleigh at 7:28 PM on August 21 [8 favorites]

i think that treating I/P as a broad, general topic is a mistake. like if someone in a thread on harris/walz brings up the team's stances on that subject, it's absolutely relevant to the thread. when someone else responds to that information related to that stance, and someone else responds to that, again, relevant. because it's a discussion germane to the platform of the team in particular. diverting people away from discussing a highly important platform position to a larger thread encompassing the general subject runs the risk of their being no discussion of a candidate's policy on a pretty important subject and that seems like not a good idea!

like imagine applying that principle to any of their other platform points, like child care or housing. folks start talking about that but mods tell them to take the discussion to a separate thread on the general subject of those issues? what does that leave us with?

ok that's a slippery slope i admit but you see what i'm getting at? it's a highly contentious topic yes but it is absolutely relevant to the candidates and their campaign. we already have rules against personal attacks and name calling and they can still be applied. i just think it's a mistake to try and sandbox the subject in a whole other thread and pretend it's not relevant to this election
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 7:35 PM on August 21 [12 favorites]

In no conceivable universe will the 2024 election be won or lost on Metafilter. In no conceivable universe will the war in Gaza be significantly affected, one way or another, on Metafilter. I feel like maybe we should be required to type out one or both of those statements before the Post Comment button becomes available. Because I think that losing sight of that generates most of the heat.
posted by AdamCSnider at 7:38 PM on August 21 [11 favorites]

i would hope (and do not believe) that folks having this discussion, wherever they stand, aren't harboring any delusions that we are going to fix Gaza or sway the elections here on The Meef
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 7:47 PM on August 21 [4 favorites]

we tried that today and what happened is that immediately several people showed up to lecture us genocide-carer-abouters that we're all terrible people for not shutting up and voting for Democrats because Trump is worse

Then maybe don't start the thread with what you don't want?
posted by mazola at 7:58 PM on August 21 [12 favorites]

In a 1000+ comment thread it seems like it'd be pretty easy to ignore a few relevant, on-topic posts that piss you off.

A few relevant posts about a side topic? Sure.

But when it starts to become every sixth comment and starts to make assumptions about other users' priorities, it is not so easy to ignore.

And frankly, it's not even the topic that has me soured on these discussions itself, it's the increasing accusations from other users that they know better than me what is in the contents of my head, what my priorities are, and what my level of engagement is. If this was a debate about something like how to butter bread or something, and I faced the same kind of bullying, I'd still be this damn frustrated.

And, yes, I said "bullying" and I meant it. I said something to another user in good faith about what I planned to do once Harris was elected, and the response was that "bull fucking shit you're going to do that. You're just going to go to brunch."

How dare you suggest I should just ignore someone who presumes to speak for me, TO me, about ANYTHING. I had enough of teachers and principals telling me I should just ignore bullies, I'm for DAMN sure not going to just ignore them if I am directly accused.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:50 PM on August 21 [26 favorites]

Yeah, without remembering specific quotes, what gets me about the discussion of I/P policy in US election threads is the high horses of the folks with strong opinions. It all comes off as "if you disagree with me in the slightest, you're a bad person and I'm going to rub your nose in it", which is a disagreeable kind of contribution to the site. Like, please cool your jets here; other Mefites are not your enemy.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 9:04 PM on August 21 [22 favorites]

Within a Harris thread, it makes sense to discuss her position and history on Israel and Palestine. It doesn't make sense to talk about Israel and Palestine outside of specifically Harris, Walz, their history and their campaigns. Anything general on Israel and Palestine should go in its own thread. Also, there seems to have been a heavy amount of Israel-Palestine material, which could have overwhelmed the rest of the thread.
posted by NotLost at 9:28 PM on August 21

Hi hi, hello how is everyone - happy to report that the quarantine is going along superbly, the DNC thread is now in full party mode while the also relevant sit-in outside the convention hall gets zero mention. 👍🏽
posted by cendawanita at 11:15 PM on August 21 [21 favorites]

As someone reading both threads, I am glad they both exist. I’ve learned more from this IP thread than from many previous.

And I’ve gotten to hear about other aspects of the convention and campaign thread. The two spaces are serving different needs. Ok.

I am concerned that multiple threads is extra moderation burden, but I assume the mods would tell us if that’s true.

I’m not as concerned about isolation, since it is easy for me to read and participate in both threads.
posted by nat at 11:45 PM on August 21 [3 favorites]

Hi hi, hello how is everyone - happy to report that the quarantine is going along superbly, the DNC thread is now in full party mode while the also relevant sit-in outside the convention hall gets zero mention.

Keep on rockin' in the free world!
posted by mydonkeybenjamin at 11:50 PM on August 21 [6 favorites]

Blows my mind how some folks will shake their heads at the way security and law enforcement want to physically cordon off protesters into designated free speech zones, far from anyplace where they can be seen or heard from the people they're trying to reach, and then eagerly embrace exactly the same approach when it comes to a messageboard online.

I think this is kind of one of my main problems with identifying policy criticism of Harris on this subject as a “derail” so everyone can go back to vibes based cheering. When that happens, it kind of feels kind of like the powers-that-be have *agreed* that campaign threads are going to be vibes based cheering, instead of the complex melange of people having complex feelings about the campaign and the candidates.

And I do feel like “stick the annoying pinkos in the Free Speech Box” is not exactly the vibe I either want or am used to seeing on Metafilter.
posted by corb at 11:51 PM on August 21 [26 favorites]

It feels important to note that MetaFilter has been weird about moderating posts on Palestine and its occupation for many years. If we look at just one MetaTalk thread from May 2023, the mods characterize Israel/Palestine threads as being a drain on mod resources and having a "longstanding dynamic," but also repeatedly denying that there is a specific policy for posts on this topic. To add to the confusion, longtime members - even those generally sympathetic to the mods - colloquially refer to it as a ban.
posted by ftrtts at 12:46 AM on August 22 [15 favorites]

Yeah honestly I'm responding to the historical context: for years there was a defacto ban on posts about Israel and Palestine here.. or to be fair, an extremely high bar, with the justification being that they all turn into flamewars. I am therefore invested in not having these threads be flamewars now that they are allowed.

I will say in the DNC thread, there we people on both sides who escalated to personal attacks and posting the same basic thing over and over. In my preferred world those folks would be asked to step back and make room for other comments.. we have made our points and there are diminishing returns after a while... rather than picking one side and suggesting they take their discussion to another thread.

I recognize that takes more moderation than we might have, hence why I suggest that folks attempt to do some self regulation. I sometimes think someone else's comment is infuriating, ludicrous, or personally insulting but if I continue to escalate and get increasingly personally insulting I'm making the thread useless for everyone else.

Also, mods are people not some random cops or something. We have the opportunity to get more involved in the running of this site if we desire to share the work.
posted by latkes at 2:16 AM on August 22 [20 favorites]

busted_crayons, your experience IRL sounds awful, and possibly painful, and I'm just extending my sympathies. I hope you're doing ok.

i appreciate that, A Most Curious Rabbit. i am doing ok. i don't want to dramatise. i have been involved in the academic/cultural boycott movement because i work in a sector that creates an obligation to be involved in that. this turns out not to be a majority position in my work/social milieu but one gets put in the position of defending it (and it's kind of a pointless exercise unless one sometimes tries to get others involved and hence volunteers for a certain amount of conflict).

i have not personally suffered any of the really bad consequences, but i have a bunch of friends who are more brave and sophisticated, and hence more outspoken, and who have been given a very hard time in various (life-destabilising, often racist) ways. i have also discovered that plenty of people whom i previously respected and counted as friends/mentors/etc. --- including extremely erudite people whose level of access to knowledge removes all possible excuses --- turn out to have entire impenetrable worldviews built around fanatical devotion to israel and what turns out to be unreconstructed racism when one pokes at it conversationally. people with whom you agreed it's a pointless topic --- "let's just stick to the work we have to do" --- but then they say "they need to kill another 100,000" next to you in a public place so you have to either throw down (verbally) or be seen letting that shit fly.

there are also more normal people who don't really see what's wrong with those people, too, and who sometimes turn out to agree with them quietly and privately, at least on certain odious points, or who bend over backwards making excuses to avoid emotional discomfort.

there are big demographic and cultural and political overlaps between that community and (my perception of) MeFi, and it is undoubtedly the case that some of the suspicion i have learned to adopt when it comes to having to talk about the genocide with people I have to deal with IRL carries over to how i engage on MeFi.

so it is really difficult to empathise with people who appear not to appreciate that our collective complicity and the heterogeneity of our beliefs and feelings on an urgent and actually morally uncomplicated matter create conditions where conflict is inevitable and we shouldn't be squeamish about it, or overly careful. it's also really hard to empathise with people who keep saying that everyone here is in broad agreement on the right and wrong of the situation when, having followed most of the relevant threads more or less closely, i've seen many, many comments that plainly contradict that.

what i imagine is that there are a bunch of other mefites who've been way more involved in palestine solidarity activism than i have, who have seen the incredible level of gaslighting and victimisation it attracts in much more detail than i have. and there are probably mefites who are watching their own families, instead of just their friends' families, suffer under grievous state crimes while most of the world dithers. if someone in one of those categories wants to tell me to change my approach, i am absolutely all ears.
posted by busted_crayons at 2:47 AM on August 22 [26 favorites]

One of the biggest problems with this issue is that there is no middle ground. You simply cannot eradicate a people. And the political administration currently incumbent is directly supporting and funding this mass destruction of a swathe of humanity and its history, legacy, culture, and its future in the form of infants.

This is the issue.

And in the context of this website, moderating any kind of sane discussion this ridiculously insane real world ongoing issue must be a nightmare.

The worst part is that for observers with access to news feeds uncurated by the American media/jurisdiction/politics/administration whathave you i.e. your filter bubble, such as, for example, cendawanita, cannot help but observe an entire nation's discourse online wholly and completely hijacked with trivialities of an election campaign WITHOUT any discussion or connection to the above mentioned horrorshow that the political administration is perpetuating and defending.

The dissonance, and the lack of self-awareness, and the image created on the world stage is impossible to synthesize across numerous threads.

In one way, this metatalk thread is a good place to weave all this together and say WTF guys, just WTF

and that perhaps is the basis of the antagonism against the moderation - which, as any longstanding observer of this site can tell, is simply following very well established longstanding procedures and responses

and if y'all talk about elect harris so we stop genocide, who is asking how many more babies are dead by January?

I think at the end of it all, if it ever ends, is to step back and separate metafilter and its mods from the overarching horrorshow that is a daily traumatization of anyone simply browsing online

I don't know what my point is, except to say let's not fall apart here and destroy the site over this nightmare IRL
posted by infini at 4:08 AM on August 22 [24 favorites]

I don't care care which thread Israel/Palestine discussion goes in. I don't care if comments get deleted, either, even though some that I'd put time and thought into have been removed. I'd much rather be on a moderated site than an unmoderated one, even if I don't always agree with the moderation decisions.

I just don't like being told I'm in favor of genocide all the time. It's hard not to rreact to that accusation. I wish there could be some presumption of good faith.
posted by OnceUponATime at 4:35 AM on August 22 [32 favorites]

OnceUponATime, since I think I said something that you took as an accusation, I want to clarify: I don't know or keep track of what you or most others think in your private thoughts about genocide, per se. because, contra some woolly-headed liberal fictions that serve no purpose other than to disempower most people, the beliefs an individual holds personally are politically irrelevant unless they motivate or inform some action which, at my (and presumably your) level of personal power, probably is at best participation in some kind of collective action. i am personally hamstrung by indecision and fear about that sort of activity, a lot of the time.

my opinion and your opinion mean absolutely fuck all in a public context except to the tiny extent that they can be instrumentalised, or to the probably larger extent that it may make some readers feel less alienated or alone, or more motivated to find some way to act, to see them expressed (my main motivation for commenting on the matter here is the latter).

the way i feel or don't feel about you doesn't matter. my opinion of the purity of your feelings is wholly irrelevant. it is not even negative; i wasn't talking about you; i don't know who you are other than the MeFite who made a good comment about the horrors in Sudan that unlike other such comments did not read to me as misdirection. i promise i'm not judging you or anyone else individually. i'm not even thinking about you. don't worry about it.

by analogy, someone spuriously accused me of antisemitism in one of the threads yesterday (it got deleted). i'm not an antisemite but i'm not going to worry about that (i didn't flag it) because i know what actual weaponisation of that accusation looks like and some throwaway dumbfuckery on metafilter dot com ain't it. eyes on the prize here.

the line i have repeatedly taken is: "opposing genocide" isn't just something one can say one does. it's not an attitude. it's an activity. random people like me and, most likely, you, have very little scope to actually do it. the US government has more scope to do it. being opposed to genocide entails at least refraining from condemning people who are trying to get one of the parties with actual power to do something. it's not possible to condemn those efforts and also oppose genocide. i didn't say that criticising protesters makes one morally equivalent to literal ben-gvir or whatever someone might have read into my comments. i do think there's a moving train and an enormous temptation in this community and in many like it to try to stay neutral. IME being obnoxious is actually pretty effective for countering that.

infini: flagged as fantastic.
posted by busted_crayons at 5:14 AM on August 22 [18 favorites]

I'm not sure about the solution, though, since nobody is really doing anything wrong in the example I came up with there. (The real life versions can get a bit more personal than that!)

A customizeable mute button we can turn on and off for certain other people we repeatedly lock horns with would be awesome. Alternately, a list on the MeFi Wiki of other third-party extensions for various browsers that do the same thing would also be helpful. I used to use one for Chrome that they no longer support and I've been looking in vain for another Chrome option.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:12 AM on August 22 [4 favorites]

There's some information in this reddit thread on a couple of scripts to block Metafilter users. They are a bit fiddly though. I use the tampermonkey/diediedead solution as it blocks comments completely. Mute-a-filter only greys them out so they're harder to see (and only works on Firefox).

They're worth looking into though, it's amazing how much more pleasant MetaFilter becomes if you just block two or three of the worst commenters.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 6:33 AM on August 22 [5 favorites]

Hi hi, hello how is everyone - happy to report that the quarantine is going along superbly, the DNC thread is now in full party mode while the also relevant sit-in outside the convention hall gets zero mention.

FWIW I'm reading the "US Response to Gaza" thread (and the DNC thread; and this one).
posted by mazola at 7:05 AM on August 22 [4 favorites]

Mute-A-Filter kept me from buttoning this week. Adding the ability to mute individual users would probably get me donating to the site again. From my perspective as a mostly-lurker, 99% of the discussion on the site is just fine no matter what thread it happens in; it's just a very small subset of users who have a particular talent for phrasing things in a way that re-centers whatever discussion is happening around them and turns it into a fight against anyone who dares to discuss any issue other than the liberation of Palestine. I think it's important too! I am in 100% agreement that the US should impose an immediate ceasefire and arms embargo, and I don't even think that's a very controversial opinion here. It is very tedious, however, to see other users (who, as it has been previously pointed out, are very unlikely to have any real power or decision-making authority in this area) constantly taken to task for caring about other issues too, or possibly wanting to experience some small scrap of fun or joy or hope or optimism. There's no reason discussions of multiple issues can't happen in parallel in the same thread, and they mostly do without problems, until someone shows up to take a dump in the punch bowl. I get that the point of a protest is to be disruptive, but I don't think MetaFilter is a very effective place to spend that kind of energy, and the way it ends up playing out here hurts the site more than it helps the cause.
posted by jordemort at 7:14 AM on August 22 [43 favorites]

The constant threadshitting in the quarantined Gaza FPPs is a stark contrast to this meta.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 7:26 AM on August 22 [7 favorites]

constantly taken to task for caring about other issues too, or possibly wanting to experience some small scrap of fun or joy or hope or optimism.

It me!

I would very much like for there to not be dead children and adults happening on the daily in Gaza; I am not an idiot, and I can be very upset that we aren't doing more to stop the slaughter, but on the other hand? I can also be more at ease with younger Presidential candidate, and I feel that we can totally pressure her before, during, and after this campaign. But I refuse to feel bad for wanting to find some joy in the world full stop.
posted by Kitteh at 7:42 AM on August 22 [21 favorites]

i appreciate that, A Most Curious Rabbit. i am doing ok.

I am glad to hear it, busted_crayons. Thanks for the personal history, and thank you everyone who's added historical and personal context to this thread. It has both helped me understand some people's stances, and prompted me to reflect on how my own history is brought to bear here. I don't have much more to say right now, but I find it interesting that this thread is going a lot better than the actual political threads.
posted by A Most Curious Rabbit at 7:56 AM on August 22 [5 favorites]

There are many posters who have said "put up or shut up" regarding the campaign, and see that as a perfectly acceptable stance. There does seem to be a contingent of people who think it's morally wrong to pressure her during this campaign.
posted by sagc at 8:05 AM on August 22 [6 favorites]

There is a wide spectrum of what people think, I think.
posted by mazola at 8:13 AM on August 22 [4 favorites]

I think the dynamic goes like this: "I support Harris" "Okay but Harris is not doing enough to stop the genocide. She doesn't care." "I think she does. Here are some other explanations for her behavior." "I find those explanations unconvincing. It seems more likely to me that she and her supporters just really don't care that much about genocide." "Well, I do care. Let me try to explain my position." --- and then a whole string of deleted comments.

QFT. This was a conversation that could make people think more about their positions and actions once or twice, but the constant round-and-round has made me resort to Mute-a-Filter, something I have been ideologically against in the past. The fact that people in the good-vibes thread feel constantly attacked AND people in the Gaza genocide thread also feel attacked means that both sides need extra moderation and there’s not enough moderation to go around, or clear rules that the mods can follow.

As we go forward into a community driven future at MeFi, I think we can’t rely on paid staff to take the lead in moderating every FPP. I don’t want us to turn into Reddit, where some corners are world-class and some are cesspools. But I would love to see some experimentation with threads that have a point of view and are moderated by the original poster, or a team chosen by them, with mods in a more supervisory role. In most cases that would mainly just prevent normal threadshitting. In cases like this, it could certainly result in more siloing and echo-chamber threads. But that is probably preferable to active fighting, muting, buttoning, deletions that make threads unreadable, and mods who burn out.

In the meantime I will try to remember not to take the bait. It’s hard, because it wouldn’t be bait if it wasn’t designed to look so juicy and available. But taking the bait never ends well, no matter how many great, well-sourced, reasonable points you make.
posted by rikschell at 8:49 AM on August 22 [9 favorites]

But those energies are the ones that's leading us to this MeTa no? No point bringing in the calm voices or even lurking ones. Not even a "cut it out, let them have it,". We're seeing it rn in the DNC thread - people seems to suddenly find the couth to reroute past the Uncommitted news link and continue feeling good.

ETA: picking up on mazola's point
posted by cendawanita at 8:51 AM on August 22 [2 favorites]

Echoing what's been said by others, I think IP issues relevant to any particular thread should absolutely be allowed.
And yes, thread-jacking should be halted.

The only real problems I've seen, and this is evergreen on the Blue, are the grinding, fruitless repetitions of arguments and positions, and the casual insults and unnecessary personal attacks . . . which aren't mod issue, or at least shouldn't be.

It's a respect and self-awareness issue.

I've been a mostly lurker for almost 20 years, and I deeply appreciate reading mefites' passionate positions and sharing their intense feelings, but some just want to have free rein to actively be insulting and to piss people off, and that, to me, has never been ok, nor should it be.
It's emotional narcissism and unproductive, and being told to ignore it is just dodging personal responsibility.
You just don't build a better world by being an asshole.

Anyway, glad for this MeTa and grateful for this community.
posted by pt68 at 8:57 AM on August 22 [7 favorites]

opposing genocide" isn't just something one can say one does. it's not an attitude. it's an activity.

I think this is actually a large part of the ideological difference between users, and I think it’s one that is causing a lot of what seems, at least to me, to be the part of the fights that get deleted. I tend to fall on the side of “it’s an activity”, but I know there are people who feel that “agreement” is enough. And so two things happen. First, when talking about the Harris campaign, some folks want to say things like “well, I’m sure she agrees in her heart that this is wrong, she’s on the right *side* of the issue”, while other people are arguing that she hasn’t done anything to tangibly actually stop the killing, and could have. And that harshes the squee of Harris as The Good Candidate Who Will Save Us All.

And secondly, I see a lot of “well, we all agree here that we oppose genocide.” But we *don’t* all agree that we collectively oppose the genocide, in an activity rather than a statement. A lot of people are arguing that we should stop activities that oppose genocide, which doesn’t feel much like we are opposing genocide together. And it really feels like in a lot of threads that people want those of us involved in Gaza activism or activity to accept that starting premise in order to participate. And I don’t feel like that’s a reasonable request. Things like *that* seem like things that should be deleted, not commentary about how the campaign interacts with the genocide.
posted by corb at 9:02 AM on August 22 [14 favorites]

corb, I would take it one step further and say that from what I've read over the past couple of weeks, it's not clear that there's agreement about the genocide part of it, either.
posted by Captaintripps at 9:09 AM on August 22 [9 favorites]

If you really believe that your criticism doesn't have any effect, why bother doing it?

Nationally famous quote from someone my grandfather's elder brother once followed into the path that led to freedom
posted by infini at 9:27 AM on August 22 [3 favorites]

For just about everyone else on the planet, debating whether mass destruction of a society is genocide or not is rather like Clinton pondering the meaning of *is* or whatever it was so long ago...
posted by infini at 9:29 AM on August 22 [4 favorites]

The whole "let me speak for the Earth for (to) you" thing is definitely part of the tediousness.
posted by Wood at 9:41 AM on August 22 [8 favorites]

Posting isn't praxis, and acting like it is when resolving interpersonal conflicts will result in: unresolved interpersonal conflicts.
posted by Jarcat at 10:15 AM on August 22 [8 favorites]

There seems to be a kind of is/ought issue. I notice it from "the other side" but it may well be aymmetrical.

The usual patteen is someone praising a Democrat, a critic responding to that praise, and the first poster responding with something like " so you think Trump is better? "

Some posters seem to view posting as a way of encouraging right action.. The right action is to vote against Trump. So anything critical of Democrats must be intended to discourage voting against Trump. What you post is expected to reflect what you will do.

Others see discussion as a. expression of ones thoughts, and feel no contrasiction between saying a politician is a terrible person and voting tactically anyway.

Of course, some people simply do not ontend to vote. for anyone who jas abetted genocide, and if they asmit that it is treated as a personal attack on Biden or Harris supporters that needs to be repented of. That isn't great either.
posted by pattern juggler at 10:31 AM on August 22 [13 favorites]

I haven't seen anyone on this site "well, actually"-ing whether Gaza is genocide lately. It certainly is, and I would hope comments denying that would be deleted. What seems to be at issue is (A) whether Kamala Harris has any power to stop or stall the genocide before January 20 and (B) irrespective of A, would Harris making a strong anti-genocide statement as soon as possible help or hurt her campaign. There are also people arguing that irrespective of B, the only proper and moral choice Harris has is to immediately make a strong anti-genocide statement, EVEN IF it tanks her campaign and we end up with Trump.

While I think there's a lot of room for respectful disagreement on A and B, I believe it's the last argument that really drives people up the wall, and I'm not sure we can even reasonably talk about why that is without starting another round of the same battles. People have dug in on their positions and feel like it's an existential question on both sides. When people feel their lives are threatened, they understandably get defensive.
posted by rikschell at 10:34 AM on August 22 [20 favorites]

Far more encompassing a view than "let me only see the world through Murican eyes".
posted by infini at 10:42 AM on August 22 [2 favorites]

I feel like I should also point out that people can usually tell when you're disdainful and judgmental of them, so doubling down on that really makes it look like you're just spoiling for a fight, not trying to communicate ideas and change minds.
posted by Jarcat at 10:49 AM on August 22 [6 favorites]

I also think there’s a distinction to be made between two actions:
1) posting an informative link in the main convention thread, such as the one Captaintripps put in a few minutes ago
2) commenting in the main thread (or really anywhere) that other posters are pro-genocide.

The first doesn’t attack fellow posters. The second does, and people respond in kind.

Similarly in the current IP campaign issues thread, posting something informative is different from accusing fellow mefites of antisemitism or of not caring about the hostages.

I guess I also think that in both cases, telling other posters that they are either pro-genocide or anti-Semitic is not *useful*. It doesn’t convince anyone, just makes a lot of noise. Maybe most of us are not pro-genocide, and we just disagree about the best way to get to that outcome (or about the importance of getting less-genocide vs the obtainability of no-genocide.) Hopefully most of us are not antisemitic, and instead we instead are capable of making a distinction between Jewish people and the actions of a Jewish state currently controlled by its own extremist element.

The problem is that it’s much faster to post a personal attack, or to post in response to a perceived attack, then it is to post a well-thought-out analysis (your own or found elsewhere). So the attacks and counterattacks can easily fill up a thread before the thoughtful analysis has time to breathe.

I view the separation as giving that breathing time. Maybe this thread is serving a similar purpose.
posted by nat at 10:58 AM on August 22 [15 favorites]

For a very long time I have been struggling... with everything. But especially politics. So when Harris became the nominee and polls (yeah, I know) and the press started being a little brighter, I needed a place for vibes. I needed that thread. I am not ignorant of the genocide or the atrocities occurring in the Middle East. But to folks like me, it feels like every thread about vibes becomes about I/P.

This is what it feels like to me:
Me: Yay, a thread about puppies!
Metafilter: You know who don't get to enjoy puppies, the children being murdered in Gaza.

I get it. I feel it all very deeply. As do many others. But I am so sick and tired of not having any happy moments on MetaFilter anymore. The world is horrible, but not all of us come to Metafilter to beat a drum grind an ax, or attempt to solve the world's problems.

Is it really that hard to use a thread dedicated to something you feel strongly about (I/P) to discuss that topic? Is it so hard to heed the requests from the moderators to not discuss those topics in a one thread because many of us are flagging those comments and there is a thread for those discussions?

I'll see myself out. Good luck to others who may be struggling.
posted by terrapin at 11:46 AM on August 22 [64 favorites]

It is impossible to honestly discuss politics and maintain an unremittingly positive atmosphere. There are sites that are deliberately built to provide encouragement and positive news about the campaign. The subreddit for Kamala Harris' campaign, for example. They aren't places that have any real diversity of background or viewpoints, however and the discussion is very shallow. I think MetaFilter becoming one of those places would be a loss.

There is a lot of happiness to be found on MetaFilter. There are all sorts of FPPs about art, history, games, and just silly little websites to play with. You probably won't find a lot of happiness in discussions centering around an administration supporting a genocidal regime opposed by an even worse candidate directly supported by fascists. The situation just isn't light hearted.

I won't speak to the viability of finding happiness or mental wellbeing in politics. I will say I don't think MetaFilter can nor should try to be responsible for anyone's emotional balance. We can try to warn about potential traumatic content and to be sensitive, but a web forum isn't a replacement for therapy or community support, and even if it could be, the needs of someonw who is looking to feel joy about US politics are going to run headlong into the needs of people who are dealing with the horrors that result from US policy.

A focused thread about some aspect of the campaign could plausibly have a fixed and positive tone. An FPP about a policy position, or some superficial aspect of the campaign, like the performers at the DNC, or some particular group of volunteers or supporters would likely be both positive and would be narrow enough in scope not to touch foreign policy.

But if the topic is something like the Harris campaign as a whole, the Biden-Harris administration, or the DNC then there is no way a genuine discussion can be had that doesn't include the struggle within the party to end support for genocide to some degree.
posted by pattern juggler at 12:20 PM on August 22 [27 favorites]

One way that I've looked at this: there has been a shift to evaluate the effect of an action (or lack thereof) as opposed to the intention with which it was committed. I think this is great, but this discussion seems directly to stem from this.

The people who want to talk about Gaza will say something like "I don't care about your opinions on genocide, the effect of you ignoring this is that more people will die, and that's unconscionable." I think they're right about this.

The people who want good vibes will say something like "I do care about genocide, but criticism of the ticket right now has the effect of electing Trump, and that's unconscionable." I think they're right about this too.

I think if you accept one of these, you have to accept both -- posting cannot simultaneously matter and not matter when discussing these topics. This leave two options: choosing to ignore an active genocide in the hopes that you can stop it later to prevent an increase in fascism in the US, OR try to stop an active genocide and hope that your efforts don't result in an increase in fascism in the US. This is an awful choice, and goes back the comment someone made upthread about trying to put a sane framework over an insane world.

I think what drives people up the wall and sends things off the rails is when a counterparty wants to selectively ignore these relationships based on what they care about. E.g. "I'm not ignoring a genocide, but you are helping to elect Trump" (or the inverse).

I don't think this provides any clarity with how to handle these discussions, but framing it in this way has made me less angry at the people posting when lurking in these threads.
posted by yeahwhatever at 1:10 PM on August 22 [20 favorites]

Remind me not to mention to anyone who needs a stream of good vibes my certainty that Fetterman is going to switch parties after November if the Senate remains close.
posted by mediareport at 1:21 PM on August 22 [6 favorites]

There is a lot of happiness to be found on MetaFilter.

It looks like terrapin left Metafilter entirely, though, so they won't be seeing it.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:21 PM on August 22 [5 favorites]

This past week, I have generally attempted to avoid participating in the various MeFi threads related to the Harris campaign, the DNC, etc. I have to say, it has been refreshing not to have to wade through a lot of grar in order to enjoy the more uplifting comments. That said, this past week has really given me the opportunity to reflect on what I used to like about MeFi: that it was a place to find interesting new internet content, curated for discussions in which we often had very knowledgeable folks weighing in with their experienced perspectives. When MeFi does this, it’s still the best of the internet.

That said, those of us who were a part of the political threads in 2016 learned, along with the site moderators, that there are just “some things that MeFi does not do well.” Chief among them are highly charged political (or sociological, or religious) debates in which some parties use the discussion threads as a place to proselytize for their particular views. Few people appreciate being evangelized to, whether it’s about veganism or Christianity or whatever, even while we support others’ right to embrace those views. Trying to moderate those discussions is an extraordinary burden, particularly given the activist mentality of many folks who engage in those debates.

In 2020, in large part due to the moderation burden, the moderators made a judgment call and basically put the kibosh on open US politics megathreads, asking folks to tailor discussions more specifically. And they’ve had a longtime policy of asking folks to not engage in those highly charged “things we do not do well” debates. The result in 2020 was that those of us who still wanted to discuss and debate US politics found other forums to do it, whether it was Slack, Reddit or some other space. And you know what? That worked out pretty well!

What it taught me, and what the past month has reminded me, is that MeFi isn’t really some golden unicorn of a digital space where only erudite exchange of ideas takes place. It suffers from some of the same problems of many other forums, including participants who have different notions of comity, and different ideas of when their own priority issues warrant pushing the boundaries of the forum culture. Many other forums have learned long ago that being able to mute/block other users actually builds comity, because it permits people to engage with the community in the way they would like, rather than to constantly be asked to “just scroll past” highly insulting invective.

The comments have been deleted now, so I can’t link to them, but some of the same people who are basically sealioning about why they should be allowed to “just bring up the P/I issue as relevant” are the same people who, over the past few weeks, posted comments that called Joe Biden and Kamala Harris genociders and called Democrats genocide supporters. One commenter, so aggrieved now that their “just raising issues” comments have been deleted, posted a link and excerpted text that said that Democrats liked bombing babies. Those comments rightly resulted in clapbacks from many MeFites, which then resulted in those provocateurs and their supporters disingenuously engaging in some classic DARVO by saying that it was really the comments in response to their highly inflammatory statements that was the real derail.

Let’s not kid ourselves: those kinds of comments are absolutely designed to inflame and derail. They are the activist equivalent to burning a flag or a Koran, intended to suck the oxygen out of the room and generate a heated emotional response as they draw attention once again to their issue to the exclusion of all else.

Then we have the other manipulative, passive aggressive language, such as expository comments averring that “I just don’t want to see women and children bombed”, leaving the implication that, ehhh, maybe others in the thread do?

Anyway, this has been a wonderful exercise and reminder that MeFi is not well equipped to handle this sort of thing. Maybe if the forum had a block function so you could choose to mute recidivists, then it would be less of a chore to wade through/past the cruft to get to the information and commentary you’re looking for.

(It’s wonderfully ironic that someone suggested, in a now deleted comment, that people who might use such a block function like the smell of their own farts, as that particular accusation is usually more aptly directed to people who absolutely demand to have their opinions aired in a forum even when the majority of those in attendance are not interested.)

Well, anyway. Beyond these meandering thoughts, I’m not sure I have anything more constructive to contribute to MeFi, and it feels like the cost of extracting its benefits has become more than I think my peace of mind can afford to invest. I wish us all good vibes and joy!

And 25 years is a good run!
posted by darkstar at 1:32 PM on August 22 [36 favorites]

I would really like to never read the term "I/P" again. It was always grossly dismissive, and has never been more so than now when it has come to include an ongoing genocide. It feels like a literal mental shortcut so that people don't have to risk even the possibility of by mistake having a non-automatic thought about this 'issue.'
posted by dusty potato at 1:32 PM on August 22 [15 favorites]

I'm Jewish and trying to imagine what it would feel like to constantly see people posting about not wanting to have to read about "J/G."
posted by dusty potato at 1:35 PM on August 22 [11 favorites]

Then we have the other manipulative, passive aggressive language, such as expository comments averring that “I just don’t want to see women and children bombed”, leaving the implication that, ehhh, maybe others in the thread do?

This seems kind of telling. I read "I just don't want to see women and children bombed" and in no way take away an implication that anyone else does. I think there is a lot of trouble with reading criticism of individual posters from neutral statements, or criticism of Democratic politicians.I think an entirely reasonable argument can be made that Biden at least is culpable for mass murder. When I call him a genocidaire, it isn't to elicit a reaction from his supporters. It is my genuine belief about a person I believe to be the source of a huge amount of needless suffering.It isn't an attack on someone who disagrees with that sentiment.
posted by pattern juggler at 2:14 PM on August 22 [11 favorites]

The decision to ban I/P discussion from the DNC thread left a bad taste in my mouth.
I first started looking closer at the conflict some twenty years ago at university. I was part of a tiny club dedicated to peace. We invited a speaker who had been to Palestine to talk about what he saw there. As thanks we got heckled at the presentation and our fellow leftists published a zine article calling us anti-Semites. Of course we got off comparatively easy, other people have lost their job or were beat up for standing up for Palestine. These things make it clear, that the smart thing to do in the US and Germany is to shut up about Palestine, especially if you want a career in politics.
On MetaFilter for many years the mantra was “MetaFilter doesn’t do I/P well” and that was not wrong. Threads were often fighty and not very productive. But as a result MetaFilter was another place where people shut up about Palestine.
Some of the prominent Zionist voices have since left the site and after October 7. the series of Palestine threads have gone reasonably well I think. They have been helpful to me as an easy place to visit after shutting up about Palestine all day to see that I’m not alone and I’m not crazy to care about this. To be told once again to shut up hurt a bit.

I know that US politics threads have been historically hard on the moderators and I wish no horrors on them. The problems I saw in the DNC thread pre-deletion have been the usual MetaFilter problems; people were trying to score points and extended little grace to their fellow users. I think it’s a good idea for everyone to try harder and for the mods to step in when people don’t. If we split election discussions into a cheering thread and a criticism thread that would be fine with me.
But splitting Palestine and Palestine alone off into it’s own corner as a thing people can’t talk about doesn’t sit well with me.
posted by the_dreamwriter at 2:36 PM on August 22 [18 favorites]

I read "I just don't want to see women and children bombed" and in no way take away an implication that anyone else does.

Not even when people use a term like "us genocide-carer-abouters" to distinguish themselves from how they view other members here?
posted by neroli at 2:44 PM on August 22 [19 favorites]

There are also people arguing that irrespective of B, the only proper and moral choice Harris has is to immediately make a strong anti-genocide statement, EVEN IF it tanks her campaign and we end up with Trump.

While I think there's a lot of room for respectful disagreement on A and B, I believe it's the last argument that really drives people up the wall, and I'm not sure we can even reasonably talk about why that is without starting another round of the same battles.

The thing is, I think that in a thread about a campaign, it is absolutely on topic to talk about what someone should do with the bully platform that campaign gives them, or what their campaign platform should be. Just like in 2000, it would have been on topic for someone in a thread on a Nader campaign to say that they thought he should use his campaign platform to endorse Gore or to ask people in swing states to vote Democrat instead.

I understand it may frustrate people, but asking politicians to publicly oppose genocide is a perfectly reasonable position, and it’s perfectly on topic within a campaign thread. And that’s the question under discussion - not whether such comments make people happy or sad, but whether they should be counted as derails, as *off topic*. And I don’t think “that opinion makes people upset” should make a subject off topic.
posted by corb at 2:46 PM on August 22 [13 favorites]

If we split election discussions into a cheering thread and a criticism thread that would be fine with me.

I’d say that’s the best solution that I’ve seen here thus far.
posted by AdamCSnider at 2:53 PM on August 22 [1 favorite]

Not even when people use a term like "us genocide-carer-abouters" to distinguish themselves from how they view other members here?

No, because someone else saying something in an entirely different context doesn't make objecting to the murder of innocents inflammatory.

With a handful of exceptions (who seem to be mostly motivated by a juvenile love of hippy punching anyone old enough to be on MetaFilter should have outgrown) I don't think anyone here is actual averse to seeing action taken to end the genocide.
posted by pattern juggler at 3:04 PM on August 22 [1 favorite]

There are sites that are deliberately built to provide encouragement and positive news about the campaign. The subreddit for Kamala Harris' campaign, for example. They aren't places that have any real diversity of background or viewpoints, however and the discussion is very shallow. I think MetaFilter becoming one of those places would be a loss.

Each thread can be like a subreddit if we want. Metafilter won't become one of those places, a loss. But one thread? That some people don't like? Is fine, and always has been here. If you find the discussion shallow, it isn't for you. It's not that big a deal to me.
posted by tiny frying pan at 3:08 PM on August 22 [5 favorites]

Each thread can be like a subreddit if we want. Metafilter won't become one of those places, a loss. But one thread? That some people don't like? Is fine, and always has been here. If you find the discussion shallow, it isn't for you. It's not that big a deal to me.

Indeed, and having a "good vibes only" political discussion topic seems fine.

I only object to saying you have a thread to discuss a topic and then not permitting a genuine discussion of relevant aspects of the situation.
posted by pattern juggler at 3:10 PM on August 22 [6 favorites]

I don't think anyone here is actual averse to seeing action taken to end the genocide.
Great! I agree with you. But respectfully, I don't think your view on this is universally shared. I think several of the more vocal posters on this issue absolutely do believe that most people here are averse to ending the genocide, and they themselves are a righteous, embattled minority.
posted by neroli at 3:17 PM on August 22 [15 favorites]

I suppose those posters can speak for themselves.

I will only say that my impression is that the bit you quoted is a somewhat tongue in cheek response to the exasperating situation of being continuously framed as troublemakers at odds with the larger community for wanting to discuss the ongoing genocide or responses to it in threads where it is relevant, and upon having created a thread to segregate the undesirable conversation, having several folks show up to explain how any action to oppose genocide is stupid, ineffectual, or in support of Hamas.

That handful of exceptions I mentioned are those who seem more interested in shutting down conversation or denigrating efforts at protest, not because of electoral concerns, but antipathy to protestors and those who support them. And in that context, I don't feel it is out of line.
posted by pattern juggler at 3:24 PM on August 22 [5 favorites]

what someone should do with the bully platform

does the vice president have a bully pulpit, don't think so. this usually refers to the Office of the President but its meaning can be interpreted as one in a position to talk and listen about changes. being vice president, the office has to hold to the president's directives, I think it would be exceedingly difficult for the vice president to parse her policies in with the current Administration if they differ on a great scale.
I too do not think it's a lot to ask, so let's just run a scenario.
"madam vice president do you oppose genocide"
"yes"
"then why..."
problematic of a problematic situation.

dunno but I reminded of part of my favorite poem by Ammons.
"it just goes to: moderation imposed is better
then no moderation at all: we tie
lives of those we love in our lives, then, go as theirs go; they're pain we can't shake off;
their choices, often harming to themselves,
pour through our agitated sleep, swirl
no-nos in our dreams; we rise several times
in a night to walk about; we rise in the
to a crusty world headed no where,
our chests burn with anxiety and a river of
anguish defines rapids and straights in the pits our stomachs: how can we intercede and not interfere: how can our love move more surroundingly,
convincingly that our premonatory advice."
posted by clavdivs at 3:41 PM on August 22 [2 favorites]

I only object to saying you have a thread to discuss a topic and then not permitting a genuine discussion of relevant aspects of the situation.

And the solution is for mods to allow a different thread for a different aspect. Which they seem to encourage, not sure about the specifics but the solution is to try to make one where the discussion can happen.
posted by tiny frying pan at 3:44 PM on August 22 [1 favorite]

But I feel like a bunch of atomized discussions doesn't add up to a single integrated discussion.

I don't think having a pro-X thread and an anti-X thread is a good idea.

Having a single thread on the topic and if someone wants to create a separate thread with a narrower focus or one with a "no bummers" rule, that means there is still room for nuanced discussion, but it gives people who want a space to generate camaraderie among fellow enthusiasts for given position or candidate their own space.
posted by pattern juggler at 3:47 PM on August 22 [3 favorites]

Limiting posts/comments per day may be one way of nudging more careful conversation.

(MetaFilter seems best when we post less!) :D
posted by mazola at 4:05 PM on August 22 [8 favorites]

I would absolutely love it if posters could enable something like Discord's 'slow mode' on certain threads - say each poster gets one or two comments in that thread per day. I learn a lot from the more contentious threads on Metafilter, but when users get into protracted back-and-forths where no one is getting convinced of anything, it's exhausting. If comments were rate-limited, people would still be free to state their opinion, but they would have to be a bit more thoughtful and resist the temptation to directly argue with other users.
posted by catcafe at 4:21 PM on August 22 [13 favorites]

I mostly read the US election threads without participating, and thought the recurring Gaza arguments were getting worse and repetitive as it became clear that Harris wasn't going to make a big statement.

I hope we don't go back to the old policy of not discussing Palestine here. The US election and US policies re: Israel (and re: atrocities generally) are big topics that could support individual threads, so that seemed like a fine change to me.

Maybe not good long-term policy to quarantine a topic from naturally connected topics - but as a temporary measure to reduce friction between members who are generally acting in good faith, it seemed reasonable.
posted by mersen at 4:32 PM on August 22 [1 favorite]

But I feel like a bunch of atomized discussions doesn't add up to a single integrated discussion.

I don't see why that is the goal.
posted by tiny frying pan at 4:52 PM on August 22 [6 favorites]

Having normal and relevant parts of discussions not get hidden or atomized seems like a reasonable goal.
posted by Artw at 4:57 PM on August 22 [8 favorites]

Nothing would be hidden with separate, more focused threads so I still don't see the problem.
posted by tiny frying pan at 4:59 PM on August 22 [5 favorites]

I think it would be great to give the "I want to critique" crowd their own space, and likewise the "I want to feel good" crowd. I dislike the idea of even more political threads here (not my MeFi jam), but I'd like to think that a formulation like this might possibly let people get their bad feels out, before they wander into non-political threads and bring their doom and venom there.
posted by cupcakeninja at 5:04 PM on August 22 [2 favorites]

But I feel like a bunch of atomized discussions doesn't add up to a single integrated discussion.

I don't see why that is the goal.

Just because a discussion that can actually touch on different parts of a subject and how they connect is more interesting and more likely to produce interesting insights in my experience.
posted by pattern juggler at 5:06 PM on August 22 [5 favorites]

Okay. We can disagree on that. But there's tons of discussions I don't comment on on MeFi, even if I read them. So I don't see the need for one thread on one topic, that's it. One topic can have as many threads as anyone wants, with whatever focus people want. There's not a limit on space here!
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:09 PM on August 22 [4 favorites]

I think at this stage keeping the peace is better than being interesting. If having separate silos keeps people from buttoning, I'm all for it.
posted by rikschell at 5:12 PM on August 22 [10 favorites]

a somewhat tongue in cheek response

The problem is that tongue in cheek, sarcasm, snark, etc are far too easy to misread as condescension or meanness, so perhaps we should all work to avoid these kinds of phrasings and framings, especially with this topic, which deserves our seriousness. When I feel frustrated enough to color my post thusly, I take it as a sign it's time to log off for a bit.
posted by A Most Curious Rabbit at 5:16 PM on August 22 [12 favorites]

I also think this is (for the nth time) getting tied up in knots about something that wouldn't be so much of a problem if we had muting/blocking. It's a basic feature of online discourse today, and MetaFilter suffers--and loses users--because it doesn't offer it.
posted by cupcakeninja at 5:30 PM on August 22 [11 favorites]

Well we have a new site on the way. Which scares me, in case it's so different it's going to turn me off. But it might be the path to better tools.
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:32 PM on August 22

I can see the argument against muting, especially as we move into a community run mode. But I've been using it lately and it makes these tough threads manageable.
posted by rikschell at 5:33 PM on August 22 [1 favorite]

One topic can have as many threads as anyone wants

Except in practice it can't, because the mods will delete them as "near-duplicates" or whatever.
posted by adrienneleigh at 5:44 PM on August 22 [2 favorites]

They seem more open to them these days, from what they've said. I'd like the leniency to increase, to keep the peace.
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:46 PM on August 22 [4 favorites]

Presumably the community will get to decide or at least influence moderation decisions going forward.
posted by rikschell at 5:59 PM on August 22

In my dreams, mods would have the ability to tag comments within a thread as relating to a subtopic/angle, and people could choose to mute just that aspect of the conversation.

Usually I feel bad about these dreams because they seem to imply lots more mod work and that doesn't seem like a great thing to be adding onto, so then I get stuck into thinking about some sort of collaborative tagging, but that leads down the path of, well, there's a reason we have mods, and don't just go for upvotes/downvotes.

It would be kind of interesting to be able to choose your MeFi people and work together to collaboratively tag posts and comments within your group, particularly if it let those groups decide where they drew the line about acceptable/unacceptable topics/interference.
posted by pulposus at 8:18 PM on August 22

Or maybe the way it works is you can choose people whose tagging of things you trust and want to apply out of the gate? I guess this idea has come up before in the same threads where solutions like Mute-a-filter come up, but I like the idea that you don't have to cast a particular user into the sin bin forever, yet you still don't have to do the work of finding their unexpected redemptive moments entirely on your own.
posted by pulposus at 8:26 PM on August 22

Remind me not to mention to anyone who needs a stream of good vibes my certainty that Fetterman is going to switch parties after November if the Senate remains close.

Is there a reason to expect that over him becoming Joe Manchin Lite? I don’t get it.
posted by atoxyl at 11:23 PM on August 22 [4 favorites]

I never wanted MeFi to be a threaded forum, even though I prefer threaded forum software generally, because it seems so much part of the identity of the site for the thread to be one stream of discussion. But I am staring to feel like this kind of thing would be less fraught if it wasn’t one stream of discussion!
posted by atoxyl at 11:29 PM on August 22 [3 favorites]

I also think this is (for the nth time) getting tied up in knots about something that wouldn't be so much of a problem if we had muting/blocking.

This is a simple and obvious practical suggestion and would have saved a lot of trouble over the years.

The other simple and practical suggestion I would suggest is hiding rather deleting comments unless there is some clear need for deletion. This would make the process more transparent and would make the site less choppy where one side of a conversation has been taken out.
posted by Artw at 11:41 PM on August 22 [12 favorites]

Considering how the site works now, I feel like butting into a conversation to tell off other users for not caring enough should be understood as bad behavior, but taking up some space in a general reaction thread for current events to have a conversation, with other people who are interested in having it, about your unhappiness with the implications for Palestine, should be understood as fine. Talk about things that matter you to, just don’t be a dick to other users directly - isn’t that basically the mission and code of conduct here?
posted by atoxyl at 11:42 PM on August 22 [16 favorites]

Either you have a mechanism to filter the various side conversations - and I don’t think manually creating more full-size threads with designated purposes for a given issue is that - or you have norms that support having multiple conversations in the thread.
posted by atoxyl at 11:47 PM on August 22 [3 favorites]

I don't like muting, but I have long wanted slow mode to prevent a few people from dominating threads. As noted above, we have some substantial differences in what it means to oppose genocide, but we wouldn't be having a metatalk about it if we each said our piece and moved on.
posted by tofu_crouton at 4:07 AM on August 23 [12 favorites]

The other simple and practical suggestion I would suggest is hiding rather deleting comments unless there is some clear need for deletion.

I could see that, too. When I bump into a hidden thread on Reddit, I know what it's likely to mean and thus move on, unless I've got a good reason to dig in.
posted by cupcakeninja at 4:18 AM on August 23 [2 favorites]

Systems thinking hat: Limiting comment speed/amounts will simply result in particularly axe-grindy people developing multiple alts to so they can post more flak. Yes this can be sussed out and the alts nuked but it makes even more work for the mods -- not just with the "solution" not actually reducing the level of flak but also trying to figure out who the alts are and dealing with them. It adds code and complexity while not actually stopping the problem. Sorry.
posted by seanmpuckett at 4:59 AM on August 23 [4 favorites]

My MeFi rule a few years ago became "button when I find myself getting mad at both sides of a conversation," and this was the most recent thing that caused me to bounce. I have a lot of empathy for the two primary perspectives on this issue, and what frustrates me to no end is how there are people on both sides who abjectly refuse to see The Other Side as anything more nuanced than "abject nemesis."

I am staunchly pro-Palestine. I had to fend off a fairly active MeFite who, for months, would pop into my private messages scolding me for referring to Israel's behavior towards Palestine as a "genocide," and accusing me of being a self-hating Jew who was enabling Nazis in America by calling it that. Right now I'm feeling all kinds of pissed off about the DNC not letting a single Palestinian voice be heard.

And at the same time, I absolutely understand why folks in the main political threads saw the I/P discussions as derails. There were a handful of posters—not the majority of people commenting about the situation, even—who had a "take on all comers" approach to talking about the issue, and would reply to everyone who made a comment remotely adjacent to the situation, in ways that came across as combative and frequently delved into "if you're not with us, you're against us" territory. So even when they were contributing useful, relevant information, and even when I agreed with them, you'd get a phenomenon like this:

Original poster: Here's a thing that the Harris campaign did that's sketchy at best, shitty at worst. It makes me feel like they aren't going to lift a finger to stop Israel from eradicating Palestine altogether.

Response A: Well, maybe Kamala has other plans in mind! I'm holding out hope!

Response B: I just don't think she's going to say anything that contradicts Biden before she's president.

Response C: None of us know what's going on behind the scenes. Maybe they're avoiding saying anything publicly to avoid derailing the diplomatic process.

Response D: Yeah, I think that what the campaign is doing sucks ass, and I'm worried that they're going to kill their own vibes by not making room for Palestinian voices. But I'm trying to focus on the things I am optimistic about, because otherwise I'll get sucked into a pit of despair.

Response E: It's terrible, but also, you'd be fooling yourself to think that Trump would be anything but worse.

Original poster: I am going to debate each and every one of you individually, and tell you why your perspective is wrong and unproductive and actively gets in the way of us calling this genocide what it is.

What I saw, over and over again, was a wide variety of MeFites trying to engage with the people talking about Palestine, with varying degrees of "looking on the bright side," "agreeing that this particular thing sucks," and "wanting to acknowledge the situation but also focus on other things," and all of those being met with response after response after response after response after response. It got to the point where I cringed every time I saw a new comment talking about Israel, because I knew that the next 75 comments or so were all going to be this hyperfixation on the subject, with a bunch of posters trying to make room for that subjects while also making room for other subjects, and a few diehards using those posters' interest in the conversation to basically drown out everything else being discussed.

Back-and-forth debate always takes up disproportionate space in MetaFilter threads, even the giant thousand-comment ones, because the default MeFi conversational tone is a kind of ambient "different people throwing out points of interest, thoughts, and feelings" rather than a super-focused "people batting one thing back and forth." How many times have we seen two users going at each other completely derail whatever else was happening in a given thread? Expand those two users to, say, 2-3 diehards on one side and 8-9 more casual responders on the other, and you're left with a huge suckpit that leaves virtually no room for anybody else. This isn't because the diehards are trying to make that happen—it's because the medium itself pretty much guarantees this. (Plenty of forums Back In The Day had rules forbidding users from going back-and-forth at each other in threads, because even a little bit of that effectively replaces all other conversation in a non-threaded discussion.)

The other thing that I think it's important to keep in mind is that the state of Democrat politics exists in the context of all in which we live and what came before this. Democrats being relentlessly pro-Israel has been a thing since forever. Democrats shutting out voices within their own party has also been a thing since forever. Democrats being okay with military brutality and xenophobia? Still also a thing since forever. And all of that sucks ass, it's why nobody's been enthusiastic about a Democrat ticket since Obama, and it's why even Obama sure had a bunch of detractors who hated the whole "hope and change" narrative because they rightly felt like Obama didn't have any big plans to change a lot of the big things that really need changing.

Though that lens, sure, the Democrats still have a lot of depressing, infuriating qualities about them. The Harris campaign isn't changing that overnight. I agree with the progressive political analysts who argue that Harris would probably do better in the polls if she was more aggressive about calling Israel's actions what they are, because a majority of Americans have seen enough to conclude that Israel is in fact doing some awful, awful things.

At the same time, though, there are reasons to feel like the vibes have changed, and like there's hope for things in America to get meaningfully better. There's been a sea change in how relentlessly mainstream America has been going after the MAGA sorts for being weird little creeps, and refusing to acknowledge them like they have a meaningful ideology. There's increasing support for progressive economic policies, increasing criticism of corporate malfeasance, increasing willingness to put labor front-and-center. It is a big deal that Shawn Fain and AOC were given speaking positions. It is a big deal that Josh Shapiro was seemingly passed over as VP in part because of his position on Israel. Hell, it's a big deal that Biden stepped down at all, and that the gerontocracy didn't cling to power with its shriveled, bony fist. The fact that it's even conceivable to feel hopeful about Democrats is pretty amazing, because it felt impossible just six weeks ago.

And while there are some activist personality types who are committed to fighting battles that they know they'll lose 90% of the type, and who find meaning in sticking to their ideals and pushing for whatever change they're capable of enacting, not everyone has it in them to be an activist. Some people are only ever going to get as far as knocking on doors, or working phone banks, or donating to a campaign, or just dragging themselves out of the door to vote. And a lot of people really do need reasons to keep feeling moralized. They have to find the energy to keep fighting the good fight. They don't just like the "party time" vibe—they need it. And for all that the hardcore activists and righteous idealists pooh-pooh the sort of person who fights less ferociously than they do, I think that the folks who need that optimism and hope and good-vibes do wind up making a difference. They're responsible for the mass action that really moves politics and culture. There's a limit to what they can do, and there's a limit to how far they'll let themselves go—it will really suck if Kamala gets elected and that energy really does revert to "let's do brunch," and lord I am hoping that we learned some fucking things from 2016—but I think it's overly cynical and flat-out incorrect to think that the sort of energy that packs multiple stadiums for Harris/Walz is completely irrelevant to any kind of meaningful politics.

I also, however, think that the kinds of people who operate from that mindset do risk minimizing anything that gets in the way of the vibes. And for all that I understand the quarantining of the I/P discussion, for all that a part of me was relieved to see it happen—because man, those sloggy derails really were a goddamn slog—I also find it pretty disquieting to see what those threads are like now that the conversations about Uncommitted are kept to a bare whisper. Just like I find it irritating as hell when folks head to the dedicated I/P quarantine thread to yell at the people there for criticizing the Democrats for their actions. Because yeah, some people are so sore at the thought of bad-vibes seeping in that they'd like to eradicate the whole conversation altogether. And that sucks too.

My humble, tentative suggestion would be to allow more conversation about Palestine in the main political thread, but to push back on the reply ouroboros a little. People should be allowed to share news about Palestine and the Harris campaign's approach to it; they should be allowed to share how angry and how disappointed they are about it. And people should be allowed to reply to those people expressing their own feelings, whether it's commiseration or an attempt to look on the bright side. After that, it should maybe taper off; people can keep posting about new things that happen, and continue to document the shitty stuff where it's shitty, but if you've stated your opinion about a given item once, you're really not going to make waves by stating it another five times in response to five other people. All you're doing at that point is giving those five people reason to say the same things they already have, in ways that eat up a lot of space and move things absolutely nowhere.

And for fuck's sake, we can all feel very understandably frustrated with each other's perspectives and behaviors, but can we please stop looking at each other as Actively Shitty People? Most everyone here is acting in good faith, we are all trying to do what we think is reasonable and right, and we'd solve a lot of these problems by presuming that everyone else in the conversation is reasonable, intelligent, caring, and well-meaning, and responding to them as if we think that that's the case. That's not too much to ask, right?

(Just kidding! Of course it is. Buttoning again, having paid my $5 penance for feeling the need to chip in. Later, y'all.)
posted by no strong feelings about tom hanks whatsoever at 5:29 AM on August 23 [41 favorites]

I am staunchly pro-Palestine. I had to fend off a fairly active MeFite who, for months, would pop into my private messages scolding me for referring to Israel's behavior towards Palestine as a "genocide," and accusing me of being a self-hating Jew who was enabling Nazis in America by calling it that.

!!!!???!!!

This is what should be moderated at all times (not sure if you asked - I had an DM issue once and the mods were very responsive.) I’m sad you are buttoning (but do what you need to do) and glad for this comment.

This is a pretty serious example of why block tools (individual ones) are an extremely common feature that I support. No one should be sliding into people’s DMs to scold them. And if they do, IMO the user should be able to block them on MeMail and in comments and posts. A number of people won’t complain, they’ll just leave.
posted by warriorqueen at 6:17 AM on August 23 [11 favorites]

No one should be sliding into people’s DMs to scold them. And if they do, IMO the user should be able to block them on MeMail and in comments and posts.

We already can block people in Memail. I've done it a time or two.

Although, the link to do so is not the easiest to see, maybe making the "block this user" button in Memail bigger could help?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:23 AM on August 23 [6 favorites]

35 years ago I ran a multi-line BBS with a conferencing and messaging system I wrote and the ability to mute users was in there. One couldn't hide people entirely, though you couldn't see what they'd typed either. youd type /ignore [person] and whatever they typed was replaced (in your view) with variations on the sounds a gagged person would make -- "mmf" "mmnmm?" "mnnnnr!" and so on. The intent was to remind the user that completely ignoring someone in a public forum could have ramifications, and gently urge them to turn it off eventually.

I'm just saying that gentle technical solutions to people being jerks online have been around a long time, and can help reduce the baseline level of personal grar when topics get heated. And when fewer people are lit up and angry, there's less chance of starting a fire, less risk of people burning out.
posted by seanmpuckett at 6:58 AM on August 23 [10 favorites]

We already can block people in Memail. I've done it a time or two.

Well, duh for me (possibly I used this that one time), but that’s great. I looked in the hamburger menu on mobile before posting and didn’t see anything about blocking, so that might be something to consider (although it might not be built to support that.)
posted by warriorqueen at 7:36 AM on August 23

I've been really chaffing at the idea of blocking certain people as it's so different from existing metafilter culture. But I feel persuaded by the idea of something like "hide this user's comments for 24 hours" or something that might be a tool to help users regulate ourselves
posted by latkes at 8:42 AM on August 23 [4 favorites]

Mute-a-filter is a nice compromise in that the comments are still totally readable, so if I want context for something that's happened later in the conversation, it's right there. But the low contrast means I have to make an effort to read it, and it's a reminder that I'm allowed to just keep scrolling if I know that comments by that particular user tend to give me the grar. I would feel bad about hiding people's comments entirely, plus it would make the threads confusing. But the grayed out text just sort of turns down their volume a bit, and reminds me that this is someone I've decided in the past I don't want to engage with, so I'm less tempted to respond.
posted by OnceUponATime at 8:48 AM on August 23 [3 favorites]

Thankfully I never got harassment by DM over Palestine. I've just been informed that I'm somehow directly responsible for a person buttoning out because I support violence or something, over those Palestine posts. Over at fediverse I know at least two (ex-)mefites who stopped coming here because the temperature for a long time was reflexively more inclined to silence pro-Palestinian views usually as consequence of the rules of decorum being gamed. And they're not both Palestinian nor Israeli. So from my pov I'm quite acutely conscious of the chilling effect that has had on the site that this round of active genocide could not contain.
posted by cendawanita at 9:04 AM on August 23 [12 favorites]

What I saw, over and over again, was a wide variety of MeFites trying to engage with the people talking about Palestine, with varying degrees of "looking on the bright side," "agreeing that this particular thing sucks," and "wanting to acknowledge the situation but also focus on other things," and all of those being met with response after response after response after response after response.

So like…can someone help me out, because none of this really seems bad? If people are trying to engage with people talking about Palestine, engaging folks back just seems like…continuing the conversation? Not necessarily a derail?

Like I feel like these things can be moderated perfectly well in normal ways, just by killing personal attacks, etc.
posted by corb at 9:23 AM on August 23 [7 favorites]

Here’s the FAQ entry about MeFiMail and blocking people in it, for anyone who needs the info.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 9:38 AM on August 23 [3 favorites]

So like…can someone help me out, because none of this really seems bad? If people are trying to engage with people talking about Palestine, engaging folks back just seems like…continuing the conversation? Not necessarily a derail?

Like I feel like these things can be moderated perfectly well in normal ways, just by killing personal attacks, etc.

Often the "engaging folks back" has consisted of personal attacks - albeit not necessarily obvious "you're a moron" kinds of things, but rather, er, an expressed skepticism of the sincerity of the other person's professed statements. Those aren't necessarily the kinds of things that are easy for mods anywhere to know how to handle, but they also really tend to not contribute to conversations all that well.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:45 AM on August 23 [4 favorites]

Often the "engaging folks back" has consisted of personal attacks - albeit not necessarily obvious "you're a moron" kinds of things, but rather, er, an expressed skepticism of the sincerity of the other person's professed statements.

Yes, and patterns like responding directly to someone, and in the next sentence making a snide comment that overgeneralizes and makes a lot of baseless assumptions about a group it's clear the poster is implying the previous poster is part of, and then when called out on it, doing that sea-lion thing where they reply by saying "I was just talking about these other people, this is the thread where we're talking about that why are you censoring me." Another is the sort of sub-tweet thing where a link is dropped in or quoted that is clearly a condescending jab at other posters in the thread. Another is a perfectly fine post but with a final unnecessary comment that's dismissive and condescending. So many times I've wanted to favorite a well-constructed argument or set of posted links but can't because an extra helping of meanness was sprinkled on top.
I try really hard to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but certain posters repeat and repeat this kind of behavior and it begins to look like that underneath it is an ugly self-righteousness that believes that because the poster is fighting for a good cause, anyone who disagrees with them on any point is therefore bad, and deserves mistreatment.
posted by A Most Curious Rabbit at 10:06 AM on August 23 [17 favorites]

I seldom get involved in these conversations because I feel like they end up being pretty repetitive and not really moving the needle for anyone, and they definitely can turn into personal sniping, and it’s not a subject where I think I have any unique insight that’s worth fighting to get into the discussion (but I do appreciate people who contribute real news about the crisis). But these last few comments did crystallize something for me which is that if I had commented to say what I felt yesterday - that I found the handling of Uncommitted and the tepid acknowledgement in Harris’s acceptance speech after the full-throated declaration of support for Israel very disappointing - and I received a series of responses that felt like they were trying to talk me off the ledge of not voting Democratic, I would have found that pretty damn condescending. And if some comments on one side come off as taking potshots at everyone else for not caring enough, some comments on the other side do come off like that.

But for me that all mostly leads back in the direction of “what’s even the point of starting that discussion here, then?”
posted by atoxyl at 10:30 AM on August 23

You wouldn't understand, you're just going back to brunch.

(Dismissing people is kind of the opposite of engaging with them.)
posted by rikschell at 10:34 AM on August 23 [4 favorites]

Perhaps people could accuse others of trying to "purposefully tank the less fascist candidate" less often if they want to be able to have a reasonable discussion

That's bad faith as hell
posted by sagc at 10:44 AM on August 23 [11 favorites]

I try really hard to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but certain posters repeat and repeat this kind of behavior and it begins to look like that underneath it is an ugly self-righteousness that believes that because the poster is fighting for a good cause, anyone who disagrees with them on any point is therefore bad, and deserves mistreatment.

This. Just looking over in the Harris thread, you can spot the people spewing righteous vinegar like this.

Unrelated to above, I just want to once again call out how awesome Cendawanita has been about sharing news and giving perspective on the ongoing Gaza crises. My view on everything back in October 2023 was very much "both-sides need to stop violence" but its very, very clear to me now how much the colonial violence and genocide is coming from one direction only. So, thank you.
posted by Jarcat at 12:11 PM on August 23 [16 favorites]

Seconding the appreciation for cendawanita's link-sharing and context-giving.
posted by A Most Curious Rabbit at 12:37 PM on August 23 [18 favorites]

evidently we're still both-sidesing occupation and genocide in the current thread, contra the "we all understand what's happening and oppose it, we just express it in different ways, here on mefi" line. in this instance, flabdablet responded, i think, extremely well. (in general it would help to understand some of the patterns people are talking about if there were more links to examples.)
posted by busted_crayons at 2:45 PM on August 23 [10 favorites]

I'm over discussing it, not least because the site has consistently decided to delete what I have to say; it's obvious that the prevailing politics here are a Lin-Manuel Miranda sort of saccharine centrism, and I don't see any reason to waste my time fighting about it. Ultimately, the conversations here do not change minds, and if what people want these threads for is to gas themselves up on whatever parasocial neoliberal Swiftiness they need to get excited to vote, who am I to stand in the way of their rhetorical friendship bracelet crafting. Good luck, we're all counting on you.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:07 PM on August 23 [8 favorites]

Have a good one. Take care. Not even joking there are plenty of fights to pick with people who want to accelerate the genocide, want black people and anybody non-white to be back in their place, and who are itching for a reason to start a civil war, who you can find and confront. Assuming you're in the U.S., at least. If you're looking to pick fights that are actually hard fights that is.
posted by cashman at 4:23 PM on August 23 [8 favorites]

Oh, you can't talk sense to those people. It's like reading a book to a dog.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:33 PM on August 23 [2 favorites]

uhm kittens for breakfast, i hope i have sufficient argumentative internet curmudgeon bona fides to suggest perhaps taking a short breather because the thing about being uncompromising and combative on the internet is that you have to go after only the exact shit that needs going after, and that last one of yours was not too angry (angry is fine) but it does have the problem of not making much sense: you pick fights with precisely the people who can't be talked with sensibly. you act like a normal person with those who can*. so it doesn't make sense to want to fight but not with the people who are most unreachable except by fighting. it comes off a bit Internet Tough Guy in a mildly embarrassing way that lets our uncompromising combative internet curmudgeon team down a little bit. it is ok, we all post a tiny bit of cringe sometimes. i like your comments and i have noticed some deletions that were travesties, it's true.

*a lot of people are in the middle and then you need a partner for dealing with them: our curmudgeonly job is to create the space for our more conciliatory comrades to be like "i don't take a hard line like that shouty asshole, but..." and then say the exact same thing we said, but in their special diplomatic way, to ears that will now hear it because most people are so motivated by conflict aversion that the chance to hear someone talking quietly after the stress of someone being vehement will short-circuit their critical faculties and they will not notice that the soothing voice of our comrade (which only sounds that way in comparison to us) is saying the same thing they were just minutes ago unwilling to hear. this actually works sometimes. every conversation has an emotional overton window. it's part of why we curmudge.
posted by busted_crayons at 5:17 PM on August 23 [9 favorites]

For me, there isn't much point to this stuff unless what you're saying can persuade someone to change their mind; maybe not the person you're talking to directly, but someone who's reading along. Arguing with racists on the internet isn't likely to do that. I've known a lot of racists and fascists, and the only thing that ever changes their mind is bitter experience, because they're too stupid to learn any other way. It's a waste of time to argue with someone like that. And someone who's just reading along on a site that caters to people like that is probably even stupider. There's just no point.

With neoliberals, I generally feel there's a possibility of moving them left, because there's an underlying baseline intelligence to reach out to. At this particular moment, though, I think neoliberals are at their least receptive, riding high, furious at the notion of someone fucking up the brunch vibe.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 5:53 PM on August 23 [6 favorites]

The psychiatrist I recently worked with had a very similar perspective, busted_crayon, and was convinced the "bad cop, good cop" routine worked wonders. Mostly he was wrong. I did see it work on an actual cop once (really wild experience, wish I could share) but otherwise it mostly made things worse. But that was in an inpatient psychiatric ward where people are generally more willing to listen to reason than on an internet forum, which sounds like me making some sort of ha-ha joke but I'm dead serious.

Anyway, election year politics threads bring out the worst in me and I would actually benefit from cultivating some conflict aversion, so I've sworn them off. I do think muting would work wonders for keeping me out of "bitch eating crackers" mode but as far as I can find there isn't an extension for mobile Safari (would not be surprised if Apple simply does not allow such things) which is where I mostly access Metafilter from for chronic pain reasons. If anyone knows of one (or Firefox for iOS, but my understanding is all iOS browsers are just Safari reskins), I'd appreciate hearing about it. Otherwise godspeed everyone.
posted by brook horse at 5:53 PM on August 23 [4 favorites]

*Busted_crayons. I did not mean to deprive you of the at least one other crayon to your name.
posted by brook horse at 6:07 PM on August 23 [2 favorites]

sounds like me making some sort of ha-ha joke but I'm dead serious.

that doesn't sound like a joke to me at all! i have internetted my fair share and am absolutely not surprised by that.

very open to the possibility that this sort of tactic isn't useful in the settings i'm talking about.

i'm very ready to believe tactics like that don't work in situations where people are mostly being reasonable and speaking in good faith, and it wouldn't occur to me to use them in situations like that. that shit is not natural for me and i am bad at it.

unless metafilter is wildly and improbably different than the culture in which it's embedded, and unless the evidence of many threads on the matter is deceiving me, a mefi thread on the palestinian genocide is not actually one where one can just assume good faith. what i've been learning from having to talk about it IRL is that it's like the most infected-by-bad-faith topic i've ever seen. the other side are using tactics way more well-honed than the experimental naive amateur one i was just talking about.

the worst of that stuff has died down quite a lot on mefi over the course of the gaza threads, for reasons which include (among others) that people saying eliminationist/both-sides/hasbarist/crybully/what-america-teaches-about-israel shit have gotten robust pushback. but it absolutely has not gone away. and i don't think it's reasonable to have to apply normal charitable modes of interaction as a default, in this place, on that matter, until the bounds of what's acceptable to say on mefi are brought in line with what they'd be (at least officially) on any other tendentious but morally clear-cut matter.
posted by busted_crayons at 6:43 PM on August 23 [6 favorites]

i don't think it's reasonable to have to apply normal charitable modes of interaction as a default

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, busted_crayons. And perhaps they were different when you joined the site, but when I joined the site, the site Guidelines I had to agree to when I joined (again, perhaps it was different when you joined) make it pretty unambiguously clear that normal charitable modes of interaction are preceisely what is expected of us all, all the time.
posted by A Most Curious Rabbit at 8:20 PM on August 23 [13 favorites]

that relies on a type of moderation that I feel like the mods have stepped back from, as power has been transitioned back to the community; it feels like there's been a lot more... counterfactuals allowed, under the assumption that the community will push back.

Otherwise, it seems like we're stuck with explaining again and again it's probably not a matter of "both sides are equally culpable", which stifles every other conversation. To say nothing of some of the past stances alluded to above - "Gaza is full of luxury hotels"-level mendaciousness.
posted by sagc at 8:40 PM on August 23 [7 favorites]

...make it pretty unambiguously clear that normal charitable modes of interaction are preceisely what is expected of us all, all the time.

Yeah, and I'm only asking you and anyone else to take my historical recollection of my twenty-odd years here (wat??) fwiw that it's the weaponisation of norms of decorum plus a systematic ignorance of Palestine + background radiation of Islamophobia from the War on Terror + standard Zionist positions (eg bring up historical tragedies as a tangent when people are talking about still ongoing tragedies, but it's not a tangent it's activation of well-deserved western guilt) that gets expressed as polite crybullying + a very specific American (white??) discursive custom that cannot tolerate any tenor of meh (a joke Brits and the Commonwealth would share is how Americans seem to take it personally if any greetings of "how are you," isn't replied with "great!" or "good, thanks") lest it be seen as a personal slight that's caused the culture of the site to be "I/P is something we do badly". And when they don't know how to interject, they just keep to polite silence. Palestinians or pro-Palestinians aren't the only ones hanging in the wind as a result - the numerous eras that led to mefi being known as a Boyzone or spectacularly tone-deaf to trans people had to be resolved by the site culture being pulled trashing and groaning into something resembling a place somewhat hospitable, and even then we've lost critical Black American voices still. What more Palestinians.
posted by cendawanita at 9:03 PM on August 23 [17 favorites]

(which leads to various subreddits or slacks or discords or twitter circles or what have you whose essential raison d'être is just lurking to report back on how much we're now full of pedantic scolds who are obsessed with political correctness who must think that posting is praxis. Hi, what's up.)
posted by cendawanita at 9:06 PM on August 23 [8 favorites]

So I'm clear, all of that is a justification that it's ok for people to say things like "Oh, you can't talk sense to those people. It's like reading a book to a dog."
posted by A Most Curious Rabbit at 9:29 PM on August 23 [6 favorites]

No
posted by sagc at 9:38 PM on August 23 [4 favorites]

I'm glad to hear it. But that's the kind of behavior myself and others are talking about, so I'm not sure what to do with all that history then.
posted by A Most Curious Rabbit at 9:51 PM on August 23 [2 favorites]

well the thing about reading a book to a dog is by the third time you do it, they either want a snack, fall asleep, or wait patiently at the door.
posted by clavdivs at 9:59 PM on August 23 [7 favorites]

I'm glad to hear it. But that's the kind of behavior myself and others are talking about, so I'm not sure what to do with all that history then.

understand it. go read the Gaza threads and identify the many many non-deleted instances of what cendawanita described and see if you think it's prudent --- not kind, or good for the notional community, or consistent with the rules, but prudent --- to assume good faith uniformly on this topic.
posted by busted_crayons at 1:41 AM on August 24 [8 favorites]

"Oh, you can't talk sense to those people. It's like reading a book to a dog."

If you look back, that comment was about why it isn't worth trying to reason with the far right, not other mefites.
posted by pattern juggler at 3:52 AM on August 24 [6 favorites]

we had a whole thread full of russia-jacketing critics of israeli crimes (and maybe designed for that purpose). should we try a thread about hasbara (in contrast/analogy to discussion about russian state propaganda efforts) and see how that goes/how long it survives?

(edit: i am actually asking. mods: is there any point in making an fpp about israeli public diplomacy and propaganda, american public opinion about israel, etc. or is it just going to get mischaracterised as conspiracist and deleted? would it be judged on the content, or on how many incorrectly aggrieved flags it got?)
posted by busted_crayons at 4:03 AM on August 24 [7 favorites]

Taking my mod hat off because I'm speaking just for myself, which doesn't mean other mods have different or even similar opinions. This is just me, speaking as a regular user, who's aware of some of the larger issues with moderation contentious topics.

This post does not sound like a good idea because:
1. It seems to be in response or comparison to another post
2. Assumptions are already being made about the people who might flag this hypothetical post.
3. You're framing this hypothetical post as being made for right or just reasons, while anyone, mod or user, who disagrees is wrong.

MetaFilter works best when posts are about interesting topics that aren't inherently fighty. The state of the world is such that posts about Palestine or Israel are more than likely going to turn fighty and result in generating bad blood between members and/or members getting more fighty or leaving.

I would advise anyone who wants to post on MetaFilter about a controversial topic to pause and consider whether it really needs to be here and if so, why? If it's to show and remind people that something awful is occurring in the world, I'd advise not posting it (and refrain from doing so in my own posting habits).

Not everything that's going in the world needs to be on MetaFilter. It's perfectly ok for people to discuss or participate on other sites about other interests.

Does this mean MetaFilter is only for good/positive news? Absolutely not and I do feel comfortable in saying that no one, user or mod, would want it be so. The problem is that a fighty topic get posted, people then fight about it, usually a small group, who then want to endlessly fight about it, which creates negative feelings all around and often people shut down, either by quitting the thread or the site, and then only the people who really want to fight about the issue are left.

None of the world's problems are going to fixed by arguing about them on MetaFilter. I get that this site is a digital home for many, including myself, but it's a shared home. Nobody wants to live someplace where there's a never ending argument about the same topic, over and over.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 8:16 AM on August 24 [42 favorites]

Thank you.
posted by darkstar at 8:42 AM on August 24 [2 favorites]

I vote for Brandon for Cabal Overlord of all Metafilter. So say we all.
posted by Jarcat at 9:36 AM on August 24 [3 favorites]

How do you know he isn't that already? I've said too much.
posted by kirkaracha (staff) at 10:30 AM on August 24 [4 favorites]

FWIW, this discussion does not seem to be actually changing behavior. In the DNC thread, we have users continuing to use the expression “pro-genocide voter” to describe Harris voters. I’m not sure where the mods have come down in the whole debate, but this sort of thing seems pretty clearly intentionally inflammatory.

I’ll confess, I almost buttoned a couple of days ago. This whole nonsense is getting so wearisome and tedious that MeFi no longer feels like a welcoming digital home. I feel like I’m having to engage in emotional labor of dealing with abusive, argumentative commenters, to parse through a lot of agitprop just to celebrate a historical presidential nomination.

The reason I didn’t actually button was I attempted to download my comment history before closing my account, and inadvertently tabbed away from the process, after which the tab was cleared before I could download my comments. And you’re restricted from doing that more than once a week. So it gave me pause, during which I cooled down a little. But that’s the closest I’ve come in 20 years to closing my account.

It feels like a group of agitators have moved into our attic and we just either have to learn to live with them or move out. Not sure what to do about this. I browse on an iPad, and the various mute/block options don’t work, and I don’t think we have the mod resources, or supporting policy, to be more proactive about addressing this issue. So there may be few options left.
posted by darkstar at 10:38 AM on August 24 [26 favorites]

I prefer a moderated site to an unmoderated one. If Metafitler were to have a prime directive, it would be "Civility." Civility. Some MeFites have historically characterized threads about Israel/Palestine relations as "Fighty." I respectfully disagree. Some MeFites are Fighty.

All threads involve some degree of interaction among the commenters. Sometimes, these interactions generate helpful or maybe even entertaining ideas. Sometimes, they bear bitter fruit. The latter is where the mods come in to ensure no personal attacks or other little demons violating established guidelines have slipped into the conversations.

I'm afraid I have to disagree that offending comments should be deleted (except on the AskMe page, where comments in response to sensitive asks must be carefully considered). I'm not privy to the way mods consult with each other about policy regulations, so I recognize that my notions rely on scant information. (Go Mods.) For the most part, I would rather see a mod comment under an offending comment than have it disappear. Full disclosure: I am in the camp of those with no use for the "Hide" tab; I prefer to scroll past comments (or Posts) I don't wish to read. I mean to cast no shade on those using this feature.

The Harris administration's intentions regarding the war in Gaza are as valid as inquiries about their position on women's reproductive rights. Persons needing an undiluted feel-good experience about the DNC might limit their exposure to MSNBC rather than reading about the convention on a site known for a veritable Cornucopia of ideas.

I noticed that some in the thread said that we here in MeFi would not change anything by our comments; I believe the implication was that we needn't bother to make those comments here because (variously: redundant or contribute to endless loops) They may be correct. I don't make comments here because I think they'll make one whit of difference. I comment to let off steam, or perhaps because I'm trying to be funny or for other personal reasons. If my comments contribute to tedium, please scroll past them or put me on your Hide list.
posted by mule98J at 10:45 AM on August 24 [4 favorites]

Nobody wants to live someplace where there's a never ending argument about the same topic, over and over.

HEAR, HEAR. This is entirely the heart of the issue. Nobody's gonna win or change the minds of those in power by constantly arguing this on Metafilter. It's exhausting and getting nowhere.
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:47 AM on August 24 [18 favorites]

Persons needing an undiluted feel-good experience about the DNC

So, just to point out, this is a straw man argument. No one is demanding that only good vibes be allowed. And I’m on record saying that I/P is relevant.

But I defy anyone to take a look at that DNC thread and not honestly acknowledge that the Israel/Palestine argument, and all of the resulting back-and-forth, has completely overwhelmed that thread and driven out other related topics and commenters.
posted by darkstar at 11:03 AM on August 24 [14 favorites]

Speaking only for myself, I joined this site in 2007. So I at least am not someone who just showed up to squat in the attic and harsh anyone's mellow.

But I definitely meant what I said about giving the politics threads a wide berth. I'm over it. I don't enjoy getting in fights about this stuff. Honestly, I find it depressing.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:04 AM on August 24 [3 favorites]

So, just to point out, this is a straw man argument. No one is demanding that only good vibes be allowed.

I don't think you are demanding that, but some folks definitely are.

Several people have responded not just to discussions of the US role in the Gaza genocide, but criticism of Walz voting record and Harris time as prosecutor with request that be allowed to feel happy or hopeful.

Gaza and immigration are the two big divisive issues among Democrats during this election. And the border seems to have mostly been given up as a lost cause. It is pretty much the only question of actual policy where the establishment and Trump are in full alignment. There is no way it isn't going to be a major topic of any general election thread.

I still saw plenty of discussion of other topics in the DNC thread. Polls, the latest stupid thing Trump did, what music was being played, people fawning over candidates and their families. And discussion of the ongoing protests by delegates elected to the convention and the way the party responded to them. I think that the latter is a lot more relevant to the actual topic than some of the former.
posted by pattern juggler at 11:28 AM on August 24 [4 favorites]

I don't think you are demanding that, but some folks definitely are.

They really aren't, though, despite how many times you say they are. It's been a constant stream of mischaracterization from your posts. I happen to agree policy/morally/politically with most of your stances but your insistence on treating your own subjective views as objective facts is *tedious*.
posted by Jarcat at 11:33 AM on August 24 [16 favorites]

People really did complain about not being allowed to feel joy and hope whenever there was criticism. So that seems like a request for good vibes only to me. Sticking "I think" in front of every sentence is a waste of pixels and time. Of course I think it or I wouldn't be typing it.

The important thing though is that you do acknowledge I am morally and politically correct.
posted by pattern juggler at 11:43 AM on August 24 [10 favorites]

The important thing though is that you do acknowledge I am morally and politically correct.
I can’t actually tell if this is supposed to a joke. Because even if it is, it isn’t really.
posted by neroli at 11:47 AM on August 24 [9 favorites]

I can’t actually tell if this is supposed to a joke. Because even if it is, it isn’t really.

Just one more service I offer.
posted by pattern juggler at 11:49 AM on August 24 [4 favorites]

OK, but there have been mosts telling people to effectively put up or shut up until the campaign is over. There are people sad that they can't feel uncomplicated joy in these threads. Just because you haven't seen them, Jarcat, doesn't mean they're not out there posting.

Best part about a text site is you can actually go back and read what has been written, so no thank you to the gaslighting.

People saying "I want this thing" aren't inherently demanding anything, and my point is the subjective assumption that is being made is incorrect.

And despite that too, even if there were a few people 'demanding' that, representing it consistently as the view of a large swath of people is literally disingenuous.

The important thing though is that you do acknowledge I am morally and politically correct.

You're a mensch <3
posted by Jarcat at 11:49 AM on August 24 [1 favorite]

I can’t actually tell if this is supposed to a joke. Because even if it is, it isn’t really.

I took it as a tongue in cheek statement and laughed with it, not at it.
posted by Jarcat at 11:50 AM on August 24 [2 favorites]

People saying to posters in the US response to Gaza thread that the appropriate response is to "Get on board or get out of the way" is a thing that happened.
posted by sagc at 11:51 AM on August 24 [6 favorites]

we have users continuing to use the expression “pro-genocide voter” to describe Harris voters.

This isn't quite right, but it's gotten lost in the back-and-forth over there. By "pro-genocide voter" they were referring to some potential subset of people -- presumably not present here -- who are currently planning to vote for Harris, but who wouldn't if Harris were to come out with a straightforward refusal to continue supporting Israel if Israel doesn't stop these atrocities. A single-issue Israel-as-it-currently-is voter (or at least a top-issue-as-a-personal-tipping-point voter).

But it hardly matters. I think Gaza info should be able to be posted in any of these threads, but a good chunk of the back-and-forths are pretty bad for everyone. (That said, I think the vast majority of people participating in those back-and-forths are doing so in earnest -- and then I think the vast majority of people who accuse others of commenting in bad faith are also doing so in earnest, but they're mostly wrong and it's a bad stance to take, and it leads to self-justifying subsequent not-great behavior on their own part, to match the level they see coming from the other side. This is happening all across the spectrum of possible stances, and it's obviously not everybody who does this, but it's enough that it makes the whole thing go bad.)
posted by nobody at 11:55 AM on August 24 [9 favorites]

Nobody said it better than I could. (eponysteria intended)
posted by Jarcat at 11:58 AM on August 24 [4 favorites]

we have users continuing to use the expression “pro-genocide voter” to describe Harris voters.

This is incredibly tendentious. The full quote from pattern_juggler (who has also said, explicitly and repeatedly, that he is planning to vote for Harris) is as follows:

Some people won't vote for her if she doesn't continue helping support genocide. Some people won't support her if she does. The mistake the campaign feels in danger of making is assuming the anti-genocide voters will show up no matter what, while the pro-genocide voters need to be coaxed.

The clear meaning of this excerpt is that there are both pro-genocide and anti-genocide factions within the Democratic party, and that one of those two sets of voters is valued more than the other by the DNC. (There is also, quite obviously, a genocide-neutral faction, which is much larger than either of the two factions listed above but is not being addressed in pattern_juggler's comment.)
posted by adrienneleigh at 12:01 PM on August 24 [9 favorites]

"I can't get no relief."
--Jimi Hendricks
posted by mule98J at 12:02 PM on August 24 [3 favorites]

Honestly, given the number of times in these last couple of threads that i, personally, have posted a relevant and factual link about policy positions and been accused by other MeFites of "scolding" them, the only conclusion i am able to draw is that some folks have guilty consciences.
posted by adrienneleigh at 12:06 PM on August 24 [11 favorites]

The mods do delete posts they feel are off topic fairly frequently, especially if they seem contentious or directed about a particular poster or the conversation as a whole, so it is often impossible to follow the exact flow of a conversation. Sometimes you can only tell something is missing because there is a sudden wave of strong reactions out of nowhere, and often not even that. I promise I have zero interest in gaslighting anybody about the existence of people saying they want political discussion on MetaFilter to be a source of joy. I doubt anyone else does, either.

The difference between saying you want something and complaining about or to people you feel are impeding you from getting it and making a demand seems pretty trivial to me. It is clear from the posts and the likes that there really is an appetite for a pure rah-rah pro-Harris conversation. I don't think a place for camaraderie during a political campaign is a bad thing. It isn't something that interests me, but it clearly does other people and I think there is a place for it. I am not sure if that place is MetaFilter or not, but I don't think having such a space needs to be at the expense of having a more general and critical conversation as well.

It's a thing I have trouble with sometimes. Determining whether a given thread is a "yay, this thing is awesome" thread or a "look at this weird thing over here" thread. Sometimes you want a conversation about the different points of view on a thing, and sometimes you want to share it with other people who love it. I think clearly marking some threads as having a particular point of view is okay.

So I think "positive vibes only" is both a real thing people want and that isn't derogatory. It's just a thing.

FWIW, this discussion does not seem to be actually changing behavior. In the DNC thread, we have users continuing to use the expression “pro-genocide voter” to describe Harris voters.

I did use that phrase. A couple of other folks have very kindly pointed out the miscommunication (thank you nobody and adrienneleigh!) but just to make it very clear who I intended that to mean: It was to refer to people who will base their vote on whether or not Harris supports genocide, and specifically those who will refuse to vote for her if she doesn't support it. Anti-genocide voters are those whose votes are based on the same criterion but in the opposite direction.

The rest of us are just Harris voters.

Between this and the "reading a book to a dog" misunderstanding, I feel like there is a lot of kneejerk readings based on what we expect people to say rather than what is actually being said. I know I have had to cool my jets and reread something only to realize I had totally missed sarcasm or misread who the referent of a pronoun was. And I am sure there are times I didn't catch and will cringe out of my skin if I ever catch one of them after the fact.

I think slowing down and reading more carefully would probably reduce the apparent heat level as well.
posted by pattern juggler at 12:12 PM on August 24 [7 favorites]

Honestly, giving in and installing the block filter linked to up here changed things dramatically for me; there are one or two users I blocked, although not because of what they were saying - but rather, how they were saying it. Because it isn't really even what we're talking about that's gotten under people's skin - it's the fundamentalist approach to how we are expected to think about it, and the relentlessness of the messaging that "this is the only acceptable way to think about this".

Incidentally, I can't help but wonder - since we are in agreement that the situation in Gaza is extremely dire, why would anyone waste their time quarrelling about it on an internet forum every 15 minutes anyway instead of doing something more productive to alleviate the situation?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:27 PM on August 24 [19 favorites]

pattern juggler, I think part of it is that we've had a few threads now, with many now-deleted comments, in which the framing of "pro-genocide" has been used to tar a whole swath of Democratic voters. Many of those comments have now been deleted, but we all know that they were posted, and that this framing was used to amplify and inflame the discourse as a cudgel and a spur against people on MeFi.

So that when the term "pro-genocide" is used, it has now become something akin to a dog whistle, even when it's couched in a comment in the very narrow terms of referring only to those people who are literally "pro-genocide" and who are probably not engaging on MeFi at all.

It would be analogous to multiple users making comments over a few weeks in multiple threads calling some MeFites "pro-fascism Leftists" as a way to attack those who might be uncommitted in their vote. And then, only after tens of thousands of words of debate, suddenly using the same term only to describe a very small group of people out in the world who might actually, literally be pro-fascism Leftists. (One assumes they must exist, even though none of them have commented on MeFi, to my knowledge.)

Coming along after that and suggesting that people need to just read more carefully would be a little disingenuous (though undoubtedly valuable advice in general).
posted by darkstar at 12:43 PM on August 24 [12 favorites]

Incidentally, I can't help but wonder - since we are in agreement that the situation in Gaza is extremely dire, why would anyone waste their time quarrelling about it on an internet forum every 15 minutes anyway instead of doing something more productive to alleviate the situation?

I think we are all to some extent dealing with our relative powerlessness to do anything concrete.

Coming along after that and suggesting that people need to just read more carefully would be a little disingenuous (though undoubtedly valuable advice in general).

I have no memory of "pro-genocide" being used to describe people opposed to pressuring Harris on the issue. I am not saying it is implaisible or didn't happen. Between deletions and the bit of brain damage I picked up in 2010 it is entirely possible I missed or had it slide right out of my brain. But I wasn't aware of it or trying to invoke it.
posted by pattern juggler at 12:47 PM on August 24 [6 favorites]

I understand your position, and I appreciate your clarification. Thank you.
posted by darkstar at 12:52 PM on August 24 [3 favorites]

Comment removed. Do not drag problems from other threads into any other thread. If you feel as thought you can't avoid doing so, it is advised that you take a break from those threads.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 1:07 PM on August 24 [1 favorite]

To clarify, that's "between MeFi threads", not "do not, in this MeTa, refer to comments from MeFi", right? Because I feel like you deleted a comment calling out behavior on Mefi... Which is what Metatalk is for, isn't it?
posted by sagc at 1:10 PM on August 24 [8 favorites]

Bringing in that particular comment to this MeTa was not needed and would have probably caused further problems, hence the rationale for this rare deletion from a MeTa.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 1:27 PM on August 24 [1 favorite]

So … other folks get to bring in examples of bad behavior but i do not? Is that what i'm supposed to take from these deletions?
posted by adrienneleigh at 1:28 PM on August 24 [7 favorites]

Like, if other people are going to tendentiously accuse pattern juggler of calling them "pro-genocide", and then the same group of folks are going to (equally tendentiously) call me "anti-Kamala", i think that's an important data point for this MeTa!
posted by adrienneleigh at 1:31 PM on August 24 [5 favorites]

It does seem to have been a relevant comment if you want to understand why pro-ceasefire/embargo posters feel like anything they say is being interpreted in the least charitable light.
posted by sagc at 1:32 PM on August 24 [9 favorites]

Upon review: Sagc was right, and I should apologize for saying pattern juggler is consistently mischaracterizing posters. I took another read back through some of the comments I had in mind with the new contextualization from this discussion and feel like my take away of 'tediousness' is a Jarcat problem and not something to relate to the content of y'alls posts.
posted by Jarcat at 1:39 PM on August 24 [10 favorites]

Metalfilter: Metafitler

(I know it's a typo)
posted by 15L06 at 1:56 PM on August 24 [1 favorite]

So … other folks get to bring in examples of bad behavior but i do not?

Please keep it general and avoid linking to specific comments (which have since been removed), as that tends to heighten tensions and makes things worse overall.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 2:00 PM on August 24

politely: how the fuck are we supposed to talk about something seriously if we're not allowed to reference actual information? this is a sick joke.
posted by busted_crayons at 2:04 PM on August 24 [6 favorites]

This is not historically how metatalk has worked, correct??

It definitely is not.
posted by adrienneleigh at 2:09 PM on August 24 [8 favorites]

Not today at least.
posted by CPAnarchist at 2:09 PM on August 24 [7 favorites]

In all love.

Metafilter: [S]ince been removed.
posted by riverlife at 2:14 PM on August 24

delurking just to echo everything darkstar just said.

I, too, very nearly buttoned this week and am in fact staying way from MetaFilter as much as I can.

[turning Leechblock back on]
posted by kristi at 3:20 PM on August 24 [8 favorites]

I've come pretty close to deleting, too, mostly because...to be honest, when I've posted stuff about how shocked and horrified I was about one thing or another, I was looking less for a fight and more for acknowledgment that I wasn't taking crazy pills. Like, giving time to republicans at the DNC and not giving time to Palestinian speakers...that seems pretty fucked up, right? Like in a way that goes without saying, so really I was looking for other posters to be like, "You're right. That is fucked up and extremely disappointing." Obviously, that's not what I got, and to a degree that I first found shocking and eventually just found very sad.

But at the end of the day, the conversations that we have here are completely meaningless in terms of affecting the state of the world, or policies, or anything. It's easy to feel like these arguments are meaningful, but they actually aren't. So I strongly suggest people just reclaim their time and do something else. I will.

In terms of site policy, I think a slow posting rule would make sense, however much trouble it might be to actually implement. Maybe no one needs to post in a thread more than once a day. Frankly, maybe no one needs to post in a thread at all. But if they must, a hard limit is a sound idea.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 3:50 PM on August 24 [8 favorites]

What. The. [Redacted]. Brandon?
posted by Alterscape at 4:25 PM on August 24 [4 favorites]

I never should have cast my vote he's gone mad with power muahaha
posted by Jarcat at 4:55 PM on August 24

I think slowing down and reading more carefully would probably reduce the apparent heat level as well.

I think slowing down and writing more carefully would probably reduce the apparent heat level even more.

If one person misinterprets what you’ve written, they’re a bad reader. If lots of people misinterpret what you’ve written, you’re a bad writer. If you think you’re being witty and satirical but many members of your community think you are being hostile, you shouldn’t blame them for misinterpreting your literary style. You should take a deep breath, slow down, and learn how to express yourself without contributing to a toxic environment.

Arguing for good cause doesn’t give you a free pass to spit in the soup. Metafilter isn’t about winning the argument.
posted by Winnie the Proust at 5:11 PM on August 24 [10 favorites]

And pro tip: if you find yourself posting two comments cursing out the mods, it may be time to take a break, regardless of the merits of the disagreement.
posted by Winnie the Proust at 5:13 PM on August 24 [4 favorites]

The issue, and it's been an issue for 25 years, is that a single stream of un-threaded comments is unlike any real-world conversational environment. You can't walk away from people you don't want to hear; you can't disengage with sub-topics you don't want to read, you can't avoid the people who are being astonishingly rude or who are about to lose their shit. The only thing you can do is walk out af an entire thread, or put up with an entire thread, warts and all. It's fine when everyone is on board or having a chill discussion, but it falls on its face when people get fractious.

And the cost is very high. People have walked away from this site by the hundreds, if not thousands, over the years, because they cannot enjoy it without being exposed to people they find toxic.

I do not believe part of the solution is "comment less," not even forcibly. I do believe part of the solution is to allow people to manage their own environment. Granular muting of people is one way to do that, and fairly simple to implement; even being possible completely browser-side with javascript and cookies, so no database rework would be needed.

Anyway, it's not like there isn't a shitload of work to do to create a new version of the site, but from my view, this problem -- the problem of people buttoning because they can't otherwise get away from people and opinions they find toxic -- is the number two issue with this site being sustainable, directly behind funding. So I think it's kind of high priority.

Thanks for reading.
posted by seanmpuckett at 5:26 PM on August 24 [13 favorites]

Granular muting seems weird. You're going to have a large conversation within which individual participants are having wholly different experiences from one another. And as things are now, people often preface their replies with italicized quotes from the people they're replying to. In all likelihood, you'll still see stuff from the people you're hiding from. It seems like a poor solution.

I think that people have to ask themselves what they're really trying to get out of political conversations on this site. If it's boosterism, it's okay to say that. We can all agree to only say the nice things we think about Kamala, and boo and hiss at the bad Orange Man. Or, again, we can just not do this, because it seems to mostly create bad feelings. I can't think of anything I've gained from these discussions. If I'm being honest with myself, I think I've mostly participated in them because I was procrastinating.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 5:37 PM on August 24 [2 favorites]

You should take a deep breath, slow down, and learn how to express yourself without contributing to a toxic environment.

I will be honest, if I haven't managed it by now it is probably not going to happen.
posted by pattern juggler at 5:42 PM on August 24 [3 favorites]

That sounds more dismissive than I intended.

I try to communicate as clearly as possible. I have a hard time with text sometimes and I don't intend to make the process any more time consuming than it already is.

I'd rather occasionally be misunderstood than take that much longer to communicate.
posted by pattern juggler at 5:45 PM on August 24 [2 favorites]

When we find ourselves meta-analyzing the meta-analysis of how we are supposed to act in a MetaTalk thread, it is definitely time to log off.

Have a pleasant weekend, all.
posted by darkstar at 6:00 PM on August 24 [7 favorites]

You too, darkstar.
posted by pattern juggler at 6:03 PM on August 24 [2 favorites]

And pro tip: if you find yourself posting two comments cursing out the mods, it may be time to take a break, regardless of the merits of the disagreement.

likewise if you find yourself being a patronising dingus. the mod in question made a terrible call and obviously imposed special (and ad hoc, made-up-on-the-spot) standards on someone who's been subject to periodic pile-ons for months. that's bullshit.

the real problem is that this is a "101" problem (charitably) that isn't acknowledged as one. and maybe also a situation where a bunch of people had a lot of successfully buried cognitive dissonance due to positive feelings about something immoral for which they don't actually have real reference points beyond, basically, propaganda and a vague understanding of something as contentious (as evidenced by all the people who can't even refer to whatever specific thing they are talking about in specific terms, but rather throw anything to do with millions of people and a whole swath of history under a whispered "I/P"). and then that vague unease or critical (or uncritical but doesn't-come-up-often) support got rendered untenable because the facts got way too loud this time --- not just ignorable (in their minds) shooting hundreds of protesters inside the fence loud, but loud loud --- and the resistance to thinking about it might have less to do with real or perceived futility and more to do with the persecuted feeling where you're guilty but it's not like you literally did it, and now angry people want to make you tour the camps that technically weren't on that ballot, while all the bodies are still there?
posted by busted_crayons at 6:18 PM on August 24 [5 favorites]

Well, there have been some things, mostly on the I/P issue that seem intractable.

And if one is going to post over and over again in those threads,spilling over into the Harris and other #uspolitics threads. There may be some issues.

Certain posters who fit that description have really pissed me off. I'm not a flagger (other than for fabulous posts), but some posters do need to be told to take a break. And I think they have, but they have some back after that break and not changed at all.

Which I get. We all have our own lines that we draw.

But, continued almost harassment in threads doesn't help the community. I wish I understood why a certain bearded hippy had an issue, but I can only see hints. Which sucks. When our people get mad and leave, that hurts us all. Think of all the great posters we have have that have just said, "fuck it". If chariot pulled by cassowaries gets pissed for some reason, and buttons, we won't know anything about Australian wildlife rescue efforts! Now I'm not hearing about Musicals and cool music shit.

But here we are. I think Metafilter is an awesome place. There will always be bad actors, people having issues, etc. And I think the mods do a great job doing what they do. But, certain things do seem to get moderated more than others. And I get that. Some members need to take a deep breath before they hit post comment...

Deep breath...

Yeah, Mefi is great, let's keep it that way...
posted by Windopaene at 6:51 PM on August 24 [8 favorites]

I do not think what you are describing is the purpose of Metafilter. GYOFB or make a film or something. But if you have visions of relentlessly wearing away at the encrustations of other people’s world views and beliefs and doing that through Metafilter discussions… well, I just disagree.

Maybe I’ve misunderstood what you are trying to say. But it’s also possible that the disconnect in this whole situation is a disconnect of intensity and purpose, and the reason why people come here.

I come here to learn, and be entertained, and to help other people when I can. I don’t come here to be convinced or disabused. And if your purpose in coming to Metafilter is to convince and disabuse other members of this site, then we have a fundamental disagreement about what we are doing here.
posted by Winnie the Proust at 6:52 PM on August 24 [7 favorites]

Not sure if you are responding to me or not.

I think Metafilter is all about seeing new cool shit, and discussing things.

I think it is great to hear about other people's world views.

But especially in the I/P threads, there is no tolerance, at all. And that's not about MF. It's just the situation that the I/P situation has put the world in. No one in the world has an answer for how to deal with it that won't result in war. Has been my whole life. No one seems to be able to figure out a way to make it stop. And those feelings all pour into the other threads. Because yes, no one in the US gov really wants to piss off our ally of 50 years in the ME. Even though they are genociders. Religion, JFC. I think "both sides" keep acting like shit, and I wish they would stop.

But this is MetaTalk, so the question is how do we stop I/P #uspolitics to not destroy Mefi?
posted by Windopaene at 7:05 PM on August 24 [8 favorites]

Not sure if you are responding to me or not.

No, I was responding to the previous comment by Busted Crayons. Sorry for the confusion.
posted by Winnie the Proust at 7:10 PM on August 24

I'm gonna second windopaene on how nobody knows how to deal with the situation, and probably never will.
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:15 PM on August 24 [2 favorites]

Just to be perfectly clear, I agree with Windopaene’s comments and share their perspective on the site.
posted by Winnie the Proust at 7:48 PM on August 24 [2 favorites]

I find the whole thing about telling people what the site is and how they're missing the point of it rich, since it's generally rhetoric coming from people who've been on the site a shorter time than the people they've taken it upon themselves to lecture. I'd suggest not doing that anymore.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:38 PM on August 24 [3 favorites]

But to windopaene's point, it's like this. If you have political threads, people will politics in those threads. As I've said and will stop saying after this, I am increasingly unconvinced of the utility of these threads. This is a pretty lefty website, but the US left is a big tent that is full of people who don't like each other very much, don't agree on that many things, and all wield box cutters. There's no way to have a party in there without someone getting their feelings hurt. Am I saying ban politics threads? I'm not not saying it. I don't know. Maybe you open a new subsite called like MetaHell where everyone fights about politics nonstop. You can go there whenever you just hate being alive, I guess.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:01 PM on August 24 [7 favorites]

I don't know, I've been here since 2006. And I have spent much of my free time since October organizing for Palestine. (Here's the latest thing I was involved in winning). I hope that proves my metafilter & pro Palestine bonafides.

There are people on this website who I disagree with about Palestine. In the past much more than now, there are some Zionists who justify the apartheid state and now the ongoing genocide in ways I find infuriating. More often these days, there some who have views I perceive as magical thinking about how policy change happens - or most often- who simply don't want to have to think about Palestine.

These commenters frustrate me, but I don't expect them to go away or never speak or never disagree with me. I would hope that mods would intervene if these commenters personally attack anyone, or persistently (over many comments) try to shut down discussion of Palestine. I would hope mods would protect my right to state my position, and would stop abusive or personal attacks. In my opinion, that's all I can ask for on this website. If I get too irritated at people's bad analysis, I ultimately have to go do something else.

I'm not really sure what end game some folks want here? Feel free to call me a tone-cop, but I actually don't want to hang out on a website where everyone is being a raging jerk to each other - why bother? I feel like the rule should be you can express your opinion, maybe a few times if you want to try different wording - but then you have to accept there are different people here with different ideas. I find the argument that the other side is being more rude or more inappropriate pretty weak. The fact that someone else is being an asshole doesn't mean it is any way helpful or good for the larger community or helpful to Palestine for me to be a jerk too. Why should the rest of this website have to watch two or 5 individuals going at each other - what is the point of that? By what specific mechanism does it help Palestine? How does it help any individual involved? How does it help this website?

I also find the personal attacks on the moderators to be really frustrating. Not every moderator here is particularly focused on politics or Palestine. I accept that because never has this website claimed to be a political website or an activist website or anything of that nature. I think it's great to try to impact the policies here and to argue for different strategies when we disagree with a moderation call - in fact - I've had some back and forth with moderators here about Palestine in particular over the years - but strategically - what is an effective way to impact moderation policy - telling the mod they are a jerk?

I like that this site has moderation. I want it to keep having moderation. I recognize moderators will not always agree with me and I like that there is a forum to bring up concerns about it. I don't think that forum should mean anyone should come to the forum and call everyone else an asshole.

I just feel like some folks are really digging in but I don't understand what specific outcome is desired? Like, it might help all of us if we did start with imagining the outcomes we want, then think backward toward how we would achieve them here on this website.
posted by latkes at 9:12 PM on August 24 [38 favorites]

I find the whole thing about telling people what the site is and how they're missing the point of it rich, since it's generally rhetoric coming from people who've been on the site a shorter time than the people they've taken it upon themselves to lecture. I'd suggest not doing that anymore.

Right back at you.
posted by Diskeater at 9:31 PM on August 24 [3 favorites]

I just feel like some folks are really digging in but I don't understand what specific outcome is desired?

Well, it's simple. One, people want to be told that they're right. Two, people want to be told, by the people who disagree with them, that they cannot believe how wrong they were previously, and that although there's no way they can ever make up for having been so wrong, that they hope the people who are right can find it in their hearts to forgive them. Three, people want some more of that, some real groveling, let's keep that going for a little while, that was nice. Four, more groveling, five, for the world to change in accordance to their beliefs. That is obviously something that will happen if we just message hard enough, and so endless posting is a worthwhile endeavor, this is a thing known to everyone, what was the question? Six
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:58 AM on August 25 [6 favorites]

FWIW, since it’s come up, I’ve been on Metafilter since 2002, though under a different user name much of that time.
posted by Winnie the Proust at 5:06 AM on August 25 [3 favorites]

And if your purpose in coming to Metafilter is to convince and disabuse other members of this site, then we have a fundamental disagreement about what we are doing here.

i don't like talking about this topic any more than anyone else does. i'm a US voter and a UK taxpayer who's got a bunch of connections to israel and fewer connections to palestine and who is trying to be a responsible person and democratic participant within all the communities in which i find myself. the current genocide is an active issues in some of those communities in ways that i didn't get to choose, but i'm not going to ignore. mefi is one of those communities. although not one of the more major ones, it is a public place where people talk and listen, so it's important to some extent what gets said here and what doesn't.

my approach to these particular discussions (which i didn't start, and it's not like i'm the one who brought up the topic) is a consequence of the following things. it would be useful to know which of these things people agree with and which things they don't.

(1) it's not possible to have a serious informed discussion about the present US presidential election campaign without allowing consideration of all significant consequences of US policy, politics, and culture. in particular, in this election more than maybe any other, if we're talking about US politics in a serious way, we're talking about Palestine and the genocide being perpetrated there by Israel, as a culmination of decades of illegal occupation, repression, and discrimination, abetted by the US (among other powers) enforcing an enormous asymmetry of power that makes attempts to draw moral equivalences between conflicting parties not something that needs to be taken seriously in serious discussions.

(2) there's no point in discussing this type of politics in a non-serious way (it's highly stressful and non-entertaining), and it's kind of a sick farce to do so, given the consequences of politics.

(3) politics is a larger and more encompassing thing than electoral game theory and it doesn't go away between election cycles.

(4) people in the election threads making the point that the american public is too uninformed or misinformed or indifferent for the palestinian genocide to be given proper treatment by the harris/walz campaign, as a matter of messaging strategy or whatever, may well be correct. but if those same people actually oppose genocide, they'd be trying to move the needle on that in any community in which they find themselves next to a bunch of US voters talking about US politics. if those people actually take the position they claim to take and also recognise (as they do; they keep telling us this) that the US electorate is part of the problem, then they would be doing the opposite of trying to ignore/quarantine the issue in this community. they would instead be helping to "convince and disabuse" in whatever community they see the need arise.

(5) many americans (not just americans by any means) have internalised pro-israel messaging, of a type that is not unique to israel but to a degree that really is remarkable in the case of israel. this messaging indisputably includes significant historical whitewashing, erasure of palestinian nationhood and culture, and apologia for ongoing (and recently intensified) human rights abuses and other violations of international law. this messaging is not unique to israel (it mirrors significantly messaging americans have internalised about america itself, for instance) and neither are longstanding human rights abuses and international crimes, but the situation certainly is special in terms of the penetration of the messaging and the scale and solidity of US government support for this particular longstanding injustice and atrocity.

(6) the effect of (5) is evident in the way the occupation and genocide are discussed in the threads dedicated to those topics, and in the US politics threads. this has noticeably improved in the sense that posters who previously posted the most overt pro-occupation or pro-genocide apologia in the Gaza threads have to a large extent given up. it is still a problem, though.

(7) it is actually helpful in the world, in a tiny way, to try to make MeFi a place where one can't post pro-occupation or pro-genocide apologia, including through the sealion/whatabout/DARVO tactics that characterise actual hasbara, and including innocent/ignorant/relatively mild contributions to distorted thinking. it is a public place and since it happens to be one of the public places where one hangs out, one is responsible for what goes on there. if you disagree with this, how do you feel about the laudable aspiration we have as a community to banish other forms of oppressive speech from the realm of the acceptable?

(8) life comes at you fast, and i think a lot of people are in a position, through genuine ignorance and propaganda, where they are finding out just now that stuff it is not really their fault that they believed and repeated is functionally similar to hate speech. i would like to extend the same grace to those people that a palestinian friend extended to me when explaining that the place i had visited in israel on a work trip some years back is actually a mass grave from 1948. but that's not possible if they repeatedly insist that they don't want to hear it.

(9) i hear people like latkes, and i know that not everybody who is tired of my approach and that of a few others is in the categories discussed in (6) and (8). but i would also appreciate acknowledgment that some people are in those categories.

(10) the effect of (5) is evident in the way the moderators handle discussion of those topics. the moderators are not trustworthy stewards of discussion on the occupation and genocide. i and others have receipts. it seems we probably can't post them without making the rest of the post a waste of effort through deletion. therefore i have to ask that we be taken at our word on this one.

(11) there are inconsistencies in how we as a moderated community discussion place handle matters of justice and ethics when they arise organically in our community, in the sense that different matters have received more or less community and moderator buy-in in terms of whether we will try to improve our discussion of those matters when they arise organically.

the matter of the occupation and genocide arises organically if we wish to discuss US elections --- see (1) --- and more generally because there's no blanket proscription on posting about consequential political matters on mefi. so we either resolve those inconsistencies or we don't. i think we should resolve those inconsistencies when they come up. i get that this particular one is a headfuck for a lot of people, especially in a US-centric community, and i just don't believe those inconsistencies are going to be resolved if all of the people trying to make that happen are polite about it.

i would personally be able to talk about this in a more collegial way if i felt like more of the people who agree with the most important points above were able to be just a little bit more vocal and helpful, so that this didn't feel like a lite version one of the other communities where trying to talk about this when it comes up triggers real serious hostility.

----
as regards "disagreement", the above list is handy for addressing that.

things i think it's reasonable to disagree about: (2), maybe parts of (4), maybe (7) (but i'm pretty skeptical about disagreement on (7) unless it's in the form of something like the recent excellent comment from latkes).

things i think it's not reasonable to disagree about, for the same reason we aspire to not tolerating overt discredited "alternative facts", or racism, on mefi: parts of (1), (5), maybe (7) in most cases.

things i feel gaslit about in this discussion and by the moderators: (5), (6), (8), (10)
posted by busted_crayons at 5:12 AM on August 25 [19 favorites]

Maybe you open a new subsite called like MetaHell where everyone fights about politics nonstop. You can go there whenever you just hate being alive, I guess.

I would like to see this happen. No joke. I feel like our current tools aren't quite up to the task. My MeFi is never actually capacious enough to capture everything I want (I can never whitelist enough tags to accommodate folksonomy), and #USPolitics doesn't capture quite enough, at least not always. I realize this could result in a Garfield-without-Garfield sort of thing, but so could individual muting/blocking. I loathe coming to the Blue and seeing 80% of the engagement being about politics. Clearly, however, many users value that opportunity.
posted by cupcakeninja at 6:26 AM on August 25 [3 favorites]

What I'm hearing is that anyone who disagrees on quite fine points of strategy or policy, or doesn't enjoy reading repetitive disagreements that suck up all the oxygen in any given thread, is probably ignorant or misled and needs to be brought into the light. (Or maybe they're pro-genocide.) It's fine to be uncivil. It's fine if other topics are derailed or if members are annoyed - why listen to people who are ignorant or misled or bad actors? If the moderators listen to those people, they are wrong and untrustworthy. The urgency and righteousness of the cause makes this all worthwhile.

This is probably not what any specific person is trying to communicate, but that's the sense I'm getting.

I don't know if I've been on the site long enough or established my political leanings well enough to be allowed an opinion. But it's not worthwhile to me personally, so I'm going to opt out and find the Firefox extension.
posted by mersen at 7:27 AM on August 25 [15 favorites]

I say just make MetaHell a huge unmoderated moshpit. Everyone on the blue side can just go on talking about the cakes they baked that look like Kamala and Tim. We all win. Especially me, because I'll just stick to talking about TV shows in FanFare, where I belong.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:28 AM on August 25 [1 favorite]

Thanks for this MetaTalk post. It's important that we keep these conversations going. Suppressing conversations about the U.S. backed genocide in Gaza is a white supremacist, settler colonial and imperialist tactic. Metafilter has always been a product of its environment so I don't expect moderation to handle this is the correct way.

The U.S. is an active imperialist, settler colonial state founded upon genocide of indigenous peoples and redistribution of this stolen land to settlers and built the country with enslaved labor. Anyone who doesn't actively understand or agree with this fact isn't going to understand why the U.S. is notsomuch an "ally" to Israel which is a euphemism for the U.S. actively using Israel to have control in the Middle East. No U.S. president in 2024, Republican or Democrat will all of a sudden radicalize UNLESS the pressure from U.S. citizens and abroad continue to make it impossible not to change.

This is why it's important to continue to be vocal about the U.S. active role in genocide of Palestinians.

Metafilter has never been radical, and I don't expect it to be. It doesn't surprise me that a large number of users don't want to hear about the active role the U.S. plays in this genocide.

Kamala Harris could change the U.S. policy in Israel but only when pressure is applied constantly. We don't know what Trump would do in regards to Palestine. He's wild card. We do know that Kamala Harris sees Israel as having the right to "defend itself" and will absolutely not break from the party line of U.S. policy which is: literally arming Israel.

A ceasefire is only half the solution. The u.s needs to stop supplying weapons to Israel using the U.S. citizens Tax dollars. The fact that many many U.S. citizens have been indoctrinated into thinking that there's nothing we can do about the genocide in Palestine, just goes to show you how deep the denial is.

People arguing that talking about the genocide in the Kamala Harris FPPs doesn't do anything positive are in denial. Many of us who do not have personal connections to Palestinians can easily remove ourselves from caring about it. But if we did that and stopped actively resisting, we would be complicit in genocide. Our U.S. is funding a genocide using our tax dollars. I don't know why people want to deny or forget this.

So I think it's really rich when people get mad at anyone else who is trying to make Palestine an issue that we need to discuss and push any elected official on.

Until every single U.S. citizen wakes up to the active role the U.S. plays in this genocide, it will continue on.

I understand the issue about people fighting personally with other users can make this place toxic. I personally don't even try because I know already that mods will side with pushing the Palestinian issue out of a thread if it gets too fighty. I think it's also funny that there are people who are more upset that it's implied that they don't care about the genocide if they don't want to discuss Kamala Harris policy on it, because that's self-centered BS and yeah, maybe people who care more about how they look than an active genocide should feel bad. But I won't go into the US politics thread and say it because I have seen how moderation goes and it's not worth my time to have fights on the internet.

At the same time, we have to continue to resist everywhere, so yeah, I'm for speaking up about the struggle of Palestinians everywhere.

One last thing. "Trump would be worse" shouldn't be taken seriously because anyone who says that only cares about our privileges in the U.S. bubble. If you don't have connection to Palestinians personally, this is such a rich thing to say. Our current democratic president and VP Kamala Harris are funding a genocide as we speak. For some of us who live in the U.S. yes Trump will be worse of course. But to use that line to oppose anyone trying to push Kamala Harris to stop this genocide is cruel and frankly ignorant or just selfish. We can fight for Kamala and fight for her to Stop the genocide. It doesn't have to he either or.
posted by mxjudyliza at 7:43 AM on August 25 [14 favorites]

Sometimes I want to eat ice cream without being reminded of all the injustices in the world and I don’t believe that makes me complicit in genocide.
posted by Diskeater at 7:49 AM on August 25 [13 favorites]

Which part of metafilter is ice-cream? The part where the community saved a couple of girls from human trafficking, collectively made "emotional labour" a popular term, the posts about old video games, or the posts about political events and topics?
posted by cendawanita at 7:53 AM on August 25 [9 favorites]

We don't know what Trump would do in regards to Palestine.

He was already president for four years. We do know.
posted by OnceUponATime at 7:53 AM on August 25 [7 favorites]

The part where I read Metafilter while eating ice cream.
posted by Diskeater at 7:57 AM on August 25 [12 favorites]

Oh zing.
posted by cendawanita at 7:57 AM on August 25 [8 favorites]

mersen, I just did the same thing. Hate to limit my MetaFilter usage by browser, etc., but so far it seems worth it... and now I am also reminded that it is a good day for ice cream!
posted by cupcakeninja at 8:20 AM on August 25 [1 favorite]

If the ice cream posts are politics posts, it's probably unrealistic to expect that you can drop into a post about a major US candidate for president and see nothing but zealous boosterism. Unless, of course, the site makes it policy that dissenting voices will not be tolerated. Maybe the ice cream posts should be about something less contentious, or maybe potentially contentious posts should be reserved for the MetaContentious page, or maybe all politics posts should be Ice Cream Only. I don't really care which; at this point I'm just kind of interested to see where this goes.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:20 AM on August 25 [8 favorites]

Two comments deleted. I understand wanting to bring up examples while discussing issues in this thread, but directly naming usernames who aren’t even participating in this thread (and some of whom haven’t been active for a while) who also don’t know they’re the topic of discussion is unfortunately something we have to moderate. Happy to reinstate comments if the usernames are left out.
posted by travelingthyme (staff) at 8:40 AM on August 25 [1 favorite]

I wonder what % of site revenue IP threads brings in to Metafilter relative to mod workload...

that is the kind of thing you'd wonder, isn't it? keeping it on-brand.
posted by busted_crayons at 8:41 AM on August 25 [4 favorites]

travelingthyme, please reinstate cendawanita's comment (i think among those deleted?) mentioning another user by name, redacting the tiny part of it that quoted me mentioning that name. it totally destroys the record to remove the rest of that comment. my comment mentioning those users by name didn't matter; whatever.

can a mod maybe give some guidance on how we're supposed to have this discussion in a useful, clear, precise way if we're only allowed to speak in vague generalities? i would much rather be called out by name than have to read "some users do this...", for instance.

i'm sorry for bringing in uninvolved users, but like 80% of my frustration with this thread is the wall-to-wall denial that the substantive disagreements on the issue are anything other than "fine points" and i don't know how to prove that other than with concrete examples. i'd probably have bowed out after my initial couple of comments if there wasn't so much gaslighting/refusal to face reality on just this one point.
posted by busted_crayons at 8:50 AM on August 25 [12 favorites]

can a mod maybe give some guidance on how we're supposed to have this discussion in a useful, clear, precise way if we're only allowed to speak in vague generalities? i would much rather be called out by name than have to read "some users do this...", for instance.

I second this.

Could a mod also please offer clarity on what Brandon Blatcher said earlier? We're not allowed to link to specific comments? Is this a sitewide thing or does it only apply to threads about the genocide?
posted by ftrtts at 9:02 AM on August 25 [9 favorites]

It's probably time for the site to make some policy decisions; if we're at a point where the policy discussion itself has to be heavily moderated, I'm not sure what's even going on in this space anymore.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:05 AM on August 25 [8 favorites]

At the end of the day, I think what has to be considered is not whether there is value to criticizing Kamala Harris on this or any other issue, but whether there is value to criticizing Kamala Harris on this or any other issue on this website.

There is a train of thought that says any criticism of Harris is cheerleading for Donald Trump. I, obviously, do not believe this is true. For a long time, until like, the other day, I approached this dilemma as though the issue were whether criticism of Harris is appropriate behavior in people who plan to vote for Harris. I don't now believe this is the issue.

I think the issue is whether this is behavior that is appropriate to this website.

It's obvious that most users of this website who are at all politically inclined can't cope with criticism of Kamala Harris. It drives disengagement. It makes people want to leave the site. It makes people say smug and shitty things that make them look smug and shitty. Pro tip! No one wants to look smug and shitty. 101! People think that look fucking sucks.

What is gained from this behavior? I am honestly at a loss. I know that mindless boosterism even of a candidate I support turns my stomach, but I have the option to look away. Parasocial bullshit and mawkish stanning could be the keys to defeating Donald Trump! Can I honestly expect normal Americans to embrace my Galaxy Brain philosophy of voting for someone I think is on balance an okay candidate? Probably not! That's not how America works! I know that! Someone either walks on water or they're the devil!

But even if I consistently brought my Galaxy Brain take here, what would that really accomplish? Is Kamala Harris here, reading my words, thinking, "Hm, maybe this kitten man has a point. I, soon to be the President of the United States, must take his words under advisement, and get on the horn to Benjamin Netanyahu at once!!!" She is not here. Who is here is someone who's super sad I don't love Kamala Harris right, don't I know she's brat, and they delete off the site.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:40 AM on August 25 [7 favorites]

It's obvious that most users of this website who are at all politically inclined can't cope with criticism of Kamala Harris.

Nah, just most of us don’t like generalizations that are so overbroad as to be automatically false.
posted by nat at 10:00 AM on August 25 [16 favorites]

Is that true for most of you, really? Wow, okay. Thanks, nat!
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:03 AM on August 25 [3 favorites]

Ouch the irony
posted by tiny frying pan at 10:06 AM on August 25 [1 favorite]

I think most people feel like I do (we know what that means).
posted by mazola at 10:07 AM on August 25 [1 favorite]

Do we?
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:09 AM on August 25

I don't like being characterized as someone who can't cope with criticism of Harris. I can! But relenteless, persistent, repeated criticism of her, in every thread about her, by the same people, is indeed tedious. And that would be expected?

I personally feel like I'd LOVE a happy booster thread about vibes, specifically, and the criticism could stay in other threads. There would be nothing wrong with that. This site can handle having different threads for different feelings, takes, and folks.
posted by tiny frying pan at 10:09 AM on August 25 [11 favorites]

> once you've posted more than.. I don't know... 5 times in a thread, you should get a pop-up that suggests you take a break

*taps the sign*
posted by Press Butt.on to Check at 10:12 AM on August 25 [6 favorites]

Yeah, but in all seriousness, how do you do it? I'm not really kidding when I say a page for unbridled politics conversation (where I myself will never be) makes sense to me; the kiddie pool of Only the Nice Things can be on the main page. As long as it's all one thing, people are going to hear stuff that makes them sad.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:14 AM on August 25

kfb, you are absolutely promulgating a straw man argument, and you’re doing it in a way that is highly offensive.

No one is saying that Harris should be immune from criticism. The suggestion that the objections people are raising are because they “can’t cope with criticism of Harris”, or that they are advocating for “mindless boosterism” or engaging in “mawkish stanning” is really super reductive and insulting.

It’s extraordinarily unselfaware when you then say that these people are engaging in “walks on water or the devil” dichotomous thinking when you, yourself, have boiled their views down into a two-dimensional caricature in your mind. No one is “super sad” that you don’t love Harris. Nobody actually cares enough about your views of Harris to delete their MeFi account.

What causes people to disengage and/or button is when discussion threads become overwhelmed with grar, in part caused by activists proselytizing in repetitive comments — many of which engage in manipulative, passive-aggressive, or insulting or intentionally inflammatory language — in such a way that the rest of us are required to parse every comment to determine which ones contain the agitprop we need to skip, all while most of the other folks who might have wanted to have a discussion about some other related issue slowly leave the room because they don’t feel like listening to it All. Over. Again.

Ugh…this sucks…

There is something frustrating and draining about feeling compelled to respond to strangers on the Internet. I’m sure it says something about a weakness of character on my part. I reflect back on how closing my Facebook, Twitter and IG accounts actually led to a greater sense of calm, as I didn’t have to feel so invested in those spaces. With the benefit of hindsight, I can say unequivocally that closing those accounts were undoubtedly the right thing to do.

So I sincerely hope folks can sort out what kind of forum they want MeFi to be, and resolve the cultural questions and moderation policies and funding issues. I regret that I don’t have the bandwidth to continue to invest in those outcomes, however.

May you all see a future filled with peace and joy, in whatever form seems most fitting for you. :)
posted by darkstar at 10:17 AM on August 25 [19 favorites]

What causes people to disengage and/or button is when discussion threads become overwhelmed with grar, in part caused by activists proselytizing in innumerable comments

You say tomato, I say tomato. My point is that endlessly going back and forth about who is really at fault is not going to solve the problem. Neither of us is going to convince the other of the correctness of our position. What policy step keeps everyone from leaving the site?
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:22 AM on August 25

Yeah, but in all seriousness, how do you do it?

Literally like every other post here that has expectations folded into it. "This is the positive vibes thread, criticism and discussion of policy goes here (link.) Couldn't be easier.

I'd like the mods to respond and say if they'd allow this on the front page or MetaTalk, please, no rush.
posted by tiny frying pan at 10:22 AM on August 25 [2 favorites]

busted_crayons, I deleted your comment and cendawanita's just to get those usernames out of the thread, I then emailed both you and cendawanita informing you that the names would need to be omitted in the comments. I got a response from cendawanita giving me the OK to edit their comment, so yes, cendawanita's comment will be reinstated.

As for policy questions, I can't answer to that in this moment. I'm the only one on duty so questions for the mods are going to take longer to answer. I completely understand that you're frustrated and that folks naturally feel the need to bring up past comments etc to get their points across. The issue I was addressing was the name-dropping uninvolved users, one of them being inactive for a few months already. Please hang tight while we work on this.
posted by travelingthyme (staff) at 10:23 AM on August 25 [3 favorites]

]At the end of the day, I think what has to be considered is not whether there is value to criticizing Kamala Harris on this or any other issue, but whether there is value to criticizing Kamala Harris on this or any other issue on this website.

I think there is value in our having a nuanced conversation, just as there is always value in having nuanced conversations.
posted by corb at 10:30 AM on August 25 [8 favorites]

ok thanks travelingthyme. i'll leave this thread be for the moment.
posted by busted_crayons at 10:33 AM on August 25 [3 favorites]

(For the record, deleting links to comments and mentions of usernames is ridiculous and only leads to ‘A User’-type situations where everyone ‘knows’ who everyone is talking about unless they don’t and it muddies the whole thing. Direct communication is sexy.)
posted by Diskeater at 10:45 AM on August 25 [11 favorites]

You say tomato, I say tomato.
The thing is, you say tomato over and over and over. (Seriously, that was your nineteenth comment in this thread.)

If you think that "endlessly going back and forth" isn't ideal, maybe be the change you want to see in the world and give it a rest for a while?
posted by neroli at 10:48 AM on August 25 [13 favorites]

That's very rude. I thought the point of this was to figure out policy. It's not just a chat fest, is it? I've been interested and even slightly excited to reply to people's comments in hopes of driving policy on something I see as important to this site's future. Whether you like it or not, as long as politics are discussed here, people are going to say things that trigger other users. How do we handle it? How should we handle it? I'm interested in these questions and I'd like to help solve this. If you don't care about what I have to say, it's apparently very easy to install a blocker so you only hear the things that appeal to you. For my own part, I would like to figure out what the site should do. It's only going to be a larger issue in the fall.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:54 AM on August 25 [9 favorites]

Policy request: mandatory 72-hour timeout for users that claim to be done with a thread.
posted by Diskeater at 10:57 AM on August 25 [5 favorites]

Okay, this is starting to feel yucky. Good luck!
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:00 AM on August 25 [5 favorites]

Oh, wait a minute, your whole comment history is telling people to shut up! What is even...okay. Well, whatever. I'm expecting to come back to a whole lot of comments, man. Terrible. For real, though, someone please actually solve this problem. It sucks. I'm installing a site blocker. Bye!!!
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:52 AM on August 25 [4 favorites]

Sometimes I want to eat ice cream without being reminded of all the injustices in the world and I don’t believe that makes me complicit in genocide.

There is an FPP right now about mass murder and sexual abuse in Kenya. I presume that doesn't prevent you from enjoying the rest of MetaFilter. After all, you can just not click on it.

The same should presumably be true about avoiding reading about US politicians who are complicit in mass murder. There is even a simple way to make US politics posts invisible.

But that doesn't seem to be a solution to your problem. So perhaps I am wrong, but it seems like you are asking for information or opinions you find unpleasant to be forbidden.

I think that is an unreasonable request.

If I have misunderstood your intent, please let me know.
posted by pattern juggler at 12:16 PM on August 25 [8 favorites]

Well, kfb was given a time out from the main thread and since has come here to vent their spleen, so I think we can also add that thing where they run around creating multiple new threads after the mods close the old one. In spirit, at least.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 12:16 PM on August 25 [1 favorite]

Well, kfb was given a time out from the main thread and since has come here to vent their spleen, so I think we can also add that thing where they run around creating multiple new threads after the mods close the old one. In spirit, at least.

How does that contribute to this MeTa thread in any way?
posted by pattern juggler at 12:18 PM on August 25 [9 favorites]

It is not an unreasonable request to have a thread though that is positive, per request, with that guideline, it's happened on here before. It would please people who want to vibe on Harris and the people who want to dig into policy, since there are already threads for policy.
posted by tiny frying pan at 12:20 PM on August 25 [2 favorites]

Speaking as one of the people who seems to be The Problem according to a lot of MeFi users: i have zero objections to the idea of a "positive vibes only" politics thread, if that is clearly marked up front. My objection is to the idea that a general thread about some political phenomenon (like the DNC, which is a major fucking event) has to be a "positive vibes only" thread because hearing about policy makes people uncomfortable.
posted by adrienneleigh at 12:31 PM on August 25 [13 favorites]

Has someone asked for that? Genuinely asking, I might have missed it.
posted by tiny frying pan at 12:36 PM on August 25 [1 favorite]

I thought this was all about the site/mods wanting particular discussion in particular threads, not necessarily no policy at all in Harris threads. I apologize if that came off obtuse.

I'm only voting for a separate vibes thread to shunt that off, and because I think it would be fun.
posted by tiny frying pan at 12:43 PM on August 25 [1 favorite]

The mods were asking for people to put all discussion of the US political situation regarding the genocide in Gaza into the post about the genocide rather than the posts about US political figures. Which made it effectively against policy to bring the topic up, or respond to the sometimes hyperbolic praise of Democrats with references to the most major criticism and scandal relevant to the current candidates.

So the idea a lot of got was that the convention and campaign threads were presented as general threads on the topic, but moderated as if they were effectively pro-Harris only spaces, which is what a lot of us were upset by.

I think the idea of smaller, more focused threads with a specific POV in addition to larger general topic threads is an idea everybody seems to find mostly agreeable.
posted by pattern juggler at 12:45 PM on August 25 [10 favorites]

Taps the sign
posted by Jarcat at 12:53 PM on August 25 [1 favorite]

tinyfryingpan: i have been, multiple times, accused of "scolding people" in the Harris threads not just for linking stuff about Palestine but for linking to stuff about other bad problems with the 2024 Democratic Party platform (like the fact that they removed any mention of the death penalty, or the fact that the Republican sheriff who spoke has deep ties to QAnon groups). There have been multiple people, including at least two who are also posting in this MeTa, who have made it very clear that they strictly want to feel enthusiasm and they are made uncomfortable by anyone trying to bring down the vibe. Apparently there is a brand new policy that some users are not allowed to name other people in MeTa or link to their comments (and also at least some of the comments accusing me of "scolding" have been deleted) so it's pretty hard to give you useful examples.
posted by adrienneleigh at 1:03 PM on August 25 [8 favorites]

This is like the Greatest Hits of old skool forum arguing: claiming that a lower user number makes your opinion more valuable, digging into comment history to make some kind of point and repeatedly threatening to leave the thread/site. What’s left? Creating a few accounts to agree with yourself?

I'm afraid I'm not old enough to understand what any of these insults mean, Diskeater. But I will say this: I think it's unfortunate that so many of you have followed my example and tried to be funny instead of grappling with the substance of the actual problem. In retrospect, I should have done that. Pattern juggler's outlining of the issue is cogent in a way that my own was not, sadly. I think their solution is a good one, and I hope that their advice is followed. As it stands, I think this in-fighting is extremely bad for this site, but I also don't think anyone is going to be talked out of their positions on anything. In conclusion, I would like to refute the accusation that I am an activist; I've been avoiding cleaning my bathroom this entire day. ETA: Sorry about the typo, Diskeater.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 1:21 PM on August 25 [4 favorites]

Nothing about this thread has caused me to believe that I/P threads or the politics threads need to be less moderated. In fact, it's turning out that even the discussion about the moderation itself needs to be moderated more than usual.

I mean this without disrespect to the people expressing their genuine feelings, but some of you scare the shit out of me. For context, I have already had to deal with one user on this site (now buttoned) who I disagreed with in an I/P thread, who then followed me to other threads and continued to harass me, and also sent me threatening MeMail messages. They justified in that harassment in the messages by saying that the site Guidelines didn't apply to "genociders". And in this very thread I'm seeing MeFites refer to others as "gaslighters", "genocide apologists", "abusers" to justify an attack posture, where the simplest possibility that someone disagrees with you on the internet. Instead evil intent is assumed.

When I hear some people here saying they're not sure if they can vote for Harris this election, I immediately think of someone I knew in 2016, who had ingested every single article that was critical of Hilary Clinton. He could not stop posting about her -- Benghazi embassy! Real Estate scams! Missing emails! Senate record! -- and telling people that even though they lived in Pennsylvania, which was a swing state, he wasn't going to vote. "It's all so corrupt! I don't want to be complicit! I have the right to voice my opinion and withhold my vote!"

Then came Election Day 2016. And I before I could even contact him, he posted on Facebook (and this is not a paraphrase, I remember it exactly) "I don't care if Trump's a Nazi, I'd rather die in his ovens than vote for Hilary."

Dead to me. I cut communication with him out of my life immediately. Maybe he had some "come to Jesus" moment later on, but I don't give a shit. He faced an abyss and jumped in with both feet. And every day I see comments on this site that remind me of that level of fanaticism. To be clear, I don't consider the harm that a second Trump administration would cause to be "hypothetical". Just because the sword is dangling over America's head instead of being actively plunged into bellies doesn't make it any less real. So when I see people in the US election threads say that because they are outraged on this issue, they want to impede the Harris campaign, and force it to address their demands before she's sworn in, I see that same abyss opening up.

But OK, this post is supposed to be about moderation of the threads. So consider this: Something that I worry is being overlooked is the question of capacity. When the site first started doing what would eventually be called "megathreads", I recall it was during the run-up to the 2016 election and the stream of news (and "news") about Trump, Hilary Clinton, etc. was so constant that members perceived that the front page of the site was being dominated by US politics posts. So it was decided that the constant churn and comments on the election cycle would go into a single megathread. Part of the site norms (I don't know if it was an explicitly stated rule), was that if a new post was made outside of the megathread with specific links on a topic, then that discussion had to stay on topic or commenters would be asked to take it to the megathread. The megathread was linked in the sidebar and when day 29 or so rolled around someone would open up another, and someone would put a comment with a link to say "This thread closes soon, take it over here next."

But at this moment we don't have just one general-purpose megathread, we have THREE de-facto megathreads: this one about Harris campaign, this I/P post from August 8, and before that one was two weeks old this new one opened.

And this is happening while mod capacity is pretty low. There are 5 mods now, but they were full-time during the 2020 campaign season and now they went to part-time in 2021 with schedule gaps. I can't quote numbers for 2016, but I feel strongly that mod availability was higher in 2016 than it was in 2020. I worry that if every US politics thread becomes taken over by I/P topics the moderation is going to be stretched even further, opening the door to more abuse of members.

And this site is supposed to be on a membership drive! We're supposed to want brand new people to arrive, with their own opinions and experiences! Instead it seems to me that we lose members every time those threads turn savage.

Since we're already in a MetaTalk thread, here's a query and a proposal: We've got a sitewide fundraiser going. How much would need to be raised to either (a) restore 24/7 mod coverage to the site, or (b) have a mod -- either from the existing 5 or to bring in another -- whose primary concern would be the Israel/Palestine and US politics threads?
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 1:38 PM on August 25 [13 favorites]

When I hear some people here saying they're not sure if they can vote for Harris this election, I immediately think of someone I knew in 2016, who had ingested every single article that was critical of Hilary Clinton. He could not stop posting about her -- Benghazi embassy! Real Estate scams! Missing emails! Senate record!

There is a significant difference between Benghazi and the ongoing genocide in Palestine. I don't think comparing people deeply upset over the massive loss of life directly permitted by US policy with people upset about a bunch of ephemeral "see what sticks" bits of propaganda really helps with the impression of disrespect for other points of view.

I'd rather people vote for Harris, but the qualms people have are very justified and acting like they are saying "but her emails" is dismissive.

I am sorry it causes you anxiety, but the whether other people are going to vote really doesn't seem like it should be a concern for moderators.
posted by pattern juggler at 1:48 PM on August 25 [15 favorites]

Stop me if you've heard this one:

Though the wind does not blow here
Still there are sad songs
And little dogs with angry hearts
Barking with their fingers
At everything which moves
And some birds who fly in their sleep
But their feathers are not real
Wishing for a life in someone else’s body

Words that do not roll along any river
Like water

Looking for relatives
And counting blessings
The drum beats in the quiet void
Where strangers posture strangely
And the door stays open
All night
posted by mule98J at 1:49 PM on August 25 [3 favorites]

I don't understand it, but it's pretty.
posted by pattern juggler at 1:59 PM on August 25

I think the solution of having a “positive vibes only mini thread” as a separate thread outside the campaign thread, while allowing the campaign thread to include nuanced and negative commentary, seems like it would work for me; I would be interested in hearing from pro-Harris folk if it would work for them.
posted by corb at 2:01 PM on August 25 [7 favorites]

kfb: the problem is you and like...threeish other people that keep making the same point over and over and over and over and over and go nuclear on anyone that doesn't agree enough. Flat comments and lack of a baked-in mute function means it often takes over the thread for a good portion of time. It sucks to read. "So then stop reading it!" That's typically what I and probably a lot of others end up doing.

I don't think the site needs increased mod coverage or specific mods for specific topics. I think the site needs to throw money at coding a mute function and give one of the four users some kind of "I'm the most against genocide on Metafilter" flair.
posted by Diskeater at 2:14 PM on August 25 [26 favorites]

I mean, you probably are just skipping over what I'm saying, which is fine, but you're also making up what you think I'm saying and attributing it to me, which is fucked up. Anyway, hopefully this is resolved now.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 2:29 PM on August 25 [5 favorites]

Personally I would love to have more nuanced conversations and have learned a lot from people in various threads, like you Corb. But being repeatedly accused by a handful of individuals of back-to-brunching when I am regularly putting myself in danger as a visibly trans and disabled leftist advocate in the rural Midwest, and having my life and the lives of my family members dismissed (there is literally a comment saying that American lives are worth less than Palestinian lives—not that both are equally valuable, but that American lives are worth less), largely by people who don’t face the same repercussions I and my family do, has been way too triggering and made me bad at engaging with anyone, even people who are not doing that.

It’s not good vibes only that I’m looking for; it’s being able to discuss how to combat the Palestinian genocide as well as the ongoing cultural genocide of Native Americans (which includes my family members) and the genocide of transgender and disabled individuals and immigrants that the Republicans are planning and all manner of other not-good-vibes things, without hearing that kind of shit especially from people for whom the danger is not immediate and already here, and who claim that it’s some kind of radical leftist praxis to so dismiss us.

Anyway, I don’t expect Metafilter mod policy or quarantined threads of any kind to fix that. But thought I’d throw in my data point for “the vibes are not the problem.” Your Mefite’s Mileage May Vary.
posted by brook horse at 2:52 PM on August 25 [23 favorites]

pattern juggler: You have rolled right over the purpose of me sharing my anecdote with you. I'm not asking that you take into account my anxieties when you make commentary -- although we did already have an extensive MeTa about that, which was definitely not the first of its kind. I'm telling you that the intrusion of one single-issue's agitation is perceived by other commenters, including me, as a constant attempt to dictate that the discussion of the election must happen on your terms alone.

I'm saying to you that -- completely regardless of how big you perceive the injustice, or how large it looms in YOUR anxieties -- other people on the site shouldn't be accused of being genociders when they say "Gee, I've noticed that all election threads seem to converge on an argument by the same dozen people over one single topic, can we not do that?"

I'm also saying that, when I read someone's comment that because they feel deeply about Palestine, and their conscience requires Kamala Harris to commit her stance NOW on a complex situation (which she won't have any control over UNTIL and UNLESS she's sworn in as President in January) before they can vote for her -- not just elected in November, we'd all have to survive fascist agitation between the election and the inauguration -- then I do not perceive them as a rational actor in this topic. If someone says to me "Between the woman of color nominated with unprecedented support vs. the rapist, con-artist billionaire with dementia whose party just published their own version of Mein Kampf, I need my perspective to be centered more!" then I will absolutely perceive within you the same fanaticism as the friend I cut off in 2016.

And I'm trying real REAL hard not to bring discussions of realpolitik into a MeTa thread that is ostensibly supposed to be about moderating the threads, but: do you not notice how most everyone actively campaigning for Harris to win -- with hopes of actually improving the Presidency -- are perceiving your single issue focus as damage and routing around you? Do you not realize that if Harris is elected despite your implacability, then it will definitively prove that no one campaigning for office needs to address your concerns to win?

corb: It's disingenuous for you to start off this entire post with valid questions like "We've definitely had other large threads where complex topics were handled together, why not the election threads?", and then 4 days later come to "we should have a positive vibes mini-thread but all the NUANCED discussion would be handled elsewhere". That's judgmental and dismissive, once again it implies and centers certain viewpoints as fully-formed, worthy of discussion and implies the others are shallow and facile.

If we're going to have two megathreads going, one of them can be "All aspects of Israel/Palestine discussion is happening here, this is a serious topic and could get contentious" and the other would be "We're talking about the US Presidential campaign here, and discussion of I/P is welcome as long as it relates to the campaign, doesn't dominate the thread and commenters remember that MetaFilter's Guidelines exist."

I'll reiterate that I'd love a reponse from mods -- #AskTheMods or whatever the hashtag was -- about how much $$$ we'd need to raise in order to restore full-time moderating, or have a mod whose primary task would be to focus on those megathreads.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 2:55 PM on August 25 [14 favorites]

"Sometimes I want to eat ice cream without being reminded of all the injustices in the world and I don’t believe that makes me complicit in genocide."

If you want to do it on a thread about US national politics and it's next executive, it definitely does. Given that that has been one of the sole defining characteristics of the USA, the executive office has been its primary agent of that reality, and there is absolutely no end in sight.

"give one of the four users some kind of "I'm the most against genocide on Metafilter" flair."

This is a reactionary, thought-terminating cliche. I would be embarrassed to have made it as a comment.
posted by CPAnarchist at 3:01 PM on August 25 [14 favorites]

Please don't Beetlejuice me back into this horrible thread; I am, no joke, seriously trying to stay away from it, but it's very hard not to respond to direct replies. I'm sorry that people have been stalked in 2016 or...I don't really understand any of that, but I know it would be very stressful. I also don't think anyone in this conversation is the stalker. I was literally dying in 2016, I didn't have time for any of that (I'm better now, thanks to the ACA; thanks, Obama). I feel like maybe some people's actual grip on reality is based on the outcome of this election, and I would just like to say, please do not stake your personal happiness on an external event over which most of us have extremely limited control. Do not reply to me, please, I don't want to come back here, possibly ever. This has been a truly awful experience, and I feel sick at the state of the world now.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 3:08 PM on August 25 [7 favorites]

(there is literally a comment saying that American lives are worth less than Palestinian lives—not that both are equally valuable, but that American lives are worth less)

I made the comment in question, in which i said that American lives (including mine) are arguably worth less than Palestinian lives, in the heat of anger, and it was ill-done of me. I can't say that it's not a reflection of who i really am, though, because it is an argument i have with myself a lot: what are colonizer lives worth, compared to the lives of the colonized? In abstract, all lives are of equal value, sure, but some of us have comfort and safety that is built on the corpses of children, and some others do not.

However, i can say that i am, fundamentally and in principle, a supporter of life and safety even for people i loathe, and that except when I'm particularly in the grip of rage and pain, i am on team "death to America" but not on team "death to Americans". (And even when i am in the grip of that much rage and pain, i am not exempting myself. I keep getting accused of thinking i am morally superior, and it's not true. I promise that i hate myself way more than any of you hate me.)
posted by adrienneleigh at 3:14 PM on August 25 [3 favorites]

(Context for my interpretation following: I started reading metafilter in 2013 because it filled a niche in my web diet as a general-purpose forum with a receptiveness to serious discussion, a comparatively high base level of civility, and a healthy, if slight, bias against bigotry and oppression. Plus the appearance of a positive trajectory in that latter one.)

I think to some extent the current pattern of back-and-forth arguments kicking off from "I'm optimistic about Harris" -> "I'm pessimistic about Harris on Palestine" and circling approximately around "Your posts risk another Trump term"<-> "Your posts risk prolonging the genocide in Gaza" are a result of how MeFi norms and moderation policies have developed and played out (and I think at this point "Trump should be reelected" and "The genocide of Palestinians should continue" are both quite reviled by most active commenters and mods, whatever the actual mod response to these statements and any indirect versions of them would be). To clarify, I think many users' expectations of what is covered by comment deletion policy have gradually diverged both from each other and from the mod team, and that some of the expectations that have arisen incentivise a particular type of engagement that, when those expectations are not borne out in moderation as practised, raise the heat of a thread. This would be a natural outcome of them continuously interpreting the last decade's shifts in norms and policy while reading, posting, flagging, seeing the outcomes. I'm talking both about what comments are inherently worthy of deletion and which are liable to be deleted because of their context.

Regarding moderation and deletions of posts on the basis of content, I've been encouraged historically by this community's gradual progress on what's unacceptable to post; I've seen transphobic comments that would have been left to stand in 2013 deleted without any fuss in the 2020s, I've seen racist dogwhistles be recognised by the mods when they would have slipped under the radar before, and I've seen deletions that had to be fought for tooth and nail because of gaps in moderators' knowledge. MeFi is a place characterised by (gradual) progress in the viewpoints of the community as expressed in aggregate, and the mod team's reflection of them, and I think for a lot of us that's why we come here. It's also something we hope for and want to continue driving for.

Regarding deletions on the basis of context, one notable shift in moderation policy and has been whether "push back" comments are allowed to stand; the topic's been discussed more than once, but within a year of this 2019 MeTa, it was a normal part of the palette of moderation actions to delete an unacceptable comment, but to take a nuanced approach to its replies, keeping those whose pushback on the original comment formed a valuable addition to the discussion as a whole (often because they were clearer and more comprehensive than the typical brief mod note). It's a sensible evolution in policy, for several reasons given in the 2019 MeTa. Posting a comment in a pushbacky way can serve multiple purposes: in the case of mod acton, it can serve as good context for the mod note, and precedent to simplify later disputes. In the case of mod inaction, it can ensure that a subtly/indirectly hateful or insensitive comment doesn't stand unopposed in the thread's final state. It has issues: sometimes incoherent half-discussions are left behind for anyone who arrived late, with minimal or no quotes preceding the responses; sometimes the original poster can't be identified from the remaining evidence, and you're left (extreme example) with an awareness that someone has said something monstrous about a marginalised group you're part of, and should possibly be considered unsafe to interact with, but you don't know who. Some variations are to warn the user in a mod note but leave the comment up to provide context for its replies, or (probably the most controversial) to warn the user in a mod note, but delete the replies instead.

How these broadly-positive developments appear, in my view, to give rise (subconsciously, I'm not accusing anyone of deliberately and repeatedly trying to foment conflict this way in recent threads) to this specific pattern of arguments between broadly good-faith commenters is:
* Users notice the involvement and value of pushback in uncertain moderation cases: ensuring that hateful comments aren't left unopposed, providing context to argue for deletion in cases where a mere flag isn't acted on, covering gaps in conversation post-deletion, staking out a position that can be referred back to later to continue to drive the community's evolution.
* Users invested in Palestinian liberation/American electoral politics perceive an increase in the frequency of moderation applied to comments that they view as anti-Palestinian/bothsidesing US party politics, and a decrease in commenters' overall acceptance of those arguments.
* These users mentally move their favoured issue into the category of "topics on which mod policy is moving in the right direction and can be pushed further".
* When they see a comment as being counter to their position, they're more likely to evaluate it as being worth flagging for moderation and posting pushback comments against.
* If moderation doesn't happen and the intended-as-pushback comment is itself treated as worth flagging for moderation and posting pushback against (rather than backed up unanimously or by a mod note), then the users that have come into conflict become frustrated that their position (that they feel is now well-established, or well-established in another thread) hasn't been validated as pushback against an unacceptable comment in the current thread, and they become more prone to misinterpretation and lashing out as the cycle continues.

Perhaps this seems like an overly complex theory compared to "the other side doesn't care" or "the other side is in fact in arguing for Netanyahu/the Republican Party", but as someone who's closely followed the Gaza threads and tried to keep mostly abreast of the US politics threads, the exchanges I've seen in the most recent threads feel qualitatively different from those in the late-2023 threads (this is gonna be a lot of unsubstantiated gut-feeling rather than a well-sourced analysis or a comprehensive review):
* They mostly seem to arise smoothly from a background noise of frustration (manifesting in otherwise-reasonable comments as jabs at statements in recent Harris/Palestine arguments), contrasting with relief (at the smooth transition to the Harris campaign, and the decrease in inflammatory comments in Gaza threads), as opposed to a user arriving in a thread to post something provocative/argumentative/misleading right off the bat.
* I haven't noticed any comments that read to me as advocating for genocide.
* Most of the fears expressed by a commenter are acknowledged and validated by the other side, once, eventually.
* When attention is drawn to a previously made point, it generally gets some kind of acknowledgment (even if the response is dismissive or minimising).
* In the current spate of arguments, both sides seem convey a sense that it doesn't make sense for the argument to be happening.

Anyway. Concretely, there has been a lot of bad-faith engagement in the Palestine threads since October, and despite moderation coming a long way in terms of not deleting pro-Palestine comments as antisemitic, much of has been allowed to stand (and hence implicitly approved). In context I'm not at all surprised that users who've spent 10 months trying to keep Palestine threads up-to-date with facts and as free from genocide advocacy as possible are by now a bit jumpy. Nor that Americans who've been staring down the possibility of seeing Biden and Trump on their 2024 ballots and Trump in office in 2025 are trying as hard as they can, having been spared the former, to avert the latter as well. Neither group of mefites is out of the woods yet, and the outcomes feared are disasters which would affect millions on top of the lives already lost, but you are not each others' adversaries.

Most of this (fucking gigantic, sorry) comment has been about different moderation actions and redlines, and how their practice here might have impacted commenting styles over years when applied imperfectly by human moderators and interpreted imperfectly by human commenters, but unfortunately I don't have any concrete suggestions for feasible policy changes. Clarity on whose lives one can devalue in a comment seems essential. The whole planet? Americans? Black Americans? Millionaires? Billionaires? Trump? Fellow mefites? Palestinians? Israelis?Sometimes the answer seems to be "none, obviously", and sometimes it seems to be "not so fast, did it literally say they should die?". So, clarity on what constitutes "threats of violence or wishing violence on other people". But pinning that down any further just makes it even easier for bad-faith commenters to walk right up to that line, hit post, and waste everyone's time.

In the end, none of this is going to get fixed without more mod-hours per week, clear processes for community input into moderation policy, consistent application of policy, clear mod stances on disputed posts that don't meet a threshold for deletion.

Honestly, "flag with note..." being made equivalent to the contact form, and remaining as an option even after a non-note flag, would probably go a long way towards enabling the kind of moderation clarity and granularity that would prevent arguments from arising this way. But that feeds once again into "more mod-hours per week".

...And since 60 comments have been posted since I started writing this, please, if referring/linking back to specific examples of commenting patterns and moderation practice is now forbidden, just delete the HTML tags rather than my entire post? I have no idea where this mini-policy cropped up from or where in the content policy/guidelines/microaggressions page it can be found but I don't see how it's compatible with having MetaTalk exist as a subsite. How can MeTa comments on a thread about commenting behaviour and moderation practice be written without referring to their context? How can long-term commenting and moderation patterns be used to inform future policy if no comment or user can ever be referenced in the process? Pulling one-to-three word phrases out of context and painting one's own interpretation on them is no substitute, it's how we're getting nonstop "Harris isn't taking any action against genocide" <-> "saying that is carrying water for Trump" right now.
posted by polytope subirb enby-of-piano-dice at 3:56 PM on August 25 [8 favorites]

what are colonizer lives worth, compared to the lives of the colonized?

Are Native Americans colonizers? This is exactly the dismissal of marginalized American lives I’m talking about. I don’t even blame you for having this thought because Native issues vanished from the public consciousness once #NoDAPL faded from the news but many Americans are in fact “the colonized.”

You don’t get points for saying “but me too!” when you are not one of the people already regularly experiencing direct threat to life and freedom. Comments like that and others that mock “Trump is worse” are exhausting to people who are already actively living through how much their lives don’t matter in America. Your anger, however righteous, spills over onto people who are far more vulnerable than you.
posted by brook horse at 4:02 PM on August 25 [21 favorites]

She already said she agrees it was a bad comment to make (it was); we don't need to derail into "not all Americans."
posted by tofu_crouton at 4:25 PM on August 25 [5 favorites]

I'm sorry, that was snippy despite my intention before typing to be to bring the tempers down.
posted by tofu_crouton at 4:26 PM on August 25 [1 favorite]

She also justified it to some extent. Seconding that the categories of "Americans" and "colonized" overlap. That's not "not all Americans." That's asking people not to perpetuate the erasure of colonized people while they claim to be defending them. It's not helpful to Palestinians, and it is perfectly reasonable for indigenous Americans to speak up against such erasure.

corb: It's disingenuous

I didn't see corb's comments as disingenuous, and I think this kind of assumption of bad faith is really toxic to the site. You've tried very hard to paint people who disagree with you here in a very negative, and even potentially violent light, and I wish you would rethink whether you are maybe going a tiny bit overboard.
posted by knobknosher at 4:49 PM on August 25 [7 favorites]

She already said she agrees it was a bad comment to make (it was); we don't need to derail into "not all Americans."

As I’ve said, it’s not just that comment—there’s a bunch that dismiss marginalized Americans’ experiences under Trump. And they are often people who are not experiencing the direct impacts of his former presidency, nor are they at the most risk under another one. It’s not a “not all Americans” derail—a fundamental part of the debate is that many Americans have been and will continue to pay the price for this election, but many of us who are directly facing down the barrel of that gun have been driven out by people who are not.

it is perfectly reasonable for indigenous Americans to speak up against such erasure.

(Just to clarify quick—not Native myself, I’m “married in” and am involved in the local community but am not speaking as a Native person but as someone with many Native loved ones. Realize how my phrasing of “my family members” could be misunderstood so just wanted to be clear!)
posted by brook horse at 5:10 PM on August 25 [6 favorites]

I'm saying to you that -- completely regardless of how big you perceive the injustice, or how large it looms in YOUR anxieties -- other people on the site shouldn't be accused of being genociders when they say "Gee, I've noticed that all election threads seem to converge on an argument by the same dozen people over one single topic, can we not do that?"

I have not said anyone should be considered a "genocider" for their opinions on MF moderation. I think that would be a ridiculous thing to say.

The arguments that eat up much of a thread seldom have much discussion of the ongoing genocide or even the political response to it. Occasionally it is people arguing over electoral and political strategy, but more often it is people arguing about whether or not people should be allowed to bring it up in the first place. The impact would be less if the meta-argument about whether it was a derail didn't happen.

I would also argue that the threads don't "converge" on discussion of genocide. It becomes a subtopic of the thread, which also moves on to other things. It takes up more space than less controversial topics, but it has about the same impact in terms of heat and number of posts that criticism of Harris' prosecutorial career results in. The difference is that real world events in Gaza, Israel, and the US keep making the response to Gaza relevant again.

Trying to discuss the DNC without bringing up the protests, the Uncommitted delegates, the response of the party leadership to each, etc. simply wouldn't make sense. Leaving out the reports of the US and Israel wrecking the peace talks when discussing a candidates claims that they are "working day and night" for a cease fire likewise means there would be no policy to discuss the topic beyond taking the candidate at their word.

And I'm trying real REAL hard not to bring discussions of realpolitik into a MeTa thread that is ostensibly supposed to be about moderating the threads, but: do you not notice how most everyone actively campaigning for Harris to win -- with hopes of actually improving the Presidency -- are perceiving your single issue focus as damage and routing around you? Do you not realize that if Harris is elected despite your implacability, then it will definitively prove that no one campaigning for office needs to address your concerns to win?

I haven't noticed anyone routing around me. I am not actually in anywise important to any of the movements to elect Harris or end the genocide in Gaza. I think I trust the Uncommitted movement and Jewish and Palestinian Americans opposed to genocide and colonialism to take the lead on this more than I do random MeFites. But even if you are 100% right, it seems rather secondary to the moderation of threads on the topic, which have no power to get anyone elected.

Also, I hesitated to post this, but I think it is relevant. It is hard to take entirely at face value the concerns of someone demanding less discussion of this topic and framing it as concern for the Democrats in the US when they have a history of referring Israel's critics as anti-Semites and minimizing the culpability and capacity for genocide of the Israeli state.

Perhaps that is an excess of cynicism on my part.
posted by pattern juggler at 5:19 PM on August 25 [12 favorites]

I wanted to stay out of this but I have to second the last thing pattern juggler said. The Pluto Gangsta, if you've got something to say, actually say it, rather than hiding behind the present discussion as a way to advocate silencing discussion of the genocide for the completely different reason, established by your posting history, that you don't like criticism of Israel at all, not just in the context of the US election discussions. own your actual position.
posted by busted_crayons at 5:36 PM on August 25 [9 favorites]

In terms of daydreaming about solutions that don't involve threaded comments, I think a software-enforced limit of one comment per commenter per thread per 24 (or x) hours would do a lot. Or at least the ability for moderators to impose such a limit on threads where oxygen is running short.

The issue isn't really what people are saying but that a number of participants can't help themselves from saying the same damn thing over and over and over again (in response, of course, to other people who also can't help saying the same damn thing over and over and over again, in response to ...) to the point where any other conversations become functionally impossible. Which this thread is also becoming an example of. And which is not limited to this topic.

If a thread is going to remain a single shared "space" for all on-topic conversations, then there has to be a way of keeping that space usable for everybody. Asking/expecting people to be mindful of the space they're taking up (or whatever metaphor is currently in vogue) just empowers the least self-aware. And ad-hoc enforcement of such an expectation is unlikely to be, and almost certain not to be perceived to be, consistent and fair.
posted by Not A Thing at 6:37 PM on August 25 [10 favorites]

busted_crayons, I've been avoiding engaging with you this entire time and I request you do the same. I have already been targeted for harassment by one person on this site and I won't abide for it again. Drop my username from your memory as I will do yours.

pattern juggler, I don't engage in coded references, I had something to say and I said it. If all you received from my posts in this thread is that I'm "demanding less discussion of this topic and framing it as concern for the Democrats" when I specifically said I wanted two separate megathreads with one of them having more lenient standards, and my concern is actually for the world that exists outside of a single-issue focus, then yes, you have badly misinterpreted what I wrote. You are also invited to ignore me forever.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 6:57 PM on August 25

I don't generally like putting people on ignore.

I was not referring to the suggestion of two distinct threads for discussing the current campaign, which I am generally on board with. I was referring to the complaints about "single issue focus" and "implacability", specifically suggesting that these things were getting in the way of "improving the presidency".

There have been several people who, for example, showed extreme hostility toward anti-genocide protestors or who downplayed or equivocated about the genocide early on. And while I am thankful that that has largely stopped, it does color how their later statements about electoral political concerns will be read at least by me, in comparison to how the same concerns would be from someone who has generally taken a pro-Palestinian stance from the get go.

I am sorry if I have caused offense or hurt feelings, but I want to be forthright here.
posted by pattern juggler at 7:29 PM on August 25 [4 favorites]

Are Native Americans colonizers?

specifically on this point, and reflecting the political and scholarly work elsewhere: 'colonizer' isn't an essential identity, it's very much a conditional one, that relates to power relations. Are NA people colonizers IN the USA? Not in post-European colonization USA, but previously they would be undergoing similar political histories like the natives of Western Europe (ie some are expansionist, some are not, some would like to colonize, some get got).

Outside the USA? Accounting for the systemic incentives that would encourage the poor and marginalized to join the army or an expedition that later establishes some kind of colonial outpost... yes.

I'm not commenting on anything else, but this rhetorical fallacy is rife in the west for perfectly understandable reasons but it's not a robust point, especially as an empire utilizes its marginalized to enact violence on other indigenous people.
posted by cendawanita at 7:40 PM on August 25 [7 favorites]

The rhetorical fallacy started with “American lives are arguably worth less than Palestinian lives, because Americans lives are colonizer lives” which posits “colonizer” as a static and absolute identity to measure groups of people against each other, not as a description of power relations that change across contexts. Take up the argument there.
posted by brook horse at 7:57 PM on August 25 [3 favorites]

The context is USA is a colonizer country.
posted by cendawanita at 8:07 PM on August 25 [5 favorites]

Tribes are considered sovereign nations in America. Are Native people colonizers off tribal lands but not inside of them? Or is the argument that the tribal nations are also colonizers by virtue of dual-citizenship with the USA (which was granted less than three generations ago)?
posted by brook horse at 8:39 PM on August 25 [1 favorite]

I don't want to back seat mod, but I don't think the issues of Native sovereignty and the social power relations of colonialism are really on topic.
posted by pattern juggler at 8:43 PM on August 25 [1 favorite]

Are Native people colonizers off tribal lands but not inside of them?

Their sovereignty ends at the federal borders - the USA is a bit of a plurinational state like Peru or even the UK - where Scotland cannot stay in the EU even as the UK left it, and comparatively it has more mechanisms of running a country, right down to the ability to fundraise and administrate their utilities. Therefore at the international arena, they are Americans. The USA isn't unique here. As they're being oppressed inside and living in a society that is a result of their conquest and colonization, how are they not colonized inside? Even as they are so, when they are however then part of an army or government that is about to set up a colonial outpost (most obvious example) or works towards that post, not to mention having a life that is set up to contribute to that system, they are colonizers.

ETA: does that feel fair? No.
posted by cendawanita at 8:49 PM on August 25 [5 favorites]

who downplayed or equivocated about the genocide early on.
I remember in the early thread I highlighted members comment sort of twisted around in a janky kind of way and I got a good dressing down and deservedly so. sometimes emotions spill into dark jest, not a uniquely American luxury. I think it's the responsibility we take after that is what matters. But is a good example of member pushback to another without mod intervention with resolution, well I hope, coming from it.
it's August 25th, 2010 I'm feeling a little blue and I think I have the right to tell everyone about it.

I gave cortex a lot of grief over the years but I think he was quite kind in this matter cuz it's quite embarrassing.
today marks the 80th anniversary of my uncle getting shot down over northern Germany bombing Nazis.
I'll try to get the gist of a comment that I read from cortex and had to do something about choosing, a moral choice and that one shouldn't get the good feelies, take it out for a drive, feel righteous in fact one might feel actually worse but perhaps the conscious might be a little bit more clear quite sure it entails lot more than that but that was what I took from it .

i am on team "death to America" but not on team "death to Americans". (And even when i am in the grip of that much rage and pain, i am not exempting myself.

At one point in time, I would have ibid'd all over that, probably use the analogy, I support our soldiers but not the war false dichotomy. but you basically quantified your statement, I think this is the part of just letting go of certain things that you might not agree with but what is the point of trying to change one's opinion when the opinions/beliefs are set and that should actually have a place of respect, that's what I've learned from years, decades of fighting with well at least two members and today heck I think I favored one of their comments and the other one I wrote a note to a few months ago, resolution may take time, it may never happen at all, it might be one-sided. but the bleating can cease and then one can open their ears and listen to what they have to say. some of the major posters in the I/P threads have never really cajoled me when I've had objections to certain comparisons and whatnot but in Stark reality I had to come to my own conclusion and these threads help not because of some ideological mindset and I really don't understand what people are talking about,centrists and leftists and rightists, I don't understand that at all with any sophistication especially when it gets into liberal.

over the years it's been a couple of Mefs who said in so many different ways, be yourself, be the person you should be and then become the person you are.

my mother took two pictures when I was the age of three, the first was a close up of me and one of their friends daughters in a sandbox within 20 minutes we were tossing sand at each other and conflict arose. I have that picture still. second picture my mother took was me alone in the sandbox 20 minutes after that,sort of just staring down and ironically tonight I asked her about that, she vaguely remembered and I asked her why she took the second picture at a distance of me by myself. since the photograph no longer exists, it exists in my mind but it'sl clear. symbolically it represents contemplation at a distance of a conflict in resolution.
I won't highlight the comment or two and it's not a big deal but my pet peeve is using metafilter's past to criticize metafilters present solely on a Time magazine rating, a New York times article, cartoon man, coolbyteerattis or how languagehat almost destroyed one of David Foster Wallace's books, God that was funny.

to me, in the past or the present perhaps into the future, mefi is more than that, there is a specific metatalk thread that highlighted this thing, non-friends, digital age life, explanations people have written way beyond anything I could contrive.
the question I have is can we directly link to a past member or present member n a positive light. because if it's ambiguous, people are going to know it, they're going to know it before the mods do. the thing is is the positive comment I would link to is in a thread about someone who disabled their account.
posted by clavdivs at 9:21 PM on August 25 [4 favorites]

Pluto Gangsta, just install one of the filters mentioned above instead of asking someone not to address you; it works a lot better.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:35 AM on August 26

I am aware that MetaTalk is a space for less-moderated discussion, but this thread is a lot. At this point it has actually come around to discussion of why, actually, Indigenous people can be colonizers.

Mods, I think this is beyond the pale. Discussions of I/P involve plenty of nuance, but, again, general discussion about how and why to take rhetorical arms against Native people is contrary to what MetaFilter generally seems to stand for. I am not going to go through and flag every deeply problematic comment on this thread, but please, at the very least, snip the anti-Native derail. I think this discussion no more belongs on MetaFilter than pro-Trump "actually the minorities are bad sometimes, let me explain why" arguments would be. As you evaluate that question, please ask yourself just who a discussion like this might attract and whom it might repel during "fundraising month." MetaFilter should not be a safe space for defenses of bigotry.
posted by cupcakeninja at 3:41 AM on August 26 [6 favorites]

MetaFilter should not be a safe space for defenses of bigotry.

I think this response completely misunderstands the conversation. Being a colonizer isn't some personal moral wrong, it is a social relation. It is not bigoted to recognize those relations. It would be if it imparted some moral judgement on the peopleso described. That is exactly the point as issue. Colonizer lives are not somehow morally tainted and less worthy.

Saying that members of minority groups can also have positions of privilege relative to others also isn't bigotry. It is the basic logic of intersectionaliam. A Black man has a different relation to patriarchal power than a white man does, due to the different ways their identitoes intersect with white supremacy, but they both do have some degree of privilege relevant to any woman. (And likewise a white woman has a certain racial privilege over a Black person of either gender, though differently than a white man.)

None of these are moral claims against the people involved. None of them are culpable for the social relation they are born into. Nonetheless, they all have to navigate it as ethically as possible.

The same is true of colonizer/colonized status. One can be both at the same time. For the vast majority of US Native Americans, the primary axis on which they encounter colonization is the settler colonial state established around them, that deliberately attempted to annihilate them as peoples.

But the US is also engaged in colonial projects outside its de jure borders, propping up other colonial regimes, establishing military outposts within them, and exploiting colonized people. That relation is used to support the society all Americans are a part of, Black, white, Indigenous, and otherwise.

This isn't intrinsically racist to acknowledge. And just like the relation of white supremacy to patriarchy means that patriarchal power is experienced differently by white and Black men, so too do different communities within the US have different relations to its role as an imperial colonizer. But we all do have a relation to it, and thus are colonizers.

An Indigenous person living in the United States would likely recognize a great deal in the situation of an Indigenous person living in Pinochet's Chile. But the social relation of the. states they live in would still be hierarchical, even if neither actually profited very much from them.

So yeah, definitely a derail but in nowise bigoted.
posted by pattern juggler at 4:09 AM on August 26 [8 favorites]

ok well if we're throwing around insinuations about harassment it's going to be hard to sit this out. to be clear:

- i have never mefi-mailed The Pluto Gangsta. i have never initiated a private discussion with anyone about this except to do stuff like thank people for good posts or comments. i have occasionally responded to unsolicited not-friendly messages from other mefites but i've not got drawn into a back-and-forth. at this point, i would tend to delete memails from users wishing to continue public discussions privately; like i said, this is not fun for me and private discussions are really pointless. i don't think public discussions should be taken private, generally speaking.

- holding someone responsible in public for their publicly-articulated positions is not harassment. calling it harassment is a way that people try to weasel out of responsibility for their publicly-expressed views.

- The Pluto Gangsta, depending on what you mean by "the whole time", it's not entirely the case that you've been ignoring me; we have responded to one another in threads in the past. i am unsure if it's admissible to link to comments by others but presumably it is ok to link to mine. i am happy to ignore you but you can't say your piece and then unilaterally demand that there be no response, especially if you are trying (?) to insinuate some equivalence between me and some entirely different user who behaved unacceptably toward you by insisting on a private one on one (which is indeed probably harassment of some sort).

so i have to give some more context for the bystanders, which is: in one of the Gaza threads, someone (i don't even remember who, it got deleted i think) said something antisemitic to bolster a pro-Israel argument and i objected to their comment on the basis that it was actually antisemitic. later, you made false and inflammatory insinuations about antisemitism that was not in fact in evidence (i.e. you accused people critical of Israel of antisemitism essentially on the basis of their criticism of Israel; while there are antisemitic criticisms and critics of Israel, the people you were accusing were not making such criticisms, but, rather completely different ones). you got pushback from various people (including from me). all of this substantially derailed the thread. as far as i'm aware, this was the last public interaction between us (and there were zero private ones), so it is true that you have since been ignoring me, and i will now honour your wish to be ignored unless you feel i've mischaracterised the history, in which case we can discuss further here.
posted by busted_crayons at 4:14 AM on August 26 [6 favorites]

I do appreciate the merits of the arguments you're making, pattern_juggler, and I have seen them made by Native people! I just don't think they belong here, either in this thread or on MetaFilter--apart from some notional space here designated for Native/Indigenous people, colonized peoples, or similar. I don't speak for anyone else here, and I don't know which users are from which background, but I don't think non-Indigenous folks should be having this conversation at all. Again, I think it's fundamentally bigoted, and I suspect that this conversation--if left to stand--will look bad in 10 years, in the same way MetaFilter's 10-years-ago conversations about race, gender, etc. sometimes now look troubling to us, as site culture has evolved. (That's my perspective as a white American, but of course others may disagree.)

Again, mods, I request deletion of this entire derail, including my comments associated with it. I've removed this conversation from my Recent Activity and (I say this as a courtesy) don't plan to return to the thread. Peace.
posted by cupcakeninja at 5:53 AM on August 26 [3 favorites]

Indigeneity is an important piece of how Zionism justifies its settlement to its own subjects as well as to the international community, so it's important we are able to discuss the connections between indigenous resistance, Palestinian resistance, and U.S. imperialism. I understand wanting to keep this thread focused on the meta-level discussion, so I posted about it in the US Response to Gaza thread.
posted by ftrtts at 6:28 AM on August 26 [8 favorites]

I think this response completely misunderstands the conversation. Being a colonizer isn't some personal moral wrong, it is a social relation. It is not bigoted to recognize those relations.

I mean, without getting into the merits of this particular instance (because I agree with cupcakeninja that this is not the place or people for that discussion), I think we can all agree that something can be both true and also deployed to give cover to deeply problematic statements. In this case, as brook horse pointed out, someone erased the existence of people currently living under a colonial system in America today. Like there have been and continues to be genocides against the various peoples who inhabited the Americas before Europeans started establishing their colonies. This is a real an ongoing issue, as is their erasure from public thought and discourse. The response to getting called out on contributing to that erasure this shouldn't be "well, but they can do bad things too..."

If you want to have nuanced discussions about topics like this they need to be had in a space where it's not's just contributing the the background noise that the dominant culture is using to excuse it's oppression. This was very much not that space. Like most things involving systemic issues, the individual action doesn't have to have oppression as its motive to contribute to the system.
posted by Gygesringtone at 7:13 AM on August 26 [7 favorites]

MetaFilter: I think this response completely misunderstands the conversation
posted by mazola at 7:35 AM on August 26 [3 favorites]

Yes, thank you all, i shouldn't have said it to begin with but in any case i should have specified "white Americans" in order to avoid this particular derail.
posted by adrienneleigh at 8:47 AM on August 26 [3 favorites]

Ah yes that clears things up thanks.
posted by Diskeater at 8:56 AM on August 26 [2 favorites]

corb: It's disingenuous for you to start off this entire post with valid questions like "We've definitely had other large threads where complex topics were handled together, why not the election threads?", and then 4 days later come to "we should have a positive vibes mini-thread but all the NUANCED discussion would be handled elsewhere". That's judgmental and dismissive, once again it implies and centers certain viewpoints as fully-formed, worthy of discussion and implies the others are shallow and facile.

To be clear, the reason I suggested a positive vibes mini-thread is because some posters said that they wanted a place where they could just eat ice cream and not have to think about genocide. It wasn't to denigrate those posters, it was specifically to address a stated need, and to hear from other people if a proposed solution would meet their needs as well. It doesn't suggest that some viewpoints are fully-formed; *any* conversation with multiple viewpoints is naturally going to be more nuanced than *any* conversation with only one viewpoint. That is the nature of nuance.
posted by corb at 10:36 AM on August 26 [5 favorites]

busted_crayons, I've been avoiding engaging with you this entire time and I request you do the same. I have already been targeted for harassment by one person on this site and I won't abide for it again. Drop my username from your memory as I will do yours.

This should be cause for a timeout, at a minimum. No one is harassing you by disagreeing with you.

Mods, there are a handful of people (on both “sides” of this argument) who drag the conversation straight to hell. Read a thread and figure out who they are and tell them to cut it out. This isn’t a broad site policy issue as much as it is you allowing the well to be poisoned again and again by awful behavior. Look for people who make themselves the main character, it’s blatantly obvious who those people are.

Unfortunately, as I’m not supposed to name names, way too many people may think I’m taking about them and I’m sorry for that.
posted by knobknosher at 11:31 AM on August 26 [20 favorites]

There's a comment upthread boasting about being uncompromising, combative, and angry on MetaFilter in order to create space for superficially milder users with the same views to seem more reasonable.

There shouldn't be any place on a community site for people with those attitudes and behaviours (see: "MetaFilter is a space for conversations, not a contest"). MetaFilter is not the UN and posting here is not activism.

They might subsequently retcon the comment as a joke, but it perfectly describes their own behaviour in constantly shitting up threads with dozens of shouty comments.
posted by Klipspringer at 1:49 PM on August 26 [7 favorites]

Ah, Smock.
posted by clavdivs at 2:50 PM on August 26

i'm not going to retcon anything. stuff that gets posted here on this topic genuinely and sincerely pisses me off given the background reality against which it's posted and it's perfectly reasonable to try a variety of tactics to try to deny rhetorical space to problematic shit, especially since the mods have only just barely begun to understand what's problematic about it. mostly i am fairly straightforward about this; sometimes i post in a way that i think will either encourage others to speak up or make others reluctant to speak up, according to what they are saying. mostly the former; the latter only if people are expressing things that are objectively on the same level as stuff we consider beyond the pale on metafilter, but which we have collectively neglected to formalise as being beyond the pale for metafilter (partly due to baked-in biases on the part of some of the mods and many of the so-called community; biases which are presumably becoming less tenable every day for extremely tragic reasons).
posted by busted_crayons at 2:52 PM on August 26 [5 favorites]

Let's call it what it is, busted_crayons. Manipulation. You're defending manipulation.
posted by downtohisturtles at 3:04 PM on August 26 [1 favorite]

It would be a positive and healthy move for the community to just ban users who are only here to fight and "tactically deny rhetorical space" to others. One or two high-activity toxic users deter participation by many more good-faith members. The occasional 24-hour timeout(s) obviously aren't having any effect. Back when the mods had more confidence in their own decision-making, they would have done this already.
posted by Klipspringer at 3:20 PM on August 26 [6 favorites]

I can't emphasize enough how much a discussion about whose lives are worth more bothers me. It's repugnant, disgusting, bigoted, and absolutely inappropriate.
posted by bq at 4:06 PM on August 26 [10 favorites]

reducing "a variety of tactics to try to deny rhetorical space to problematic shit" to "manipulation", as if "manipulation" isn't, by that metric, like, 80% of human communication, is so bad-faith i cannot even.
posted by adrienneleigh at 4:10 PM on August 26 [6 favorites]

I'm not "only" here to fight, I'm mostly here to read.

the framing of the underlying issue as some sort of normal difference of opinion is ghoulish.

in the absence of consistent enforcement of norms about comments that deny people's humanity on a wholesale ethnic/cultural basis, comments that use whataboutism to deflect attention from genocide in a discussion about genocide (for instance), etc., yes, community members need to address the matter ourselves if we want to be here.

I'm happy to share a space with pretty much anyone but not people who are well-actually-ing on this one (there are not many still doing this but it's nonzero).

it's hard to share space (but I am generally happy to try) with people who don't do that but who sometimes meet discussion of the matter with hostility that seems to boil down to their own preference for comfort (like they think this is a comfortable topic for the rest of us?!?).

(nb: there are also people who seem unhappy with some of the constant Palestine discussion but whose reasons seem much more intelligible to me. I'm not in fact a "fuck it, let's have trump" person; some people seem to think the right thing about the obvious question about genocide but are irritated with the persistent discussion specifically because of "fuck it, let's have trump" vibes and I see where some of them are coming from and it's way different from the mindless hostility I mentioned.)

there's another category emerging, people who I haven't seen JAQing off about the genocide and whose views are probably humane and sincere (I hope) but who seem to prefer that we live and let live when it comes to the apologists. and that's unreasonable, because we don't live and let live when it comes to other types of racists (or at least we fancy ourselves trying not to).

for me, what would really defuse a lot of this would be people not ganging up on a few of the other vocal posters anymore. I am coming around to the idea of separate threads --- but divided into "actual discussion" where anything relevant flies, in terms of topic, and "stan thread" that I could ignore.

I will finally mention the irony of saying "this is not an activist site" when there are some users expressing that they want threads about an election to be basically a grassroots extension of a specific campaign (which is what a "no criticism vibes thread" would be).
posted by busted_crayons at 4:12 PM on August 26 [7 favorites]

It would be a positive and healthy move for the community to just ban users who are only here to fight and "tactically deny rhetorical space" to others

What are you quoting from? As far as I can tell, you are the only person who has used this phrase.

I am coming around to the idea of separate threads --- but divided into "actual discussion" where anything relevant flies, in terms of topic, and "stan thread" that I could ignore.

I agree with this, but I won't be participating in either one. I would rather spend the weekend with David Miscavige than talk about politics on this site ever again. It's like having a weasel shit in your brain.

Also, please do not link back to me in comments, whoever did that. I asked you nicely not to summon me, and I believe you were also told explicitly not to link to comments. Do not do it again. I do not want to be in this fucking thread, as I told you.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:26 PM on August 26 [1 favorite]

No one has the power to summon anyone. The only person who can make you be in this thread is you.
posted by april of time at 4:37 PM on August 26 [24 favorites]

As I said, if you reply to me in a derisive fashion, and certainly if you take it upon yourself to cast aspersions on me, I'll be here.

To my knowledge, the point of this thread was not to create an opportunity to attack other users, but to figure out a way of moving forward. I think that's been done.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:45 PM on August 26 [2 favorites]

You need to take responsibility for your own actions. People are allowed to respond to each other here. If you genuinely can’t walk away from a thread once you’ve commented in it you might want to consider taking a break.
posted by knobknosher at 4:50 PM on August 26 [18 favorites]

hey bestie!!! ✨
do yourself a big fave, scroll up to the top of the thread, yup right in that area where it says "posted by corb"? yeah go ahead and do a little click on that [remove from activity] thingy. I think it'll help out a lot!!! much love 💖🎀
posted by phunniemee at 4:52 PM on August 26 [10 favorites]

This subject is of interest to me, because I have been on this site for almost two decades; I think this site has value. It is losing membership precipitously, and I don't know if internal rancor is why that is true, but I know that internal rancor does not help. So I've been reading this thread hoping to see that a solution will be implemented. I have never seen rhetoric this ugly here and I think it has to stop. So that's why I'm reading. When I'm invoked, it's difficult not to reply, as it would be for anyone; imagine if people were replying to you!
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:54 PM on August 26 [2 favorites]

That’s fine but your insistence that people not be allowed to respond to you has taken up a lot of space in this thread and it isn’t serving the community. I understand your motivations but this is a community site. People can and will respond to comments here. You’re not the only person in this thread trying to keep other people from addressing them, so this isn’t just on you. At the same time, it’s not a workable expectation for this site.
posted by knobknosher at 5:00 PM on August 26 [8 favorites]

/No one has the power to summon anyone
Can I try this?

The occasional 24-hour timeout(s) obviously aren't having any effect
I tend to agree. 72 hours to week but this should only be implemented after a few warnings. when a mod asks you to take a break from the thread that is one thing, especially if engaging set behavior in multiple threads.

Back when the mods had more confidence in their own decision-making, they would have done this already.
my first reaction is to disagree but I'm not sure what time frame you're talking about so I can't quantify that.

then again when I joined when it was either a timeout or a ban and there's was one person pretty much running the show and there better be an explanation if it was just a timeout.
posted by clavdivs at 5:15 PM on August 26 [1 favorite]

A few deleted. kittens for breakfast, it’s time to take a break from this thread. Please refrain from commenting any further.
posted by travelingthyme (staff) at 5:17 PM on August 26 [6 favorites]

MetaFilter is not the UN and posting here is not activism.

So as the thread goes on, it kind of looks (to me) like there's a couple things going on.

First, you have people who are bothered by seeing anything negative being posted about Kamala Harris in the campaign threads. This is maybe one end of the spectrum. This is naturally going to include anything about the ongoing genocide, because, well, Kamala Harris has not taken a particularly strong stance on the ongoing genocide. It seems like this situation can be addressed by having a vibes-only positive thread for just those people.

Secondly, you have people who seem offended by the very existence of people posting anti-genocide material on Metafilter with the intention of it being positive action. I will confess I don't really understand this position. We understand generally that discursive power exists and that we change spaces through changing stories and changing the stories we tell in various spaces and to various people; I am not sure why Metafilter should be exempt from that. I am willing to listen if anyone can at a mezzo forte explain it to me.

Thirdly, there's a lot of discussion of people engaging in "awful behavior" but not, as far as I see it, a lot of agreement as to what that "awful behavior" actually constitutes. Can we try discussing that?

For me, for example, it would be awful behavior to say things like, oh I don't know, (I'm going to choose someone ostensibly on 'my side' and choose something ridiculous for a different subject to lower the chances of them taking it personally) "adrienneleigh, I'm seeing a lot of new usernames in here agreeing with you, did you just trot the MeTa thread?" But I wouldn't think it was awful behavior to say something like "A lot of the agreement here is coming from new voices who aren't established community members; I'm wondering if they might be missing some context."

In the Gaza context, this could be the difference between saying "Hey user, I think you're one of these types of voters" versus saying, "I think some Harris supporters belong to these demographic groups" even if some of those demographic groups are probably present in the thread. But I am open to other thoughts and perspectives as to why that is not sufficient.
posted by corb at 5:37 PM on August 26 [7 favorites]

First, you have people who are bothered by seeing anything negative being posted about Kamala Harris…

Secondly, you have people who seem offended by the very existence of people posting anti-genocide material on Metafilter…

I’m using my single comment of the day to point out, once again, that these are straw man arguments. I’ve already spilled a lot of ink to explain why, so I won’t repeat myself, except to say that they have been framed in such a way as to render the opposing views as a priori unreasonable.
posted by darkstar at 5:46 PM on August 26 [12 favorites]

Well, I think this is a moderation decision and I also think a block function would go a long way.

But sure, I’ll mezzo forte this for you:

We understand generally that discursive power exists and that we change spaces through changing stories and changing the stories we tell in various spaces and to various people; I am not sure why Metafilter should be exempt from that. I am willing to listen if anyone can at a mezzo forte explain it to me.

I do believe the right story at the right time changes things.

And I too am the kind of person who sometimes is in the fighty/ranty/but Terrible Things seat, and I almost always do it for a reason that makes sense to me at the time. I have been working on this in myself for about 25 years now though for reasons, including effectiveness.

I still think there are times for it, and when I personally came to the realization that right-wing populism is coming for us all, I trained in self defense because I take it seriously that if I need to stand up on a bus and tell off someone verbally attacking someone for wearing a hijab (or other reasons), and they swing at me, I would like to know what to do next. Mostly so I won’t hesitate.

But what I personally have come to believe also is that repetitively or loudly hammering on [just cause] in general discussion is not highly effective. It takes a lot of listening to find the moment that a wise comment will penetrate a discussion that wasn’t focused mostly on that cause enough to sway hearts and minds.

Additionally, when those moments come, I’m reminded of the Anne Lamott quote that you can strike with the sword of truth, or you can point with it.

So for me, my reflection for people whether it’s about voting against Trump or pressuring world leaders to halt genocidal actions, is that repetitive statements, particularly insisting that others pay attention or vote a certain way or large blanket statements, that is, basically, behave right just…don’t work.

And they often create a collateral damage with people who aren’t, at that exact point in time, wanting to engage - they tend to start sort of flinching at the topic and skip it entirely.

So essentially you’re training people to not listen the next time.

And I know sometimes my ill-considered words have done the same.

I wish I were natively the kind of person who listens, thinks, and waits to say something wise at the right moment, because I think in discussion that is the best, if your goal is change. It doesn’t feel as immediately good as posting in righteous response. It means realizing that being quiet and waiting can mean you never get to say something or that you have to sit and watch people celebrate something while you just see horror. It’s very uncomfortable. I’m not great at it. But there are whole books about it and over time…I think there’s a real truth to it. One specific, well thought out statement can go a lot further.

So again at mezzo forte, I think if the mods are asking for a thread separation..a thoughtful approach to those threads might lead towards much more profound change than everyone going over the same arguments in a general one.

Because what I think does work is the kind of advocacy many here do - posting links and stories, providing context, telling real stories, speaking from the heart. I am grateful for people who are able to do that in these two overwhelming contexts. I have learned a lot from those, personally, and I think others have.
posted by warriorqueen at 7:21 PM on August 26 [29 favorites]

I’ll add that I actually have no opinion on this particular decision. Everything I said is general.
posted by warriorqueen at 7:22 PM on August 26

Seconding Dark Star -

The issue is not “we only want happy talk. Sad talk should be forbidden.”

The issue is not “we don’t like hearing about Palestine and Israel.”

The issue is: we don’t like hearing the same arguments fought over and over in lots of different threads using angry accusatory language that challenges the sense/humanity of anyone who disagrees.

I haven’t heard anyone say, “we only want happy vibes,” except people who are setting it up as a straw man. Maybe I missed it and it happened. I haven’t had the stomach to read all the discussion. But based on what I have read, that is not the issue. The issue is angry, repetitive arguments being brought into multiple threads.
posted by Winnie the Proust at 9:12 PM on August 26 [42 favorites]

Nthing Winnie the Proust. Well said.
posted by Diskeater at 9:48 PM on August 26 [6 favorites]

The issue is: we don’t like hearing the same arguments fought over and over in lots of different threads using angry accusatory language that challenges the sense/humanity of anyone who disagrees.

Quoted for truth.
posted by OnceUponATime at 10:02 PM on August 26 [13 favorites]

What I see is one side seeing prejudice that is normalized into a discussion, and the other side denying that this is prejudice and insisting on some other criteria, like civility or humaneness or people arguing too much or off topic or being personally attacked.

You can take any form of prejudice and insert it into this discussion set up and get the same dynamic. One party is having a normal discussion, but the other party sees that as normalizing prejudice. See the concept of implicit prejudice. One can sub in colonialism, misogyny, etc.: each has its implicit discursive form. For example White privilege, or Mansplaining. The least visible prejudice today, of course, being classism.

If someone thinks you are being prejudiced about something, they probably also think it's not their job to affirm your humanity.
posted by polymodus at 12:23 AM on August 27 [8 favorites]

Secondly, you have people who seem offended by the very existence of people posting anti-genocide material on Metafilter with the intention of it being positive action.

I guess it's a little hard to believe the last part there--that there is an intention of it being positive action, rather than just another instance of someone on the internet being wrong. Or, to put it another way, the anti-genocide comments seem to fall into two categories, information (sometimes depressing, sometimes infuriating), and grousing. It's possible I've missed it but it seems there is very little criticism, at least openly, for thoughtful (and linkful) insertions of the genocide issue into political threads; but there is quite a bit of criticism for repetitive grousing.

The thing that has stuck with me most in this thread is terrapin's comment above. In a way, it's just the core concern about the megathreads, now with a focus on genocide: the thing metafilter does not do well is moderate repetitive aggression and the metastasis of circular arguments in political threads. And this wears people out. And wearing people out isn't positive action. (And I know this personally--as I've mentioned in other threads, I'm a total climate doomer, and whenever I post about climate, I really have to think about how to extract and set aside all the omg we're all going to die in horrible ways I feel inside me, because you can't have a conversation about that, you're not talking to someone, you're pointing your doom at them.)

The other day in another place someone posted a bit of video showing how both candidates for President are really the same. And you know when you see that, you're not having a conversation--there's a moat around the topic that will not let you through. There is, as a random internet stranger, not a positive action you can take; someone has set themselves a point of view that you are not going to be able to access. And I suppose that's a little bit how this second class of comments feel in the political threads. You may agree with them a bit--maybe even a lot--on substance, but there's nothing there to engage; their political despair is a moat; you will be dragged down.

I don't know that there is a solution. There certainly doesn't seem to be a moderation-based one, and technological ones are either not on the menu, or require a lot of extra stuff that not everyone can or will use. So it'd be up to the various kinds of commenters--whether they be good-vibes-only or doomers or things-are-complicated-but-here-is-a-link--to carve out a place where compatible conversations can be had. And honoring the intent of the thread--not coming in to tone-police a negative thread; not doomering in a positive thread. I just...don't know if we're capable of that?
posted by mittens at 2:23 AM on August 27 [13 favorites]

i really don't understand the "doomer/non-doomer" framing. to me, the doomer take, if there is one (and i don't think that's necessarily a useful characterisation of almost anyone's position that i've read, though i've no basis for arguing if someone chooses to identify their own take as such) is that US democracy is so flawed and limited, and motivated groups of ordinary people are so powerless, and the potential unintended consequences of literally any effective activism other than hewing perfectly to a specific electoral strategy (probably even more devotedly than actual campaign strategists, who are probably fighting an internecine "brat vs. substance" battle way more brutal than what we've got here) at all are so probable, that there is no option for decent people but to eat the trauma of watching an entire civilisation get bulldozed while our political and cultural institutions close ranks brutally against anyone objecting. this seems like the doomer take, to me, if there is one.

especially since there is one little thing everyone can help with right here in this little discursive bubble, which is to lift literally one finger to help shut down the small (and seemingly shrinking) but still pernicious cluster of voices right here on mefi who still pop in to carry water for the unconscionable.

i think if i saw 20 people doing that in the palestine threads (or in other threads where that topic comes up), or maybe even just like less dithering from the mods when apologia (e.g. repeating "UNRWA is Hamas" or repeating propaganda questioning well-established casualty figures, or or or) is flagged, it'd really help.

instead of, i dunno, five or six people taking that task on and then having people who claim to agree with them blithely ignore the problem. in that situation, i wouldn't personally feel compelled to engage in a way that is at this point even making me pretty uncomfortable with my own obviously extremely heavy-handed approach. but to borrow an analogy from warriorqueen's excellent comment, the proverbial bigot is already on the bus with us, in the form of the repeated contention that there are two sides to something to which there are not meaningfully two sides (among other examples of what polymodus helpfully described as normalised prejudice). have some of y'all got them on mute or something?
posted by busted_crayons at 4:38 AM on August 27 [9 favorites]

A core issue seems to be that it's kind of astounding how effective a small number of users can be at totally disrupting the conversation. Not just with I/P, but with any topic. I think it's the main weakness of a flat, chronological comment system with long, open-ended threads like MetaFilter. Reddit has a lot of problems, but it seems like having threaded comments with upvotes and downvotes means that threads tend to organically reflect the broad tenor of the community, since unpopular comments are downvoted and hidden and derails are quarantined to individual threads. For better or worse.
posted by april of time at 7:18 AM on August 27 [12 favorites]

Yeah, on Reddit if 5 people like what you're saying and 20 people think you're a disruptive jerk, your comment is rapidly hidden.

On Metafilter, you get 5 favorites and think "Yay, 5 people like me, I'm doing great!"
posted by TheophileEscargot at 7:27 AM on August 27 [6 favorites]

I don't know all of the people you're referring to because of the whole Thing Where We Can't Name Them. But at least one of the names posted earlier did not enter the Gaza thread until way past when I personally tapped out of keeping up with it, and has not entered any of the other US politics threads that are not explicitly about the genocide in Gaza. Have there been a bunch of these things in the other US politics threads (since the whole conversation is about whether or not to separate those conversations)? Because all I've seen in there is people getting in fights that are not about the behavior you're talking about. But I don't see all of it, because I have to tap out. But in most of the places where I've tapped out, it's not been in discussions where people are saying "well actually Hamas have a point" or what the fuck ever bullshit like that, it's when Harris voters are accused of not caring about genocide and marginalized Americans are told to shut up because they're so privileged in their US bubble or whatever.

I don't have a problem with speaking up against "Israel is just defending itself" rhetoric at all, but that's not the rhetoric I've seen generating a bunch of the fights. Sure it's some of it clearly, but given that the person currently making those arguments in the Gaza thread (which I reviewed some of to get more context) has not entered into any US politics threads at all, I don't think that's what the complaints in this thread are about. Again, unless there's a bunch of posts I've missed after it reaches 500 comments or whatever, I dunno. But either way it seems like a goddamn waste of time to take up energy and space arguing about Harris voters or who counts as a colonizer if someone is saying shit like that, and in fact it probably makes it a lot easier for other users to miss that and not have the chance to speak up against it, because they're in the middle of all these other arguments or have said fuck it and left the thread.

It just seems like you're taking the one legitimate argument you have been having to defend a bunch of other bullshit arguments a small group of people have repeatedly been getting into, which drives away all the potential allies you have when the actually harmful rhetoric starts. Not because they go "oh I won't support that person because they were mean to me" but because they literally are not there. So a bunch of people don't see this and can't help combat it because they've already been driven off by all those other arguments. So then their silence becomes "proof" that they really never cared about Gaza, which you can then throw in your face later. When, y'all, maybe I just got so pissed off at being told I'm obviously not going to do any activism after the election that I simply tapped out and went and stared at a lake instead of Metafilter blue. (True story from last time I got pissed off in a US politics thread.) That line is speaking for myself but I suspect the gist of it is true for a bunch of other Mefites as well.
posted by brook horse at 7:45 AM on August 27 [10 favorites]

Just to clarify, it wasn't a metaphor at all. I went all-in on martial arts during the Stephen Harper years when hijabi were getting spit on on my bus.

I have actually stepped between a jerk who was making racist remarks at someone who looked Anishnaabe, and who was about to take a swing at him.

It was on the subway, both people were drunk and one had bumped into the other, and it was a bit stupid of me. What happened was I deflected his weak-ass swing, and muscle memory brought up a palm strike to his chest as the train moved, and so he went sprawling down the car, and then started saying "sorry lady, sorry," until the next stop, when he got off. The other person was embarassed and went to sit with his hat over his face. I was lucky, because anyone who has ever been in a street fight could easily take me down...however, I was also on a subway car with other passengers who probably would have come to the aid of a white grey haired lady and not so much a homeless-looking drunk guy.

What I can tell you is that experience was nothing like telling someone off on the Internet. I say that with a 20+ year history of community management and online content under my belt as well as having spent days of my life arguing things.

I am to be frank about it, proud of myself because I overcame a lifetime of fear (and recovery from abuse and rape) to act.

But it had very, very little in common with yelling at people online. I didn't try to convince the guy he was wrong about his ideas. I didn't try to convince the onlookers about anything. I was in a position to keep one guy from getting whapped (I wouldn't even say punched).

Now part of that was that I have been reading, listening, and thinking about the Truth & Reconciliation Committee and its recommendations for years. Like I said, I believe in stories and information. But not in the sniping. In this case, on both sides - I don't think yelling at people to vote a particular way works and I don't think yelling at people about genocide works (except in a political rally/protest/encampment, which I think might work if it's making the right people uncomfortable...which is not the people passing by on the street, but the people at the top.)

I hear you on the "why aren't other people correcting these garbage statements."

I interviewed Roméo Dallaire personally. I have read both his book and A Problem from Hell. I agree with the idea of holding people to account using the word genocide. The American (and other Western countries') policy involvement is not new to me.

And still, I'm in the group that the constant arguing has lost, on this topic on this forum. Like, RealTalk here, I am less informed from this source than I could be, because I no longer read US politics or Gaza thread comments much because of the constant sniping.

I don't believe it's effective. I believe it just makes people not want to be here. I'm not talking about posting links and correcting misinformation. I'm talking about the "well you're okay with genocide then???" comments. Really?? Like do people honestly think that is effective? (ETA: Or yelling at people how to vote?)

If you do, I see why you keep doing it. But I just see it as precipitating the end of this forum as a useful place to discuss this kind of thing.
posted by warriorqueen at 7:49 AM on August 27 [28 favorites]

Yeah, on Reddit if 5 people like what you're saying and 20 people think you're a disruptive jerk, your comment is rapidly hidden.

I don't think 20 random goofs should be able to decide what is and isn't relevant to my reading experience, even if I end up agreeing with those goofs. Argument could be made Reddit downvotes and MeFi flags have similar functions -and lord knows I have criticisms of mod choices - but I'd take comments deleted by someone ostensibly responsible and accountable for their decisions over comments buried by anonymous users who might misunderstand what the comment is saying/be in a pissy mood that day/object on general principle to anything that commenter says.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:12 AM on August 27 [7 favorites]

Yeah, on Reddit if 5 people like what you're saying and 20 people think you're a disruptive jerk, your comment is rapidly hidden … For better or worse.
I don't think 20 random goofs should be able to decide…
I'll put you down as 'worse' (me too fwiw).
posted by mazola at 8:18 AM on August 27 [2 favorites]

I haven’t heard anyone say, “we only want happy vibes,” except people who are setting it up as a straw man

I refuse to feel bad for wanting to find some joy in the world full stop

"when Harris became the nominee and polls (yeah, I know) and the press started being a little brighter, I needed a place for vibes. I needed that thread."

Sometimes I want to eat ice cream without being reminded of all the injustices in the world

Those are all from this thread. If we are putting those requests front and center, it's because honestly, those requests are some of the only honest, simple, clear requests being made.

I'm not talking about posting links and correcting misinformation. I'm talking about the "well you're okay with genocide then???" comments. Really?? Like do people honestly think that is effective?

Leaving aside the issue of whether or not it is tactically effective to tell people that they are enabling racism, or genocide, from my perspective, at least, there are some things that are simply true. Not talking about genocide as a genocide enables genocide. Not talking about how everyday actions enable genocide enables genocide. Not talking about how "business as usual" enables genocide...well, enables genocide. I say this not just as an individual spitballing, I say this as someone who took several classes in history and one class specifically in genocide studies. One of the major things that allowed genocide to continue in some of the major historical genocides that we all recognize were euphemisms being used for the genocide, and the genocide being kept out of the public view so that people could go about their daily lives without being confronted with how much of the actions they took and things they liked were dependent on genocide.

Posting links and correcting misinformation is literally the smallest, least intrusive method of mentioning that a genocide is going on. It is the social equivalent of passing out small business cards, or of sidling up, mumbling under your voice, and then walking away. It is not, in fact, engaging in full conversation. It is very convenient for people who don't want to have to think about an ongoing genocide, but that doesn't actually mean it's within conversational norms.

Metafilter has historically been to some extent like a party, where everyone is standing around having a conversation - thus the frequent advice to "read the room." But for a lot of us, if we are at a real-life party these days, we are going to bring up the ongoing genocide. It is so much a part of our lives and on our minds, that we are going to bring it up in most settings where it is even tangentially appropriate.

The argument is made that well, bringing up genocide just creates these big arguments - but I would actually encourage you to think about why it does. Why does bringing up the fact that some people are sitting safe at home, not considering an ongoing genocide, bring up such strong reactions that it creates a big argument? And when that happens, is it really the fault of the person who brings up the genocide? Do we generally consider it the fault of people who bring up structural inequality on Metafilter if people argue with them about it?
posted by corb at 8:19 AM on August 27 [12 favorites]

I said this upthread, but I think it's worth repeating that I think there's an unstated assumption that's causing a difference in perception in the responses in the DNC thread and other related Harris threads. Namely that everyone agrees there's a genocide going on. I would assume if you don't think there's a genocide going on, you're going to respond to the war and its relation to the U.S. election with nuance. If you believe there's a genocide going on, there's no nuance. There are clearly nuance-havers and red-line-havers involved in these discussions and I believe that's why. If everyone believed a genocide was going on, I don't think there would be nuance-havers in any of these discussions.
posted by Captaintripps at 8:22 AM on August 27 [4 favorites]

My literal job involves genocide activism and sometimes I don’t want to think about genocide and yeah - I’m not going to apologize about that.
posted by bq at 8:34 AM on August 27 [28 favorites]

Why does bringing up the fact that some people are sitting safe at home, not considering an ongoing genocide, bring up such strong reactions that it creates a big argument?

As one of the people corb is singling out, I mean joy in being alive, not at Kamala Harris' nomination.

Here's the thing: I absolutely don't deny genocide is going on. I am against it. I have attended protests. What else do people want me to do? Not vote?

This is where I am getting tangled up. I am not unaware of what's happening in Gaza. How can you be? The news is everywhere! But am I being asked to not vote full stop because me voting Democrat regardless is bad? I mean, I have already decided I am absolutely out of ANY US election threads from here on out because it really shows the shittiest side of Metafilter. (This is also why I bounced out of this forum for the duration of the Trump years. MeFites were just being absolute dicks to one another, and history repeats itself.)

For those of us who acknowledge the genocide and are against it, what are we being asked to do? Witness the horrors? Babes, I have IG reels full of horror everyday against the Palestinian people. It makes me upset. I am witnessing the horrors secondhand from Canada.
posted by Kitteh at 8:35 AM on August 27 [24 favorites]

To put this in perhaps starker contrast, and maybe to illuminate Captaintripp's question:

Let us imagine the internet, and Metafilter, existed in the summer of 1940. Franklin Delano Roosevelt is running for the Democratic nomination, as is conservative Nance Garner and New York union boss James Farley. FDR is running on an anti-intervention platform, based on perceived anti-interventionist sentiment in the electorate.

The Auschwitz concentration camp has been operational for ten months. Some posters keep bringing that up, as well as the fact that FDR's courting of the anti-Semitic vote has depressed the admission of Jewish refugees, including turning many back to be literally killed by Hitler. They think Farley, a Catholic who has taken strong anti-racist stances, has widespread black support, and whose proposed running mate is married to a woman whose father is Jewish, would be a better candidate, who might be willing to enter the war in order to end the genocide.

Other posters are tired of hearing all this negativity about FDR. They point out how important the New Deal has been, and how exciting it is that he might be able to get a third term. They are tired of the same posters "always talking about Auschwitz and genocide." They point out that throwing support to Farley risks Wendell Wilkie, the Republican candidate and corporate stooge, winning election. If elected, he would definitely roll back New Deal policies as he is running on removing "anti-business" policies. However, as the "anti-genocide" posters point out, Wilkie is an interventionist, and if elected, he will definitely get the US into the war, ending camps like Auschwitz sooner.

Other posters point out they are tired of being called "genocide apologists" for their saying they are tired of hearing about Auschwitz in the Democratic election thread. It's only the same several posters who keep talking about it. And they're so annoying about it. It's like they think they're better than everyone else. Everyone agrees that Auschwitz sounds really bad, nobody supports Auschwitz. But if FDR comes out against it publicly, people might think he's an interventionist and they might vote for Wilkie, and then what happens to the New Deal and Americans here?

How would you want the moderators to rule in that situation?
posted by corb at 8:50 AM on August 27 [5 favorites]

Let us imagine the internet, and Metafilter, existed in the summer of 1940.

That is so fucking dumb.
posted by Diskeater at 8:58 AM on August 27 [20 favorites]

How would you want the moderators to rule in that situation?

The tiebreaker is probably the equivalent of an Imperial Japan bombing the Pearl Harbor because FDR never would've committed the US into a formal entry into WW2 otherwise. So, in the absence of that...
posted by cendawanita at 9:01 AM on August 27 [7 favorites]

I will speak for myself only here, but both things can be true at the same time: plan to vote for Harris to keep Trump out and at the same time continually push the Democrats to move the needle on their shitty policy of sending weapons to Israel because and I quote from Kamala's speech at the DNC she will always side with Israel's right to "defend itself."

I will enjoy vibes of Kamala dancing in an IG reel celebrating her joy as a Black and South Asian woman VP who may be become the first woman president. At the same time, I'm clear on her positionality: she will continue to support Israel until it becomes uncomfortable to do so and part of that discomfort only happens when nearly every person is pushing back against it.

As corb says above in other words, not speaking about genocide makes it easier for it to happen.
posted by mxjudyliza at 9:11 AM on August 27 [7 favorites]

I would suggest that one does not watch reels of the violence in Palestine--that only becomes your own vicarious trauma. I don't know how that is a reason for not wanting people to speak about genocide here. That literally helps no one and hurts yourself. However, discourse on a text based website could change minds.
posted by mxjudyliza at 9:19 AM on August 27 [4 favorites]

I disagree that the idea that some people want a no ceitism, positive commentary only space is a straw man. It is 't what everyone wants, but it is what some people want.

Also the "why don't you care about genocide" comments, while not helpful, are also not typically being directed at people just for wanting to vote Harris. Typically it is in response to claims those who are willing to apply pressure on Harris to support an arms embargo or on Biden to stop providing weapons to the IDF are wreckers who will hand the election to Trump.
posted by pattern juggler at 9:20 AM on August 27 [7 favorites]

I have been wondering why the hell Reddit does the thing where you have to double click to read certain threads, which annoys me. I guess now I know why, so thank y'all for that.

What else do people want me to do? Not vote?
For those of us who acknowledge the genocide and are against it, what are we being asked to do?

As far as I can tell, the idea is "Until Harris says she's against genocide and funding Israel, do not vote for her, she only gets my vote when she does it." The idea is to withhold your vote until she comes out against that. And that's where I personally have an issue because not voting or voting for Trump instead is only going to make everything worse, the perfect is the enemy of the good, etc. Your conscience is genocide, mine is "make damn sure Trump doesn't get back into power again, because that will only make things worse, even on the genocide front." I saw a Reddit thread recently (which sadly I don't have access to right now, it was somewhere on "Friends of the Pod") in which a guy was trying to figure out how to talk to his wife about this problem and a lot of the posters were all "you're not going to be able to change her mind on this point, if she doesn't get the logic of voting for the candidate who won't be as awful on the topic, there's nothing you can do."

I'm not pro-genocide, but holding my vote as blackmail or whatever to get Harris to cave in doesn't seem like it's going to solve the problem better if/when Trump gets into office. I do not comprehend how someone can miss this logic, but clearly it's happening, and it doesn't work to try to change someone else's view of reality. They believe what they believe, they vote or not vote their conscience, and their conscience says to keep on pleading their case as they see it. Some people absolutely must, with all their hearts and souls, keep talking about genocide and aren't going to stop doing that, and their conscience says that they believe that they need to argue to withhold Harris votes until she agrees with them and think that all of us should do the same. I am not any kind of expert in foreign policy, I do not understand it or have the brain space and time to really try to, but I have the impression that there are other political situations going on that make totally ditching Israel or otherwise ticking them off a hard sell with the US government, that might make other situations worse. (I saw some good explainers on this, but don't have access to find them now.)

Both I/P and the MeFi discussion issues are huge problems, there is no way to solve them or even ameliorate them, and I think we just have to accept that. If we're not going to institute threads/downvotes/hide a user, people are just going to have to nope out on their own, temporarily or permanently, when they hit their limit on the war that doesn't end. I apologize if/when I've offended people in this even though I'm trying to be even-handed and reasonable, and I may try to nope out of here for awhile after posting this.
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:24 AM on August 27 [14 favorites]

I don't particularly want a "vibes" thread for Harris. I want a "US election news" thread that touches on the hundreds of issues and anecdotes and news about this election. I'd prefer in-depth conversations about long-standing issues get their own threads to spread out in. (I don't want the long repeating fights anywhere, really.)

Captaintripps, the people you think don't exist do exist, assuming I understand what you mean by nuance. I'm one of them. From everything I know, Israel committing genocide makes the situation more fucked up, not less complex or easier to resolve.
posted by mersen at 9:35 AM on August 27 [2 favorites]

As corb says above in other words, not speaking about genocide makes it easier for it to happen.

I would suggest that one does not watch reels of the violence in Palestine--that only becomes your own vicarious trauma. I don't know how that is a reason for not wanting people to speak about genocide here.

Cool cool. My point was it feels like people are being accused of not caring enough, knowing enough, and if we are, it's "oh no! don't watch it!" or "you are still a bad bad person because you are alive in the 21st century anyway."

Like, we are speaking about the genocide. Do a search in the Blue. But the problem seems to be, for some folks, that they are mad other people aren't as mad? Again, these US election threads should be nuked from orbit because it doesn't reflect the community well if all we do is just be absolute dicks to each other. If we can't talk about world events without being shitty to each other, then maybe we do not deserve to talk about world events. Including an ongoing genocide.
posted by Kitteh at 9:38 AM on August 27 [7 favorites]

I have stayed out of this thread for the most part. The one issue I want to push back is the idea that people are straight up asking people not to vote for Harris. I am not doing it because I am in CA, I have Palestinian relatives, and the idea of voting for someone who's overseeing the current genocide and sending bombs every 36 hours to Israel makes me nauseous. I understand that if I lived in a swing state my calculus would be different.

I have made several comments detailing action items that you could do, that have nothing to do with voting for Harris or Trump, and have everything to do with pushing back against curtailing our current freedoms under the guise of fighting against anti-Semitism.

- supporting or fighting against various state bills
- BDS
- today, Disability Rights of New York files lawsuit against a mask ban

If you search the Gaza threads, you can see that I have occasionally posted items you could take up, like donating to individual Gazan GoFundMes or to specific orgs like UNRWA.
posted by toastyk at 9:39 AM on August 27 [11 favorites]

I think a fair number of the single issue anti-genocide commenters have a misunderstanding of both Metafilter's position within the US political landscape and and the degree to which the typical Mefite already substantially agrees with their position. If exclusively Mefites voted in USA elections, there would no longer be a constituency for US-sponsored palestinian genocide to a similar degree that that there is not currently a constituency for segregating US water fountains by race. "Commenting on the internet" is not generally an efficacious idea for political action and less so this place on this topic.
posted by Kwine at 9:48 AM on August 27 [7 favorites]

For the people who are here primarily as "online activists" — are you aware there are now under 2,000 active members on the blue? And that's on an extremely generous definition of active.

You would probably have more reach and impact standing at a busy intersection wearing a placard.

What are you hoping to achieve here?
posted by Klipspringer at 10:10 AM on August 27 [6 favorites]

What are you hoping to achieve here?

I think this question is a fundamental misunderstanding of how activism works. I don’t think Metafilter is anyone’s primary activist space for pro-Palestinian organizing. We just happen to already be at the party. For some of us, we’ve been at the party for decades. It’s kind of like how this is no one’s primary space for anti-racist organizing, but since we’re already here, we may as well be anti-racist. Since we are in conversation, why not operate by general conversational norms, which include not being coy about an ongoing genocide in situations where it’s relevant?
posted by corb at 10:20 AM on August 27 [15 favorites]

What are you hoping to achieve here?

I do not think of myself as any kind of "online activist" , but I also don't like the idea of seeing a community I am part of tolerate equivocation about or apology for genocide.

That doesn't have a lot to do with the bulk of people here. Even the ones who are dead set against doing anything about US policy acknowledge the genocide is ongoing and in itself evil.

But especially at first there was a lot of posting that took Israeli propaganda at face value, claimed casualties on the Palestinian side were unfortunate collateral damage, or straight up called for ethnic cleansing in Gaza.

I am very glad to see those positions are almost entirely absent right now. I think that happened because people here took a stand against it, and I think this community is better for it. So I appreciate those people taking that stance, even if it only makes MetaFilter itself better.
posted by pattern juggler at 10:25 AM on August 27 [14 favorites]

If those positions are almost entirely absent now, what are all the arguments about? I think that's the crux of the... uh... argument, that I can't figure out.
posted by brook horse at 10:46 AM on August 27 [4 favorites]

I want to note that even though people are disagreeing, and maybe still pissed at each other or whatever, this actually feels like a conversation at this point instead of a complete disaster. I don’t want to axe grind, but I hope that the mods will take note of who is absent at this point and consider keeping them absent from these kinds of discussions.

As much as people have sorted themselves into camps, there really are only a handful of people creating the vast majority of the problem.
posted by knobknosher at 10:51 AM on August 27 [2 favorites]

If those positions are almost entirely absent now, what are all the arguments about? I think that's the crux of the... uh... argument, that I can't figure out.

I'm pretty sure this Meta started because people were being told that they could not post about Gaza in the Harris campaign threads even when it related to the Harris campaign. As corb explains in the OP.
posted by Gadarene at 11:02 AM on August 27 [6 favorites]

Specifically, the mods and other users have said that this is being requested because of all of the repetitive arguments that keep happening on this topic.

Those are the arguments I'm talking about. Not the question of whether quarantining because of those arguments makes sense.
posted by brook horse at 11:10 AM on August 27 [3 favorites]

Speaking up from the petri dish: I am probably the kind of person whose (lazy, ill-informed) opinion can be swayed by these conversations.

At first I was appalled by the Hamas attack in October, but then I was appalled by the ongoing treatment of the Palestinians (and the inflammation by the settlers) in the months since. As I am reading the details and following the links in these threads, I learn more, and my disgust & anger deepen. I am coming around.

But I am also a little reluctant to keeping working at this, because I see myself in the group being accused of "not caring enough," even though I am working on it and maybe you could say "not caring enough yet" -- plus also, this is some horrifying shit.

Not to borrow a line from the "not all men" hymnbook, but it's hard to listen and change my views when one side of the discussion has a bullhorn against my ear.
posted by wenestvedt at 11:11 AM on August 27 [7 favorites]

If those positions are almost entirely absent now, what are all the arguments about?

As I suggested above, jumpiness remaining after months of having to comment in "pushback-mode" when those positions were being posted (and argued in bad faith) day after day. I think at this point, with much less pro-genocide commentary here (even if the genocide itself is continuing unabated) it's worthwhile to adopt a more nuanced process for writing or ignoring comments that seem to disagree.

What I am absolutely mindboggled by is how statements like "there are people withholding votes from Harris in order to pressure her", "such strategies are legitimate and normal", "I am withholding my vote for Harris as part of such a campaign", or "I feel conflicted about voting for Harris" keep getting read and responded to as if they say "I would never vote for Harris", "I am campaigning against voting for Harris", "you should not vote for Harris", "no-one should vote for Harris", or even "I am voting for Trump". To me there is a wide fluorescent-brainbow-coloured semantic gulf between those two clusters of positions, and yet they keep getting treated as equivalent and spawning exactly the same argument, no matter how many times someone clarifies how far their position is from anything in that latter cluster.
posted by polytope subirb enby-of-piano-dice at 11:13 AM on August 27 [13 favorites]

no matter how many times someone clarifies how far their position is from anything in that latter cluster.

Exactement. I am voting for Harris but I am not happy about innocent people being murdered. I am hoping that US voters will push her to do the right thing, the hard thing*, but I am not giving up my vote to signal my discontent. But no matter how much you clarify, there are definitely posters who have been twisting that into "well, I guess you support genocide anyway!"

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

*clarified as being doing something that does not directly benefit the US which the US hates
posted by Kitteh at 11:19 AM on August 27 [6 favorites]

Metafilter: I think it's unfortunate that so many of you have followed my example
posted by longtime_lurker at 11:43 AM on August 27 [1 favorite]

Speaking for myself only:

I have stated the conditions under which i will vote for Harris (which she is obviously, at this point, not interested in meeting), but i have never, not once, complained about other people voting for her or exhorted anyone else not to vote for her. I don't care whether or not you vote for her. Voting for her is not going to save Palestinians, but not voting for her is also not going to save Palestinians. Your vote is between you and your conscience, as my vote is between me and mine.

What i want is for everyone to never be allowed to forget, not even for an instant, that we are being made accomplices in the eradication of a people. That if the world still exists in fifty years, most of us in the Global North (and in America specifically) will be remembered as the Good Germans of the 1930s and 1940s are remembered today, and we will deserve it.

Bearing witness is the least—the absolute least—that we can do in return for the mass murder that is propping up our safety and our comfort. And it is my hope that some people will bear witness and feel shame and take it upon themselves to do more than just vote and hope things improve. (And i know that some people here already are doing things; I am by no means erasing the real-world activism of many MeFites.)

And to that end, no, i am not going to stop sharing relevant things about how America is a mass-murder factory and how both parties are complicit in that.
posted by adrienneleigh at 11:45 AM on August 27 [14 favorites]

I see myself in the group being accused of "not caring enough," even though I am working on it and maybe you could say "not caring enough yet"

I've been there a lot, on a lot of topics! It always feels strange to read something that takes a moral stance critical of a privileged group or uninformed viewpoint, agree with it, and think "I have been in that group/held that viewpoint". For me that discomfort is a sign that there is more listening and learning for me to do. It's also worth keeping in mind that the anger you read there may simply be the writer's own frustration at the injustice itself, and even when it's directed at another person, it's probably not directed at people who aren't arguing against them, and even when it's directed at a "White Moderates" type group, it's probably not meant as a rejection of people who are "coming around" and "working on it".
posted by polytope subirb enby-of-piano-dice at 11:47 AM on August 27 [7 favorites]

...even when it's directed at a "White Moderates" type group, it's probably not meant as a rejection of people who are "coming around" and "working on it".

Well, I am a White Moderate, so it pretty much all ends up in my In Box. :7)

There's just so many things that I am coming to terms with, all at once: it's difficult to get educated on, like, Everything, at age 50+. I need solid points of reference on which to anchor new understandings, and if I can't trust anything, then how do I know what's top priory and most Important to study?

Being alive and trying to DTRT is mentally exhausting. (Yes, yes, "living in Gaza is harder," you betcha. But I live here, and am doing the best I can.)
posted by wenestvedt at 11:55 AM on August 27 [9 favorites]

At first I was appalled by the Hamas attack in October, but then I was appalled by the ongoing treatment of the Palestinians (and the inflammation by the settlers) in the months since. As I am reading the details and following the links in these threads, I learn more, and my disgust & anger deepen. I am coming around.

But I am also a little reluctant to keeping working at this, because I see myself in the group being accused of "not caring enough," even though I am working on it and maybe you could say "not caring enough yet" -- plus also, this is some horrifying shit.

wenestvedt: I'm happy to give you cookies for this, personally. Thank you for learning and growing and changing; it does matter.
posted by adrienneleigh at 12:02 PM on August 27 [13 favorites]

If those positions are almost entirely absent now, what are all the arguments about?

One of the main things that I personally see is "I'm just as good a person as those other people. How dare they think they're better than me because they're taking a different stance?" I went down this thread and counted the number of people referencing some form of perceived moral superiority on the part of other posters as one of their main problems: there were 26 posts referencing this, or the perception that other people believe they care more about the genocide than the person writing the post.

It is impossible for everyone in the world to care an equal amount about everything. By the nature of reality, there must be some people who care more about any given situation than others - and by the nature of truth, this must apply to the ongoing genocide. Similarly, there are people on Metafilter who must care more about the genocide than others, and who are doing more than others. I personally oppose the genocide. But I am comfortable admitting that there are people who care more about opposing the genocide than I do, both on and off Metafilter.

On Metafilter, I am comfortable saying that cendanawita has done far more good and serious work against the genocide than I have, and is likely more committed to opposing the genocide than I am. I could do well to follow their inspirational example; to post a little more and fuck around on my tablet game a little less. In the real world, Aaron Bushnell definitely cared more about opposing the genocide than I do; he gave his life for it. There are a lot of people who were jailed for various activities opposing the genocide, and some have headed to Gaza personally. I have not yet done so. I don't feel any shame in admitting that those people clearly care more about opposing the genocide than I do. I would even feel comfortable saying that those people may even be morally superior to me. I am comfortable saying that I should take inspiration from people who are willing to give more of themselves to end the suffering and death of others; I should remember that this is an ongoing emergency and treat it accordingly, have less dinners out and send more money to Gaza.

I don't have moral defensiveness about these facts though, that other people are doing more than I am and care more than I do, but I think that's as someone actively engaged and centered in pro-Palestine work, I understand that it is *always* part of a process. You always start with not caring enough, and continue caring more and more. You will never and can never care "enough" so that you can rest on your laurels with something as serious as an ongoing genocide. Every step you take towards the work is a better step. I join adrienneleigh in celebrating wenestvedt for learning and growing; I hope you continue to learn and grow and do the work to oppose this horrible thing that is happening; I agree that we are all currently being made complicit and that we do not want to be the "good Germans" in twenty years.

I would encourage people who feel morally stung, or who feel like other people perceive they care more, to sit with those feelings and rather than defensively arguing about them, to interrogate themselves and examine why they bother them so much, and consider if there is more they could be doing. Is there more that could be done within the party? within social circles? within other spaces that you have access to? Because I think when you're doing the work, someone else's perception of where you're at just won't bother you other than galvanizing you to do the best you possibly can, and these arguments just won't exist or be as heated.
posted by corb at 12:11 PM on August 27 [20 favorites]

Cookies: I'll take 'em. It's a nice change!
posted by wenestvedt at 12:12 PM on August 27 [9 favorites]

In all seriousness: i know i come across as angry and fighty a lot, and it's because i am angry and fighty (and scared, and cripplingly depressed)! Both of the countries i belong to have been sliding steadily toward fascism for my entire adult life, regardless of who is in power at the moment, and that makes me feel helpless and miserable and cowardly!

But i am acting in good faith, and i am happy to praise people who are, in any capacity small or large, Actually Doing The Work.
posted by adrienneleigh at 12:19 PM on August 27 [14 favorites]

RE: Creating dedicated posts for contentious topics

It seems worth pointing out that this problem already seems to have been addressed with some of the Ukraine threads by simply running two of them: one that did not address nuclear fears, and one that did.

RE: "Trump would be worse" shouldn't be taken seriously because anyone who says that only cares about our privileges in the U.S. bubble.

"[T]he U.S. bubble" is not confined to North America. Trump's election will have a strong negative impact on Ukraine, given his campaign promise to resolve the "dispute" in 24 hours, in all likelihood by giving Russia Eastern Ukraine, an area the size of Portugal — or Indiana. If you are unaware, it is widely believed that Russia's intent in Ukraine is not just empirical, but also genocidal.

Those, however, are not the only people at risk of genocide America is helping. The U.S. has recently given asylum to large numbers of South Sudanese, who have also been targeted for genocide, as have people in other countries the U.S. is assisting, such as Burkina Faso, Burma, Haiti, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and elsewhere. Do you think a second-term President Trump, who has repeatedly promised to deport American undesirables, will care about any of those people?
posted by Violet Blue at 12:34 PM on August 27 [10 favorites]

Do you think a second-term President Trump, who has repeatedly promised to deport American undesirables, will care about any of those people?

No, literally no one here thinks that.
posted by Gadarene at 12:39 PM on August 27 [12 favorites]

Sometimes people just come into the end of MeTa threads without reading any of the preceding comments, i guess.
posted by adrienneleigh at 12:40 PM on August 27 [3 favorites]

Time for the recipe exchange, I guess!
posted by wenestvedt at 12:41 PM on August 27 [5 favorites]

Oh good, the folks who tried telling Jewish mefites that their opposition to genocide is actually Russian propaganda and Jew hatred have finally shown up.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 1:01 PM on August 27 [9 favorites]

shown up to rebut assertions nobody is making, at that!
posted by adrienneleigh at 1:21 PM on August 27 [4 favorites]

ugh it was getting nicer in here and i was finding many of the last bunch of comments so instructive and useful and it was sort of a relief that i can probably just read what folks have to say now, and then one of our more prolific Genocide Concern Trolls shows up.

the "mods, ban so-and-so" shtick from yesterday was stupid yesterday and it's going to be stupid today, but: mods, go read the Genocide Concern Troll Thread i linked in here earlier and deal with the fact that its creator has just shown up to shit in our pool just as it was maybe starting to get less shitty. why is this person allowed on MetaFilter?
posted by busted_crayons at 1:36 PM on August 27 [10 favorites]

As, yes, the bad faith pile-ons, eager to twist other people's words, accrue likes and spread disinformation. If "literally, no one here thinks that," then why are several of you promoting a position that may prevent Trump opposition votes?
posted by Violet Blue at 1:40 PM on August 27 [2 favorites]

Everyone who disagrees with you is not:

-Voting for Trump
-Hating Jews (in fact, the conflation of Jews with Israel is antisemitism)
-A Russian plant
-An Iranian spy
-Literally Hamas
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 1:43 PM on August 27 [10 favorites]

If "literally, no one here thinks that," then why are several of you promoting a position that may prevent Trump opposition votes?

This question is in profoundly bad faith, and given the effort you previously put into framing all criticism of Israel's genocidal actions and the Biden adminiatration as Russian psyops, I have a very hard time extending any benefit of the doubt.

You know why people believe it is worth while to pressure Democrats on this point, and if you somehow didn't, this MeTa thread wouldn't be the place to ask.
posted by pattern juggler at 1:47 PM on August 27 [8 favorites]

now we just need the person who was fpp-ing anne appelbaum a few months back and we can get this thing going again!

(can we not.)
posted by busted_crayons at 1:50 PM on August 27 [1 favorite]

Anyway, if anyone is still wondering why pro-genocide nutbags are apparently so keen on jumping into people's DMs, I would posit that continued attempts from some posters to convince others that their victims were some combination of dupe, traitor, spy, and terrorist is pretty high up on the list.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 1:58 PM on August 27 [3 favorites]

sorry for the acrimony and walls of text, everyone. putin and sinwar promised me cookies and i couldn't refuse.
posted by busted_crayons at 2:00 PM on August 27 [3 favorites]

"Everyone who disagrees with you..."

And smearing everyone who disagrees with your tactics is the last word in bad faith, and the very definition of disinformation.
posted by Violet Blue at 2:00 PM on August 27 [2 favorites]

Site policy's been pretty clear on this. If you for-realsies think another poster is deliberately engaging in posting disinformation on Metafilter, take it to the Contact Us form for the mods to sort out. Nothing good comes of jumping into a long MeTa like this swinging that around wildly, & it only serves to make the conversation worse. At this point I'm inclined to think escalating the stakes/claims to 'disinformation' could itself be disinformation.

/me evaporates into recursion
posted by CrystalDave at 2:05 PM on August 27 [14 favorites]

And smearing everyone who disagrees with your tactics is the last word in bad faith, and the very definition of disinformation.

This sentence is very close to semantically null.
posted by pattern juggler at 2:08 PM on August 27 [4 favorites]

it's not "disagreement", it's: normal people being unhappy about genocide and a few deranged people engaging in a FUD campaign to misdirect and confuse. i guess that kind of meta-whatabout game was fun for the players for the decades it lasted but those tricks are pretty well inundated in blood at this point, so maybe just leave it.
posted by busted_crayons at 2:16 PM on August 27 [7 favorites]

Violet Blue, you have less than no credibility on this topic especially due to that previous thread, much less any concern trolling you've done in response to comments about the genocide elsewhere.
posted by sagc at 2:25 PM on August 27 [10 favorites]

Since part of the tactics of those here who would not brook disagreement is to make wild accusations about what folks have said in other threads, here is that other thread: https://www.metafilter.com/202964/Russian-Disinformation-Anti-Semitism-Hamas-Ukraine-the-Border

I don't want to be unpleasant to you, but in that thread you accused myself and others of having "pro-Palestinian passion" that is "heedless of limits and careless about both hate speech and democracy" (specifically calling out the Uncommitted movement) and say that it was "stoked by Russian disinformation" on a grand total of no evidence.

You also accused people who were angry at Biden of not caring about deaths in Ukraine, or whether Trump wins. And asked if people talking about the genocide "talked about the hostages" as well. And brought up "Havana syndrome" as a real thing in a thread about not falling for disinformation.

Also there was this post which stands on its own.
posted by pattern juggler at 2:29 PM on August 27 [10 favorites]

It's not concern trolling to point out that those encouraging people to threaten to withhold votes — if not actually withhold votes — can be described as irresponsible in an election with fascism on the ballot.

Now, you may think Palestinian slaughter justifies that, and that's your right. But it's also perfectly reasonable to argue that the impact of a Trump win on both the American public and peoples around the world will have at least as negative an impact, if not a more negative impact in terms of sheer numbers, especially because some of those peoples are subject to genocides too.
posted by Violet Blue at 2:31 PM on August 27 [1 favorite]

I suppose the most useful thing about this is explaining to other posters why this all felt very necessary in the first place.
posted by corb at 2:31 PM on August 27 [14 favorites]

It's not concern trolling to point out that those encouraging people to threaten to withhold votes — if not actually withhold votes — can be described as irresponsible in an election with fascism on the ballot.

Actually, that's a pretty good illustration of concern trolling. Thanks for providing it!
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 2:34 PM on August 27 [6 favorites]

Or why a discussion about Trump is happening in this MeTa in the first place, since that isn't the fucking topic of this MeTa?
posted by adrienneleigh at 2:34 PM on August 27 [9 favorites]

At first I was appalled by the Hamas attack in October, but then

Perhaps you could clarify this. Are you no longer appalled?
posted by bq at 2:37 PM on August 27 [1 favorite]

"Or why a discussion about Trump is happening in this MeTa in the first place."

Actually, it is very much on topic, given that he is Harris's opposition, and Biden stepped out of the race to give the Democrats a better shot at winning.
posted by Violet Blue at 2:38 PM on August 27

Actually, it is very much on topic, given that he is Harris's opposition, and Biden stepped out of the race to give the Democrats a better shot at winning.

The topic is whether discussion of the US role in the Gaza genocide should happen in the primary thread about the Harris campaign. So no, Trump isn't really relevant.
posted by pattern juggler at 2:40 PM on August 27 [6 favorites]

Violet Blue: I believe you are looking for the current thread about the Harris campaign. This thread is about site policy regarding whether certain content is "on-topic" or "off-topic" in that and similar threads; that's why it's on the Gray rather than the Blue. But the campaign itself is the topic of the thread over there, not the thread here.
posted by adrienneleigh at 2:45 PM on August 27 [5 favorites]

But it's also perfectly reasonable to argue that the impact of a Trump win on both the American public and peoples around the world will have at least as negative an impact

in fact a bunch of good-faith actors made some version of this point already. plenty of vocal supporters of palestinian liberation agree with it, in fact. plenty of people who have in this thread kindly explained that they do support same vigorously IRL, even if they don't choose to yell about it on metafilter, have also made this sort of point here. (i apologise to such people if they think my comments were directed at them; probably they weren't. i in fact agree that a trump win would be disastrous and will vote accordingly, fwiw.)

they, and this particular point, really do not need or benefit from your help, though. like if you actually care about advancing this particular argument in this particular crowd, my advice is just to stay far away, because it does opposition to trump no favours at all to have someone with your attitudes and methods on its side.
posted by busted_crayons at 2:47 PM on August 27 [4 favorites]

"I don't want to be unpleasant to you, "

In fact, you have quoted me fairly accurately throughout, including in the link, so thank you for that. I did, however, provide a cite for Havana Syndrome, which came up by the by in the thread, and the post cited the massive volume of disinformation making it extremely likely that we all have come in contact with disinformation, so although you may disagree with my points, to pretend they are somehow scary or unsubstantiated is false.
posted by Violet Blue at 2:58 PM on August 27

I'm glad to see you still around, Violet Blue
posted by Press Butt.on to Check at 3:10 PM on August 27 [3 favorites]

I believe i am in fact the only American citizen in any of these threads who has said that I am not voting for Harris unless she takes certain actions; as noted above, i have not at any time that i know of exhorted anyone else to do the same thing, or suggested that they are terrible people for voting, or whatever bullshit people have decided i actually mean today.

I am not "promoting a position", i am stating my position.
posted by adrienneleigh at 3:27 PM on August 27 [6 favorites]

I would encourage people who feel morally stung, or who feel like other people perceive they care more, to sit with those feelings and rather than defensively arguing about them, to interrogate themselves and examine why they bother them so much, and consider if there is more they could be doing. Is there more that could be done within the party? within social circles? within other spaces that you have access to? Because I think when you're doing the work, someone else's perception of where you're at just won't bother you other than galvanizing you to do the best you possibly can, and these arguments just won't exist or be as heated.

I am mostly bothered by these accusations when they are being said to me by people who are at demonstrably less risk than I am, some of whom have in fact talked about their more privileged positions and why it compels them to speak more on Gaza. It is totally fine that it compels them to speak more on Gaza. It is not fine to tell people who say "your strategy is putting me and my loved ones at significant risk, that you do not personally face, and I don't think it's going to pay off" that they don't care about the genocide and are just trying to shut them up.

And I'm not even asking people to stop explaining why they think their strategy would work. I just want them to have some basic empathy for those of us who are much more vulnerable when they do it. Like, fuck, there's a lot of talk about how upset people are by Gaza and how that rage and pain makes them act, and I'm just like, man, me too! But I do in fact have to do a bunch more calculus on top of that, while dealing with all the emotions that brings up, because my actual life is at stake. I am not saying that my life is worth more than a Palestinian life, but many of the people speaking in these threads are at significantly less risk than me and my family, so "it's worth the risk" really just means "you're the chip I'm willing to gamble."

And you know what? I may even be okay with being that chip, because, like. It's a fucking genocide. But yeah, it really goddamn fucking stings to not only not have anyone acknowledge I'm a chip as they pass me around, but then chide me for not caring enough. Jesus christ, if you at least pat me on the head like a dog before throwing me out to the wolves and I'll probably even go quietly--I sure have before. But if you're asking us to sacrifice ourselves in a way you don't have to, you could at least have some basic compassion and try to listen and ask questions instead of going, "Sounds like you just want us to shut up about genocide."

I realize this is not the position many Mefites are coming at this from, and clearly there are people who are arguing in bad faith. Busted_crayons already said that assuming good faith isn't going to happen because of those people, so maybe people like me are the price for that. Which leaves the conversation to be a bunch of arguments largely between people who are not at the most risk regardless of what happens, but that's like, par for the course for liberal and leftist spaces so idk, shame on me for expecting any better I guess.
posted by brook horse at 3:36 PM on August 27 [29 favorites]

A Trump presidency would be a catastrophe. For some of us more than others, and prioritizing beating Trump makes sense. I am scared of what a Trump win would mean for a lot of people close to me, who are dependent on government support to get life saving treatment due to disability. And I am scared for what it means for my family, hanging on the edge of poverty right now. But those are much less direct threats than being murdered by police or other fascists.

There are also people facing a genocide right now, and I feel like we have an obligation to try to do what we can to help. And right now, the power to do anything about this is in the hands of Biden and Harris. I don't think this is a binary, where we can either have movement on stopping genocide or electoral victory. But I can't be sure.

I know there are Democrats who think trans people should be dropped because they aren't appealing enough to voters. Or those who suggest we should stop standing for prisoner's rights, or "identity politics", or defunding the police. I see the calls to say nothing about the genocide the same way. And that is as understandable responses to a terrifying situation. But I can't align myself to any of them. And I know as a childless, white cis man I have much less to lose. I know this is a kind of purity of intention that cost me very little.

I have seen Black and Trans people and Jews who stand to suffer a whole lot more than I do under Trump take risks on behalf of Palestinians, and I respect the hell out of them for it. But that is a level of exceptional courage I don't think we can expect from most people.

I am not really building to anything. I don't have a conclusion that ties this all up. I just want to acknowledge what you have said, and acknowledge my inability to respond to it in any other way than by acknowledging it.

I am sorry the world is like it is right now.
posted by pattern juggler at 4:01 PM on August 27 [13 favorites]

I really am sorry brook horse, and I think this would have gone a lot better if we'd all been able to have this conversation with the ability to link and mention specific people because everyone has had to wonder if the person someone is talking about is them and that sucks. I haven't been talking about you, for what it's worth and I am sorry that my extremely strident comments put you in the position of quite reasonably feeling thrown under the bus. I don't actually think it's an either-or, and I don't think you're trying to shut people up.

the people running interference for genocide using a standard playbook are the ones doing that.

just because I'm not assuming good faith doesn't mean I'm not seeing it where it's in evidence, which I think it is in the vast majority of posts, including yours and warriorqueen's and latkes' and a bunch of others from people who probably now think I disagree with them more than I do (my fault and a bit the mods').

the reason why I can't just assume good faith (until actually seeing what people have to say --- maybe part of my mistake was being unclear on what I mean by assume --- I meant like "until it's clear where someone is coming from") is now I hope more clear after A User's recent performance. I hope everyone sees the vast difference between everything you've said (which I personally have found valuable) and that kind of nonsense.
posted by busted_crayons at 4:04 PM on August 27 [10 favorites]

brook horse: Believe it or not, i have a ton of respect for you. The only statements i can think of that i have objected to by you are the ones along the lines that since i personally live in Canada these days, i have no skin in the game. It's true that i am personally at vastly less risk from US fascism than you are! It's also true, however, that nearly all of the people i love most in the world (including my aging parents) live in the US, most of them are at risk along at least one axis of marginalization, and most of them live in red states that are steadily getting redder.

I don't believe i have ever said anything to indicate that i believe anything about you other than that you're doing your best to make imperfect choices in an imperfect world, even if i disagree with some of those choices; i would prefer it if the fact that i talk about Palestine a lot were not taken as evidence that i secretly don't give a shit about the people i love.
posted by adrienneleigh at 4:12 PM on August 27 [4 favorites]

Also: cosigning what busted_crayons said.
posted by adrienneleigh at 4:13 PM on August 27

I think this would have gone a lot better if we'd all been able to have this conversation with the ability to link and mention specific people

Can I just express again how absurd this is?
posted by ftrtts at 4:25 PM on August 27 [7 favorites]

me: At first I was appalled by the Hamas attack in October, but then

bq: Perhaps you could clarify this. Are you no longer appalled?

*squints* What? No. I am also appalled. I can be disappointed in everyone (and generally am, most of the time).

Just because Israel is mistreating Palestinians doesn't suddenly make shooting up a music festival OK. Is that what you think, or were you honestly trying to ask me if that's what I think?
posted by wenestvedt at 5:39 PM on August 27 [12 favorites]

Oh I was honestly asking. I have seen the take that Oct 7 was an act of justified resistance.
posted by bq at 6:34 PM on August 27 [1 favorite]

I appreciate the people who decided to fight the ban on linking outside comments by pedantically and literally recreating the issue in this thread. Really saves a lot of time to have it all laid out, bravo
posted by Jarcat at 7:44 PM on August 27 [2 favorites]

Regarding corb's historical hypothetical/analogy, I've been following Nathan Tankus for his economics takes but it turns out he's a committed anti-Zionist and this year I've been following his shares about his family's resistance history including the Bundists and this tweet I saw seems apropos to add to the analogy: Occupied Warsaw's Bundist leader Leon Feiner called on Jews in the rest of the world to go on hunger strike to encourage Allied action to save the remaining living Jews & even called for killing Germans abroad & threatening to kill more if the Holocaust were not stopped (on reread I should clarify he's summing up a text)

And something might be in the air perhaps because I also just saw BM, an Israeli I follow with this tweet (quoting partially, it's part of his comment about the left in his country):
Anyway, I told him to fuck off for threatening to doxx me and blocked him. I was just about to post a screenshot of his despicable threatening comment and out him for the shitbag bully that he is, when he wrote that it wasn't meant as a threat, so I told him to delete his comment, as it was, in my view at least, a call to doxx me (following his comment, some of his "leftist" followers came to the thread as well.)
He did delete it, and commented "now I have my answer, you'd beg".

And that's the so-called Zionist Left for you. A bunch of privileged hypocrite wolves in sheep's clothing who are, when push comes to shove, the same type of stinking bullies like all Zionists.

The fact is that yes, I want to keep doing what I do, in my only homeland, and not be persecuted and jailed for it by the Judeo-Nazis running this sinking ship. The only way I can do that is anonymously.

I'm always (like, always. 24/7) prepared for the knock on the door to come, but I can still try my best to avoid it and there's zero dishonor in that.
There is dishonor, however, in living comfortably your privileged bourgeois Zionist life, in a state committing genocide in your name, pretending you care about Palestinians, while ridiculing the people who actually care enough to do something.

Sharing because you know, even as the means are getting effectively constrained at least there's still possibility to protest. I'm only lucky my country's position for years now enables me to say something on this specific matter without being tracked or arrested, as that's actually the actual environment should you even want to dissent. I can't even vote in any meaningful lever of the American govt, I only can take it. In the meantime, I can do fundraisers back home, and thank God I can for this one because this is an "allowed" subject to have an opinion about. People here at home can make the simple sin of working for an "opposition" party what more an international aid organization, and there'd be a file with their name on it at the Special Branch.

Yeah, "just posting". Just talking. What does it do eh. Do what you need to do to feel safe and secure. I'm just doing what I can too. I don't have the space to think about if that's "mean" or makes anyone feels bad. I'm right now having a pretty decent day, I only wish more people can have the same.
posted by cendawanita at 7:46 PM on August 27 [7 favorites]

Can I just express again how absurd this is?

You may disagree, but I don’t see why it’s absurd.
posted by knobknosher at 8:03 PM on August 27

Anyway, once again, someone who should have been banned already gets to jump in and fuck up an actual conversation. There’s such a massive difference between people having difficult conversations in good faith and people popping in to make things about themselves. It’s too bad we don’t have moderators who could help keep that kind of thing from happening.
posted by knobknosher at 8:06 PM on August 27 [11 favorites]

including the Bundists and this tweet I saw seems apropos to add to the analogy:

No, not really, in fact just no. Corbs "analogy" encompasses a hypothetical 1940 election campaign presumably Roosevelt would not be running if you go to the Wikipedia page on Wendell Wilkie, he was one of the contenders to replace Roosevelt, he was a Democrat till 1939. second of all the information that you linked is relevant and true but it was not revealed until Jan Karskis mission in 1942. which by this time the United States had already created its own concentration camps for Japanese American citizens.

the bad analogy with good intent just creates more work for others when it doesn't fit a lot of the facts. in this case of poor reading of the historical events leading up to the second world war specifically America's entry into it and knowledge of a concrete chronology for the persecution of Jews.

"Now some may be wondering about those four million Jews [sic] in Poland. I haven’t seen anything in the press about what will happen to them, but the DNB [Deutsches Nachrichtenbüro — German News Office] agency mentions the matter for the first time in a report tonight. It says: We promise the Germans that never again will Polish Jews come to Germany. The solution to the Jewish problem in Poland will contribute to ordered relations between Germans and Poles."

-William Shirer, 1939.
posted by clavdivs at 11:32 PM on August 27 [6 favorites]

That's fair - it's not a section of history I'm particularly strong about (I'm only slightly better when it comes to the Pacific side). I am responding to the idea of what can people do when they do know, but it is an interesting point you raised with the Japanese-American internment too - it's reminding me that groups' identity can get downranked to enable ostracisation and marginalisation even within the "core" especially if the political or protocol (ie process) side of things can be excused with no legal pushback.
posted by cendawanita at 11:44 PM on August 27 [3 favorites]

Corbs "analogy" encompasses a hypothetical 1940 election campaign presumably Roosevelt would not be running if you go to the Wikipedia page on Wendell Wilkie, he was one of the contenders to replace Roosevelt, he was a Democrat till 1939

Wilkie was a Democrat before he was a Republican, yes, who crossed parties because he thought he could do better on the other side. So was Trump. That doesn't invalidate the analogy - if anything, it strengthens it. This wasn't a hypothetical election campaign - I simply took the exact circumstances of the 1940 Democratic nominating process and convention.

In terms of "what did the American people know and when did they know it?" The fact that the Germans were murdering Jews in concentration camps was being reported in international media at the very least by Jews by 1940. The fact that mainstream media within the United States was not picking it up does not and should not mean an excuse for people's ignorance then, any more than the fact that Al-Jazeera is reporting on the genocide far more accurately than ABC should be an excuse for ignorance today.
posted by corb at 12:00 AM on August 28 [6 favorites]

there's an old regional expression once used in the United States, part of the United States and I even heard it as a kid. it was when a child asked recognition for deeds done hence an ample reward, in response someone might say "what do you want, a Wilkie button?"
I keep my wilkie button next to my metafilter cabal pin in a hermetically sealed glass coffer.
Harvey Firestone once told Wilkie, when he threatened to double his salary, "you'll never amount to anything because you're a Democrat". I remember going to the Henry Ford museum and viewing the exhibit, all the camping equipment that Edison, Ford and Firestone used. all.by.myself. The first quad was right around the corner, all to myself. V.i.p feild trip. They had these old 1930s art deco dorms where we watched Laurel and Hardy ( who used model T') film strips on the floor of a basketball court.
I leave it to the readers imagination for their own symbology for that trio of industrialists. Ford actually changed things a bit before and after he was going to sell his name, twice, to dude from Flint but that would be a sale of name only and of course the bankers in New York punish them for that. $8 million in gold was alota money, 1909.

and Edison, well... had a friend who once said that Michigan secretly controlled 32% of everything, like some Dutch cargo Lord, swedish gun dealer or a Norwegian industrialist, oh, Finnish... got to stop myself there. there's an unofficial rule, you do not make finnish jokes in upper Michigan, I'm in lower Michigan but I'm going to apply that rule, seriously, that's a thing.
to be fair the tweet was a good addition to the information about pleas to the allies that sort of fell on deaf ears and to add to that:" a public decoration by the Allies that preventing the extermination of the Jews was one of their War aims...a public appeal to the German people to put pressure on their regime to stop the slaughter, a declaration that, if genocide continued, the German people should be considered collectively responsible, and the initiation of allied reprisals to bombing important cultural sites and execution of Germans loyal to Hitler in allied hands" These were conveyed,despite his reservations, in London but they got nowhere in fact suspicious British encounter intelligence officials detained Karski for several days, until they were satisfied that his overall story checked out" (a report from Leon)
- Breitman, Offical Secrets, PG.150

trick to American all politics is that it's local.

you have to ask yourself, how many politicians retire to Washington DC.
posted by clavdivs at 12:44 AM on August 28

really, corb. it's 1940, is the United States going to highlight a Polish/ Soviet detention camp, run by Germans, the American people knew about the camps, if they chose too, and risk going to war. there are warnings in popular American and British, European presses about Hitler before he was even Chancellor. when precisely did Oświęcim become Auschwitz.
posted by clavdivs at 12:57 AM on August 28

I am not "promoting a position", i am stating my position.

Stating a position is fine.

However, it's possible that stating it multiple times in every thread might be giving others the impression that one is no longer "stating" but is instead "promoting".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:26 AM on August 28 [14 favorites]

However, it's possible that stating it multiple times in every thread might be giving others the impression that one is no longer "stating" but is instead "promoting".

I don't think this is a reasonable complaint. Even if someone were promoting not voting for Harris, is that against the rules?

Also, if repetition counts as promotion, there are a lot of ideas being promoted far more vigorously.
posted by pattern juggler at 6:35 AM on August 28 [6 favorites]

is that against the rules?

In the sense that waving your hands inches from your siblings face but not actually touching them isn't "against the rules" so they can't complain to mom about you. Still pretty damn annoying tho.
posted by Diskeater at 6:43 AM on August 28 [10 favorites]

I don't think this is a reasonable complaint.

This is one of my biggest complaints about MetaFilter and the main reason I would love a block feature, FWIW. It came up in - I would argue inspired - the doomer thread.
posted by warriorqueen at 6:43 AM on August 28 [10 favorites]

In the sense that waving your hands inches from your siblings face but not actually touching them isn't "against the rules" so they can't complain to mom about you. Still pretty damn annoying tho.

If you want to call other users annoying, that is your call, but what I was asking is whether there is some prohibition against saying people shouldn't vote for Harris. Not repeating yourself.

I don't think anyone is promoting that position, but there is no reason to defend oneself from the accusation of doing so at a rules level.

This is one of my biggest complaints about MetaFilter and the main reason I would love a block feature, FWIW. It came up in - I would argue inspired - the doomer thread.

Again, the complaint I was referencing was that someone might be promoting not supporting Harris. I don't think that is something we need a rule against.
posted by pattern juggler at 6:59 AM on August 28 [3 favorites]

it's possible that stating it multiple times in every thread might be giving others the impression that one is no longer "stating" but is instead "promoting"

I don't believe that this is a reasonable characterization of my behavior in any of the Harris threads, but if you have examples i'd be glad to see them.

I grant that there was one argument including several of my comments that got deleted—i can't remember if it was in the current thread or the previous thread—but in the current thread, for instance, i have made 21 comments out of 1064, zero of which contain any phrase even resembling "i am not voting for Harris". Those 21 comments cover several issues related to the campaign and the DNC, including: sex work, DNC speaker Chris Swanson, burning the American flag, and, yes, Palestine.

In that same thread, you have made 18 comments.

I am again left unable to draw any conclusion other than that for some MeFites, the optimal amount of participation by me, in any politics thread, is zero. And quite frankly, fuck that.
posted by adrienneleigh at 7:16 AM on August 28 [8 favorites]

I am increasingly of the opinion a mute feature would be in site interest and my interest.
posted by mazola at 7:22 AM on August 28 [5 favorites]

(Note that it's 7am where i am and my counts were done very quickly; the margin of error here is probably 1-2 comments in either direction, which i do not think materially changes my point.)
posted by adrienneleigh at 7:22 AM on August 28 [1 favorite]

I have not read this entire thread, but have been occasionally giving it a look, and my sense is that a lot of bad vibes could be prevented and more thoughtful listening/communicating could be encouraged if users were limited to say, two posts an hour in any given thread. If I had to guess, at least 85% of bad faith/cruel/rude/etc. comments are one sentence or less and/or occur when a thread is quickly moving and users are competing to get in a burn/dig against another user the fastest. When I first started lurking on this site (roughly 2013) I was struck by how relatively calm and slower paced it was compared to social media. I think that's still true (i.e. it's relatively better, but you know, low bar) but overall users are increasingly reactive and there is probably no way of preventing that without some tweaks to the platform.
posted by coffeecat at 7:22 AM on August 28 [6 favorites]

I don’t believe there are any rules specifically prohibiting ~~dogs from playing basketball~~ people from saying “don’t vote for Harris”, no.
posted by Diskeater at 7:24 AM on August 28

I don’t believe there are any rules specifically prohibiting ~~dogs from playing basketball~~ people from saying “don’t vote for Harris”, no.

It wouldn't matter if there were such a rule, because nobody is actually saying that.
posted by adrienneleigh at 7:24 AM on August 28 [4 favorites]

Also, the idea of a mute/block feature seems pretty depressing to me - and admission that if this place was ever a community of sorts, it has ceased to be one.
posted by coffeecat at 7:25 AM on August 28 [4 favorites]

One can mute individuals and not ideas.

I think the depressing thing is that a very very small amount of users seem to be of the opinion they cannot (and should not!) adjust their behaviour.

I know I have adjusted according to community rules. But a sense of entitlement and self-righteousness really are qualities of trolls. Again, I am not applying that description to a position or idea, but to people who ought to be able to adjust their behaviour.

A mute function keeps everyone in the community and dodges pointless frustration. I know I’d apply it exceedingly minimally, but people can choose their own adventures.
posted by mazola at 7:38 AM on August 28 [17 favorites]

HECTOR - to rhetorically bully or intimidate.

No matter how virtuous the point being made, HECTORING one's allies is rude and divisive (Judean People's Front, anyone?).

Make your point. Consign the rest of us to the lowest circle of hell for not enthusiastically capitulating to your unappreciated brilliance if you want. Defend your point clearly and succinctly if challenged. Then move on.

Go do your relentlessness schtick on X, Truth Social, Breitbart's comment section, somewhere it will make a real difference (and watch them straight up ban you because unlike MeFites they will feel zero guilt for not tolerating you.)

Here, you're just being a dick. You are being intolerable, and you're choking the life out of this site. Maybe that's who you are and what you want. In that case, don't mind me, carry on, as I know you will anyway.

After scaling the Great Wall of this discussion page - it's visible from the ISS - I cannot imagine why anyone not already deathly allergic to the phrases 'agree to disagree', 'let's find a compromise' and 'I'll be brief' would ever want to sign up here. (Yes I know I'm allergic to being brief.)

Some of you seem committed to arguing until the heat death of the universe. Feel free to continue, and last MeFite still here and arguing (with who? everyone else finally buttoned), don't forget to turn out the lights when MeFi goes offline for good (which of course is totally not your fault).

"You mixed your metaphors, there's no room and as such, no light yada yada..." @#$% off, pedant.

BTW, How many MeFites were hall monitors in grade school? 'Cos it feels like a lot here sometimes.

That's my point for this discussion, and I'm moving on.
posted by zaixfeep at 8:01 AM on August 28 [22 favorites]

You know, I do wonder how much people are being perceived as posting more because other people are posting less.

20 posts in a thousand post mega thread is small potatoes. I’m sure I’ve got 50 under my belt in some of the 2016 megathreads. But so did multiple other users. The site was robust and so was the discussion and sense of community. We constantly ran out of favorites.

But I know I am posting less, and less and less users are posting recognizably. So when one poster posts coherently on a subject, it can seem like more than it is.
posted by corb at 8:14 AM on August 28 [6 favorites]

I'd like to augment my comment and make it sound less accusatory and 'blame-y'.

We might have a dwindling user base but it's large enough for a normal distribution. For whatever reason, user(s) might find themselves at opposite ends of that distribution. There is going to be someone that just rubs you the wrong way for whatever reason. They're not a bad person. They might be right about many things too. Maybe everything. Maybe it's 100% on me that I don't want to hear them. But so what? Why do I have to? If it takes the fight out and lets everyone express themselves as they want isn't that a win?

In short, my reason for implementing a mute:

MetaFilter: I don't want to fight tonight.
posted by mazola at 8:23 AM on August 28 [6 favorites]

I don't believe that this is a reasonable characterization of my behavior in any of the Harris threads, but if you have examples i'd be glad to see them.

Please note that I did not say "it's possible that stating it multiple times in every thread might be giving others the impression that YOU are no longer 'stating'". My exact words were: "it's possible that stating it multiple times in every thread might be giving others the impression that one is no longer "stating" but is instead "promoting".

I never said I was speaking about you specifically.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:28 AM on August 28 [1 favorite]

Man, if you're to the point where you're defending a behavior as "not against the rules" you really need to take a step back. Not because you're wrong, or even because the behavior is necessarily wrong. It's just that for a lot of people, getting to the point where they're considering "the rules" as a guide instead of "how this effects other people" is usually a pretty good sign that they've lost sight of the fact that the other people involved are in fact, people.

If you want to know where this big gap keeps coming from between what you're intending to communicate and what people are reading, I think it's because you're not considering that communication involves more than just you and your experience. You've got to start from the fact that the other people bring in their own passions/angers/experiences/assumptions and you've got to meet them halfway. Like look, all that stuff earlier about how you have to assume bad faith because people have come in with bad faith before? EVERYONE has had that happen to them, you don't think that folks excited about a woman running for president didn't learn to be very suspicious of "I'd vote for her, but..." type of comments in 2016? You don't think that transgender, or Native American, or disabled, or whatever marginalized folks haven't been told time and time again "I support your cause, but..." and so aren't sensitized to that? You don't think every single person reading this doesn't have the family member who won't shut up about _____, and while ______ is important we just want to be able to eat some cake at our niece's birthday party in peace?

We're ALL passionate about something important, and we all have to be careful about making sure our passion doesn't lead us to hurt others by not considering how our behavior plays out for other people. That's just part of being an o.k. human who understands that relationships involve the needs and perspectives of multiple people.

And yeah, sometimes you think about all this, realize that you're going to make someones day worse, and do the thing anyway, because life's messy like that. But you've got to go into that situation knowing and acknowledging what you're doing, and "against the rules: Y/N" might be part of that decision process, but it can't be the only step in that flow chart.

I mean, look at this whole conversation, as near as I can tell we reached a compromise like 2 days ago, that separate threads would work for most people. That should have been it, but we're all here still arguing because... well probably a number of reasons. For my money the big one is that at some point this stopped being about solving a problem (conflicting ideas of what conversation was being had) for a specific group of people (folks on Metafilter) and started being about how each of us is right to behave how we do. Which, doesn't really matter as much we'd like it to when it comes to how other people are effected.
posted by Gygesringtone at 8:34 AM on August 28 [19 favorites]

Man, if you're to the point where you're defending a behavior as "not against the rules" you really need to take a step back.

I'm not defending any behavior.

I am pointing out that trying to determine whether someone is just stating a position or "promoting" it is pointless.

No matter how virtuous the point being made, HECTORING one's allies is rude and divisive

I don't think anyone has been hectored. I think some people get very upset seeing opinions they don't like, and vastly overestimate the frequency of posts they disagree with relative to the actual amount of comments in a thread.
posted by pattern juggler at 8:40 AM on August 28 [5 favorites]

I'm wondering when we can get an answer to whether we can have a Kamala vibes thread? Doesn't seem like it would take too long to get mod concensus about it, feels low stakes to me.
posted by tiny frying pan at 8:42 AM on August 28 [4 favorites]

Comparing one's comments to overall thread length is one metric.

Comparing one's comments to average number of user comments in that thread is another.

Both are quantitative and neither is a good qualitative assessment. How a message is received seems up to the receiver, not the sender. The sender might not intend to 'hector' and yet some people might feel that way. You might have a theory on why that is.

In short communication is complex. A tool that helps individuals navigate the complexity seems like a good thing.
posted by mazola at 8:49 AM on August 28 [1 favorite]

How a message is received seems up to the receiver, not the sender. The sender might not intend to 'hector' and yet some people might feel that way. You might have a theory on why that is.

In a public forum, we are all senders and receivers. I think we have an obligation to try to communicate well. That means being considerate of your audience. It also means responding to what people are doing and saying and not what we feel like they are doing and saying.

Muting on MetaFilter is very easy if it is something someone wants. I think including it by default is a bad idea. If I didn't want to hear from other people here, I wouldn't come here.
posted by pattern juggler at 9:00 AM on August 28 [2 favorites]

It's possible to want to hear from other people and yet not want to hear from an individual.
posted by mazola at 9:01 AM on August 28 [4 favorites]

I can't imagine being that bothered by any single poster. But the technology exists if someone is. I think including it by default militates against the point of having a community with varying points of view.
posted by pattern juggler at 9:06 AM on August 28 [2 favorites]

The sender might not intend to 'hector' and yet some people might feel that way. You might have a theory on why that is.

if we can agree that anti-Palestinian racism and dehumanisation is real enough and how the rest of us is culpable for it to the point a genocide is a plausible risk (or we may be past it) with no actual action taken after ten months, and this position is the one that is sympathetic to an oppressed group, versus the opposing position that lends itself to normalizing the behaviour of genociding state, then why is the feeling of being hectored in this case more precious than when feminists or women point out why certain sexist behaviours should not be continued or why certain positions aren't helpful? Why was it not hectoring when women after women posters point out it's not fair or cute to keep saying how men are just bad at tracking family birthdays? It's just birthdays, it's not like it's a war.

Isn't this just tone policing? My observation about decorum still stands.
posted by cendawanita at 9:06 AM on August 28 [12 favorites]

Should we take lessons from the men of metafilter, or the white western people of metafilter, who's learned to just take in the comments without wanting to reassure everyone how they're not the bad guys?
posted by cendawanita at 9:08 AM on August 28 [5 favorites]

I'm sorry I came across that discussion about a topic was hectoring. That was not my intent. I believe it's possible (and necessary) to have tough/uncomfortable conversations.
posted by mazola at 9:12 AM on August 28 [2 favorites]

Sorry, last bit, don't want to abuse edit: in that very thread (the Kamala at the DNC one) it's come to attention that trans people are nearly as forgotten as the Palestinians. There is a poster who clearly will not be soothed by other comments, and they're well within their rights to not be soothed. And yet, somehow, we can take it, as a community. Because the party platform, and the Harris speech, and the convention itself, were genuinely poor when it came to that issue.

Ah! Is it because unlike Palestinian-Americans, they are more deserving of being American?
posted by cendawanita at 9:14 AM on August 28 [7 favorites]

FWIW, and to use my single comment of the day, folks may be interested in reviewing the MeTa thread from June 2019 on “Decommissioning the US Politics Megathreads”.

The determination then, when we had more moderator bandwidth, was that the free-wheeling political threads were so unwieldy, and the disputes engendered so much moderation burden, that they would have to be eliminated entirely.

It’s worth considering that, when people argue that a politics thread is an open invitation to get your inner activist on, or use the megathread as a dumping ground for their anxieties and frustrations in such a way that it alienates or judges others, that experiment has already been run on MetaFilter and we know where it ends.

If a group of vegans decided to brigade a megathread demanding that Harris explicitly acknowledge that meat is murder and that she should invite an animal rights activist to the DNC to talk about how climate change means diet change, and that any MeFite who disagreed as a matter of tactics was “pro-murder” or “anti-climate”, folks would understandably get irritable.

Or, let’s not limit it to left wing issues: if a group of Evangelical Christian MeFites repeatedly posted passive-aggressively framed comments demanded that Walz explain his views on soteriology, and posted links in-thread that took digs at Walz on his Hell-bound faith positions, and suggested that other MeFites who thought that probably should be out of bounds were maybe “anti-morality”, then you know there would be a backlash.

Moderators don’t have the bandwidth to deal with the constant flagging that occurs when we get into arguments over religion or politics, no matter how “relevant” some of those topics may be. This isn’t just an artifact of the special place that is MeFi. If this were a neighborhood pub, and every night a few folks decided to have another shouty dust-up about politics, pissing off everyone else in the pub who had to listen to it, they might be asked to dial it back, in increasingly less polite terms. Maybe the TV would be turned off entirely, or maybe the worst offenders would be sent to the street to sober up.

For the most part, and because this site has really shifted leftward over the past two decades, many topics are no longer debated with the heat they once were. (We used to have some real blow-up flame wars about veganism, for example.) Now the arguments on MeFi tend to be between Liberals and Leftists, with “Tactical Leftists” and “True Leftists” being sometimes distinct and adversarial subdivisions.

I use the term “adversarial” advisedly. We have some participants in this very thread who have fairly recently said that they want to see “Liberal framing” expunged from the site. We have also seen comments in other threads in which the adversarial relationship has been explicitly stated, (paraphrasing) “Liberals are not our allies, we are not in coalition with them”, etc. (We also have at least one member of this thread who, until recently, was espousing all manner of right-wing views, but now is proudly wearing the mantle of left-wing activist, so it’s not all really as easy to parse as one might think.)

I mention this not to open old wounds, but to suggest that the debate we are having in this present thread is not really one of policy, as much as some might prefer that framing. It’s really, in my view, just another inflammation of the much older, much more intractable problem of How Can Liberals/Progressives and The “True Left” Find a Way to Get Along?

This problem, which has not been solved, will continue to color spaces like MeFi. And as long as it does, it will require intense moderation (if not a mute button) to manage. In the absence of the resources to devote to intense moderation, but still benefiting from decisiveness among those moderators we do have, we get solutions like that June 2019 “Decommissioning” thread.

In the absence of both intense moderation resources and moderator decisiveness, it may be the whole site that is looking at an eventual decommissioning (or at least a long, slow senescence).
posted by darkstar at 9:16 AM on August 28 [13 favorites]

Should we take lessons from the men of metafilter, or the white western people of metafilter

Personally I think rendering people down into broad demographics like this is really going to come across as dismissive and rude regardless of the correctness of your take. A little intersectionality goes a long way in communication.
posted by Jarcat at 9:17 AM on August 28 [3 favorites]

In short, my reason for implementing a mute:

MetaFilter: I don't want to fight tonight.

I also don't want to fight tonight. That's why I'd prefer implementing changes to the the site that encourage slower more thoughtful discussion over allowing people to exist in a bubble of agreement. Think of a classroom - if students could "mute" or "block" other students they didn't like, having a class discussion would be impossible. An ineffective teacher will result in a classroom of students yelling at each other - an effective teacher will establish and enforce ground rules that (mostly) prevent that from happening. (And for what it's worth, I believe mazola when you say you would use the feature sparingly as you have shown yourself willing to engage with ideas you disagree with in a thoughtful manner - I don't believe all users would do that though.)

Personally, I wish the mods spent less time deleting comments and more time actually mediating between users and/or putting users on a 1-24hr timeout (depending on severity) from threads where they had communicated abusively, troll-ishly, or even just making repeated bad faith readings of what other users had written and unnecessarily escalate conflict in a thread.

Isn't this just tone policing?

Sometimes, but also sometimes people seem to forget every user is a human.
posted by coffeecat at 9:22 AM on August 28 [4 favorites]

cendawanita is one of the most intersectionally-aware posters here; pretty sure you missed the point of that comment to effectively "not all men" in response?
posted by sagc at 9:24 AM on August 28 [7 favorites]

A little intersectionality goes a long way in communication.

What is the intersection that I'm missing, in particular, that removes the point I'm making about people criticizing sexism (a concern for men to address but of course not just men) or racism in the west (a concern for white people to overcome but not just white people) not being tone policed by the majoritarian group they are criticizing? And in this case, on behalf of Palestinians, onto people raised on a media and political diet of being sympathetic to the Israeli position?

There's no point in asking for the various identity axes to be picked apart if the intention is then to ask for a discount on being culpable.
posted by cendawanita at 9:27 AM on August 28 [11 favorites]

Replacing "being strenuously against Palestinian genocide" with "being strongly against eating meat" or "being an evangelical Christian" is not a great rhetorical tactic. To say nothing of your dragging an unnamed commenter for having... Improved their attitudes? For moving to the left for what sound like genuine, personal reasons? Not very kind or relevant!

(Also, saying that liberals are different from leftists should be entirely uncontroversial; there do seem to be posters here who basically regard leftists as misguided liberals who just need to be exhorted into becoming more centrist.)
posted by sagc at 9:29 AM on August 28 [8 favorites]

I think the US Politics megathreads should either be sectioned off to a separate tab on the site, or done away with entirely. It was clear in 2016 and it's clear now that these threads make the site less friendly because often they bleed into other posts NOT related to the election. (FIAMO all you want but they often stay.)

Metafilter no longer has the kind of moderation to make those threads tameable. Instead, much like this MeTa, it just shows much we like to be mean to each other.

LBR, this site is dying. I'd rather see less endless rehashing of grudges, slights, with the occasional flicker of insight.
posted by Kitteh at 9:30 AM on August 28 [7 favorites]

sagc, adding a comment to respond (as I didn't post yesterday, I'll consider this within the spirit of my "one-comment-a-day" self-limitation)...

The concerns about Palestine/Israel are not perfectly equivalent to the concerns raised by Vegans or by Evangelical Christians. It is an analogy, and like all analogies, it is flawed. I include them as analogous because, for True Believers in Veganism or Evangelical Christianity, those issues are just as present, relevant, and existentially dire as the Israel/Palestine crisis is. The point of the analogy stands: political and religious arguments, although they are deeply held and of existential nature, lead to a lot of unmoderatable grar and disruption of the community.

(Honestly, that this MeTa thread, attempting to resolve these problems, is approaching 500 comments without any real semblance of progress being made, seems to further illustrate the point.)

Regarding my comment about the MeFite who has significantly changed their views, that was intended not to be a criticism. It was simply to illustrate that is not easy to parse how past comments can be applied to MeFites' present views, as we have examples of MeFites who have changed their views significantly over a short time.

Cheers.
posted by darkstar at 9:53 AM on August 28 [2 favorites]

Cendawanita, I should elaborate that my above post came across as more critical and less understandable than I intended. I apologize. My point was more 'we are all humans lets not forget that'. I see that it probably was condescending to make that point to you of all people; I respect you a lot and I apologize.

Sagc, thanks for being so consistent. I'd say never change, but you've got that on lock, bless your heart.
posted by Jarcat at 9:57 AM on August 28 [2 favorites]

I see muting as a basic functionality for communities these days. It gives the reader a bit more control over their space without having to avoid whole topics or areas of the site. It’s also quiet and low conflict. Right now we kind of have no tools except here, which often results in big arguments.

For me, in other environments, I don’t mute people who disagree with me. I do mute people who for example pop into every thread to say Fuck Trudeau. The difference is, a person explaining why they are voting conservative vs. Someone who just shits on every post. Here on MetaFilter, it is my experience that there are a couple of people I would mute for at least a while. It’s not about their views, it’s about their style.

I’m trying to think how to say this… there are people who have stated they “need to vent” or their primary reason for being here is to vent. I don’t really want to feel like I’m their venting receptacle. Like, we all vent from time to time. But if you’re here every day to do that, for me it’s not great. I’m sandwiched in caregiving roles and I’m not really down for being the vent recipient.

But that’s me. I would love to control my experience that way.

I don’t want to argue with them; you do you.

I don’t have issues with substantive regular remarks and I don’t like rate limits for that reason - if you’re an expert on X, I’ll read your comments all day.

I also think reading things on MF is not a moral requirement. I think because it’s hard to show in data, we miss that it’s a possibility that these kinds of tools would raise engagement and that people are learning less without them. Climate change threads are my go to example. I am super interested in them. But for a time there were people posting in every one that were all going to die or whatever and I had to disengage. So I was less informed.
posted by warriorqueen at 9:58 AM on August 28 [26 favorites]

Jarcat, no worries, and no harm done. Glad that we can clear the air on that point. And yes of course, we must recognize each other's humanity - how that plays out isn't always clear though, though you're right to remind us that we're still just people.
posted by cendawanita at 10:04 AM on August 28 [3 favorites]

a-plus job recognizing my humanity and not making a shitty drive-by remark, Jarcat; sorry my calling out your misreading of cendawanitas comment was the last straw for your apparent dislike of me.

I guess some users really do need a mute option to stop them being shitty to others for... defending other users from unwarranted criticism?
posted by sagc at 10:09 AM on August 28 [4 favorites]

I think its a defensive mechanism for western white people to stratify demographics too. It contributes to the 'us vs them' and strengthens othering. I also don't want to discount the reality that most of the people doing the bad shit in the world that we are talking about are white cis men; I think the resolution to any conflict (MeTa arguments included) requires accepting a baseline of equality and humanity.
posted by Jarcat at 10:14 AM on August 28 [1 favorite]

Sagc I assure you if muting was feature we'd never have had this conversation. Have a great day.
posted by Jarcat at 10:17 AM on August 28

Those 21 comments cover several issues related to the campaign and the DNC, including: sex work, DNC speaker Chris Swanson, burning the American flag, and, yes, Palestine.

let's take one out for a spin.

Chris Swanson, the Republican sheriff who spoke at the DNC (and whom i mentioned above for other terrible conduct) also banned children from visiting their incarcerated parents in order to make more money from monopoly prison phone service.
posted by adrienneleigh at 4:59 PM on

Swanson is a Democrat. The lawsuit does exist to be fair, the system existed before he was sheriff but it is his responsibility to deal with it. as far as the other weird links you linked to from the new republic did you read the complete article?

I want my 7.5 minutes back for research labor on exaggerating claims.
how much more information should be combed through to see if it's accurate.
posted by clavdivs at 10:17 AM on August 28 [10 favorites]

That's fair - it's not a section of history I'm particularly strong about (I'm only slightly better when it comes to the Pacific side).

Your take on American history is good. You know I respect your work and it's real work in my opinion. I do have a pet peeve with a long pull quotes but I usually let that go because it contains information within various links and your interlinking it with commentary, some of it I find extremely spot on, terse, fore it's worth, I think it's emotionally honest. I think a problem within a mindset and I'll keep it to my own is that one has a tendency to be defensive about historical facts in this case I think a bad response to your information would be, "since I know very little history about your country, please don't try to etc etc."
it's these kind of negating comments that put a wedge into discussion, even with people with opposing ideas, from across the world, I mean if we could come to a consensus on three of twenty points, or events or what have you, I think that is the thing to build upon. but there's something else,the things that people do disagree about could be the very events and circumstances that mean the most, in other words we might like The color Purple but disagree on the historical role of ASEAN and geopolitical matters.
reading more into the historical aspects of Franklin and eleanor, Wilkie etc in that era, I found more problematic data that negates corbs analogy. I think it was actually well written and to various degree quite accurate when it came to the political parties and quite right about Wilkie carrying water for corporations, his opposition to the TVA was a divisive factor within business community in the United States.

I'm a citizen of the United States, it's my nation but my country is Michigan it's where I live. It's my home. I can be very defensive about it for all its faults.
I sincerely hope that you believe the same of your country whatever name you choose to call home.
posted by clavdivs at 10:49 AM on August 28 [4 favorites]

My bad, yes, Swanson is a democrat. That was genuine misremembering on my part. Eveeything else i said has links to back it up, however. And Operation Underground Railroad is a genuinely loathsome organization.
posted by adrienneleigh at 11:04 AM on August 28 [3 favorites]

The mechanics of a “Kamala vibes thread” (i.e. a good-news only thread) seem immensely burdensome to mods, who would have to parse every comment for snark/sarcasm/passive aggression. It would require a very high level of tone policing, no?
posted by Vatnesine at 11:20 AM on August 28 [2 favorites]

Hopefully not. The problem now is people are perceiving the same thread in two incompatible manners. I think MetaFilter's community is cooperative enough to stick to a reasonable set of expectations once those expectations are clearly delineated.
posted by pattern juggler at 11:24 AM on August 28 [4 favorites]

reading more into the historical aspects of Franklin and eleanor, Wilkie etc in that era, I found more problematic data that negates corbs analogy. I think it was actually well written and to various degree quite accurate when it came to the political parties and quite right about Wilkie carrying water for corporations, his opposition to the TVA was a divisive factor within business community in the United States.

Man I am so interested in digging deep on this but I think you and I may literally be the only people interested in the minutiae of the 1940 political landscape so I invite you to memail me.
posted by corb at 11:26 AM on August 28 [3 favorites]

No, mods wouldn't be parsing anything but flags for negative/off topic things in a happy vibes thread and hopefully it wouldn't be attacked by people who don't like it's existence since they don't have to enter that thread at all if they don't want. I almost made one but don't know if it belongs on the blue or here and the mods haven't said if they will allow it or nuke it from orbit so 🤷🏻
posted by tiny frying pan at 11:40 AM on August 28 [3 favorites]

If someone wants to make one I have plenty of happy to share.
posted by tiny frying pan at 11:40 AM on August 28 [2 favorites]

In principle I think rate-limiting on a short-term basis would be better than a user-muting option. It’s not really about the total ratio of one user’s comments to all comments in a given thread — that ratio belies what happens when a single user, or a few users, spend(s) two or three hours monopolizing a discussion that’s already gone on for some time, effectively driving out anyone who doesn’t want to be a captive audience.

There was a time when MeFi moderation had the person-power and the willingness to enforce its existing policies about threadsitting, but it is increasingly clear that such time is past. I’ve watched countless threads turn into The (This Person or That Person) Show. In one particularly egregious instance, the user started by commenting that they wouldn’t participate in the thread because they knew it would just make them angry; then they kept coming back to vent their anger and announce their departure, over and over.

Maybe such a user sees dissenting voices going silent and feels vindicated. But attrition is not applause. Eventually, the users who can’t make space for anyone else also lose their audience, ultimately drowning themselves out anyway.

The people asking for a mute option are making a Hail Mary pass here. They’ve accepted that certain users refuse to share focus, and the only way for the rest of us to have a productive discussion is to improve the signal/noise ratio. We can’t count on a skeleton crew of mods to do that for us anymore, so the last resort is to empower us to do it ourselves.

If muting is too much power for individual users to wield, we need some sort of rate-limiting on a short-term basis — X comments an hour, not a day. If it’s automated and universal, no one can complain they’re being unfairly targeted based on their views.
posted by armeowda at 11:49 AM on August 28 [11 favorites]

Ok not trying to be deadline oriented about it but if there's no mod response by tomorrow I will risk a vibes post deletion. Probably will just post it to MetaTalk so it can be approved or not approved, no big whup.
posted by tiny frying pan at 12:06 PM on August 28 [4 favorites]

The users of this site are not students, this is not a classroom, and that’s a very patronizing perspective.
posted by bq at 1:05 PM on August 28 [1 favorite]

Sorry, but which perspective are you referring to?
posted by pattern juggler at 1:12 PM on August 28 [3 favorites]

new vibes thread, for anyone interested
posted by tiny frying pan at 1:20 PM on August 28 [6 favorites]

I note that the Vibes thread got promoted out of the queue after what, an hour? Whereas this one took two days. lmao.
posted by adrienneleigh at 1:50 PM on August 28 [4 favorites]

As noted way up thread rate limits invite sock puppets and other likely negative, noisy, unforseen consequences, not to mention they require a ton of tuning that's often very domain (post) specific.

Mute is a well established approach to allowing users to customize a little of their experience in a way that can easily be tested (mute X, see if I'm confused as direly predicted - oh I am? - unmute, read... yeah not worth it going back on mute/oh they do have valid input here I'll leave that mute off).

This isn't a failure of community. This is a special case of the outcast's Dilemma of Acceptance. Banning a user is an extreme act and plenty of behaviors fall well short of a site wide ban but well inside the bounds of things a given user shouldn't have to accept just because the community prioritizes acceptance. Nobody has the absolute right to be heard by everyone and it's not a moral failing to allow each of us to make that choice. The worst abuse case with mute is you don't know there are things you might have actually wanted to see or would benefit from, and that's very easy to correct.

The idea of ideologically managed parallel threads is cumbersome to the point of being ungovernable. Also, vastly less functional to an uninvested user. (Wait why are there two? Oh posted in the wrong one and now everyone is piling on. This place is so high maintenance.)

I guess if I shift my mobile browsing to Firefox I can use an extension to do this, and I have considered it, but with that kind of solution tends to also come unpredictable bugs and surprising breakages which nobody is paying me to debug.

So, yes, mute feature. Let the apocalypse of epistemic closure consume us all! Or... don't make me read things that make the otherwise largely positive experience with informed peers in my community feel like unpaid labor to navigate.
posted by Lenie Clarke at 5:59 PM on August 28 [13 favorites]

I see this has already been made a meta but why not just post this stuff in fanfare? Like "The Harris Campaign: 2024 (Ongoing)" or "Harris Campaign: Week 14" or whatever, and then be like "this is where fans of Kamala Harris can share ongoing news and perspective about the 2024 campaign". Say it's explicitly for the fans and then if someone is clearly NOT a fan, or clearly shitting in the thread doing Your Favorite Democrat Sucks, or just obviously coming in to argue about politics then it's grounds for it to get flagged and deleted - the same way someone getting inappropriately fighty and argumentative about a bunch of people's favorite TV show should get flagged and deleted. It's for the fans! Let them fan out.

To me this seems more aligned with the ask for a space that is positive-only rather than trying to do "Harris vs. Trump Debate Night: Actual Politics Thread" in parallel with "Harris vs. Trump Debate Night: POSITIVE THREAD FOR GOOD VIBES ONLY" which just seems incredibly silly to me. But I am likely in the fighty-asshole-probably-muted camp so this is just one fighty asshole's suggestion in the suggestion box.
posted by windbox at 6:14 PM on August 28 [7 favorites]

I've seen so much hate in FanFare I'm not sure it would work as intended but none of it is really high stakes so sure! Always better to have more post attempts. Sorry I post I made is "incredibly silly" though. Sheesh.
posted by tiny frying pan at 6:42 PM on August 28 [1 favorite]

(Like, FanFare is NOT positive only, please don't get your heart hurt there, people WILL shit on your favorite show)
posted by tiny frying pan at 7:09 PM on August 28 [3 favorites]

This is just to pick up as a reply to cladivs:
I think a problem within a mindset and I'll keep it to my own is that one has a tendency to be defensive about historical facts in this case I think a bad response to your information would be, "since I know very little history about your country, please don't try to etc etc."
it's these kind of negating comments that put a wedge into discussion, even with people with opposing ideas, from across the world
Absolutely agree - it's definitely a behaviour that (from my pov) becomes even more distasteful when it's in conversation with a countryperson of an extremely dominant country that made it their business both to be dominant but ALSO to keep their people ignorant while being cosseted on their exceptionalism. But I suppose that's a slightly different conversation.

When it comes to Palestine it's incredibly challenging for me personally to see the consequences of that upbringing in service of normalizing the actions of a rogue state committing genocide and becomes another mental load for me to parse if the person is being an apologist, a denialist, or just a standard American who quite reasonably had expected to be well-informed by their media so here comes all these takes crashing into their life. But then I think about uninterrogated sexist, racist, homophobic, antisemitic attitudes and we certainly don't make a point to coddle those. Certainly not for reasons of propriety or uh, volume. It's not a unique struggle, anyone's born on the backfoot of being a social minority in any way goes through it.

It's my home. I can be very defensive about it for all its faults.
I sincerely hope that you believe the same of your country whatever name you choose to call home.

That's true also - but I think other country upbringings tends to be a bit more, hmmm, experienced in having the sensation that the national identity is a mirage than aspirational - even if we buy into it, because who doesn't like feeling together.
posted by cendawanita at 8:05 PM on August 28 [11 favorites]

Mods, please don't remove either comment. Don't delete the vibes thread either. I like having history.
posted by cendawanita at 11:25 PM on August 28 [12 favorites]

I’m not personally interested in a quarantined good-vibes-only politics thread, and I’m not interested in being hectored by Main Character activists, either.

It would be great to be able to have some reasonably balanced threads where we can discuss politics and share news, wherein people will exercise some basic self-regulation, and when they can’t, we can expect some helpful moderation. I suspect most folks that have asked for the “vibes” thread may feel similarly, but see it as the only option available, however imperfect.

A Mute function would be most appreciated. The third party extensions don’t work on iOS, sadly.
posted by darkstar at 12:13 AM on August 29 [16 favorites]

yup, as cendawanita said removing either of those comments would be undesirable. dusty potato is right and Two unicycles and some duct tape also makes a perfectly reasonable point. sometimes the world is just impossible. there's no squaring this particular circle and not much to be done (ETA about this discrepancy in feelings among mefites) but that doesn't make dusty potato wrong.
posted by busted_crayons at 12:24 AM on August 29 [4 favorites]

God DAMMIT another excellent conversationalist gone.
posted by darkstar at 12:55 AM on August 29 [7 favorites]

I certainly didn't think a vibes thread, on a website, that no one has to read, is hateful, and I'm sorry if my creation of it causes anyone pain. I'll leave you to this thread.
posted by tiny frying pan at 4:34 AM on August 29 [13 favorites]

I'm taken aback by how reactionary it is that, in response to people criticizing political figures for their material support of a genocide, community members here felt the need to start a special thread specifically for only praising those political figures. If you had someone in your life, say a co-worker, who was Palestinian, or had relatives in Gaza, how would you explain this impulse to them? I won't beat around the bush, it's hate and it's so ugly.

I think this ends my interaction with this site - if we are at the point where having a modicum of joy or consideration about any other issue in the known universe other than I/P 24/7 can be called hate on this site then it's not a functioning community anymore. So I guess congratulations dusty potato, as an apparently hateful and ugly person, this site is yours.
posted by openhearted at 4:49 AM on August 29 [31 favorites]

A few years ago during contentious threads, I got really mad at the mods because I felt they weren't doing anything to stem the tide of some of my favorite people leaving the site. Over time my views on who is at fault for these exoduses has changed, and this thread represents a sort of culmination of that. People have explained what would make the place livable -- whether that be a mute filter (that can carry over to the multiple platforms one might read metafilter on) or threaded comments, or setting FPP expectations. All of those features have been thoroughly pushed back on at various times in this conversation; there has been no hint from the mods on their thoughts on what would make the site more capable of handling these topics. Even when the thread's atmosphere begins to lighten up, immediately a comment comes along to make people feel bad again.

I don't get mad at these threads anymore. However, their existence is a choice, and the choice is for attrition. I'm not one of the people who feels the need to come into every contentious metatalk and say, "Woe unto this dying site," but...c'mon. This is the problem with metafilter, we're watching it happen right now. At its financial height it was not willing to put tools into place to make discussions of tough subjects more bearable, and now it is poor. Once it had so many people that the loss of a couple would not even be noticeable. Now we must take seriously the idea that we are surrounded by topics that we simply cannot talk about in a way that doesn't end up alienating even more people.

The world is not going to get any easier to live in. No matter who wins the election, we are going to still have political disasters, wars, discrimination, and horrifying inhumanity. Stuff is going to keep coming up. And it's going to be hard to talk about. What I wish, is that this site really wanted to be the place to talk about those things, wanted to be a place you could talk about those things, without tearing itself apart. We do fine on the good stuff--art, food, music, nostalgia, all the things that make life livable for an increasingly aging population--we can discuss those in ways that nobody feels the need to flee. But my one wish for this place is that we had the tools to discuss the bad stuff, too, in a way that respected people's differences in opinion--and different tolerances for hearing opinions--and that did not make people leave.
posted by mittens at 5:31 AM on August 29 [22 favorites]

Kneeling in the century weathered chip-sand, barely breathing for fear of futzing the faint few remaining whorls of memory, she touches a finger to the exposed contacts of the ancient port. Delicate research protocols feather the electromagnetic fields and extrapolate a data ghost.

"This is it", she subvocalises.
"We've found the last innocent forum poster."

posted by lucidium at 5:53 AM on August 29

I hope ppl take breaks and come back.
posted by warriorqueen at 6:07 AM on August 29 [14 favorites]

I hope no one leaves the site in response to some of the comments in this thread. There plenty of ways to hang out in Metafilter that don’t involve politics.

That said, the silence of the mods is highlighting how difficult it is to manage Metafilter when I the site does not have a single owner or top moderator who can respond and make decisions relatively quickly.

Metafilter has always been relatively heavily moderated. That had a cost but we all saw the benefits. People have left over the years because they have disagreed with moderation decisions.

Now we are seeing maybe the opposite. Some users have said their issue is so important that they don’t have to care about other community members. Multiple people are vocalizing that the attitude has become so toxic that they are leaving. And the response seems to be, “well my issue is important. If you don’t want it rained on you incessantly, that’s your problem.”

I’m a climate change person. I believe if Donald Trump gets elected no one will remember Gaza in a hundred years, along with much of Bangladesh, pacific islands, and coastal cities around the world. I don’t fly. I think it is immoral to fly and travel for leisure.

But I also understand the value of community in these difficult times, so I don’t call out “pro extinction site members” in every discussion that involves travel.

Politics is different. I dont like to argue that certain topics should be off limits. But it is clear that we cannot handle I/P discussions. People get too angry, they feel compelled to talk too much, and it looks like there is a risk of it killing the site.

I hope the moss or the boards step in and take action soon. Something needs to be done. Maybe all politics should be banned and we should go back to sharing weird Geocities links. That might be less offensive than taking one side or the other in this dispute. But whatever they do, I hope the moss and/or board(s) do something soon.

Just acknowledging they are reading this discussion and realize this needs to be addressed would be helpful.
posted by Winnie the Proust at 6:50 AM on August 29 [17 favorites]

Argh. “Moss” should be “mods”. Probably a bunch of other typos. Apologies for that.
posted by Winnie the Proust at 7:04 AM on August 29 [1 favorite]

I love art-metafilter, food-metafilter, music-metafilter, nostalgia-metafilter, things-that-make-life-livable-metafilter, and nerd-metafilter, along with sociopolitical-metafilter, commiserating/celebrating-current-events-metafilter, hoping/campaigning-for-change-metafilter, and even looking-for-a-shred-of-agreement-to-feel-like-one-isn't-crazy-metafilter. If it existed, I'd read nuanced-analysis-of-the-cognitive-dissonance-between-necessary-kamala-campaigning-and-necessary-pressuring-of-dems-on-palestine-metafilter in a heartbeat.

My dearest hope for this thread is that at the end of it we don't return to "doesn't-do-israel-palestine-well"-metafilter and its de facto ban of the topic, simply because a small number of posters have tacit permission to turn any thread on the topic into an argument and/or propaganda billboard.

Just acknowledging they are reading this discussion and realize this needs to be addressed would be helpful.
posted by polytope subirb enby-of-piano-dice at 7:06 AM on August 29 [10 favorites]

The amount of references to the genocide in Gaza seems entirely reasonable to me. It has come up when it is relevant to the conversation. A lot of space has been spent on the back and forth about whether it should be brought up, and that is tedious, but that isn't activism or hectoring, it is plain old arguing on the internet.

There is an option built in to make US politics posts invisible. There is a FPP about the genocide itself, but nobody has to click on it. This isn't being brought up in the awesome threads about Australian wildlife that chariot pulled by cassowaries puts together. It isn't coming up in the posts about cool little web toys. It is being brought up in the posts about the genocide and about those who are making it possible.

This issue is only affecting people who want to talk about US politics on MetaFilter. I get not wanting to see the back and forth, but the solution is never "don't argue against bringing up the genocide" or "don't argue about whether Harris should be pressured". It is always "don't bring up the genocide". And the same voices that argue loudest that it shouldn't be brought up are also the loudest when any other criticism of Harris or Biden is brought up. It seems to me this is much more about controlling the content of the conversation and the framing of the candidates than it is about civility or "hectoring" or the rest.

We had two people close their accounts because of one post criticizing the idea of the "good vibes" threads. A thing which almost everyone else seemed to think was a good idea and which the mods seem to have approved of. Taking a single, essentially anonymous post on a thread that critizes a position rather than a person so seriously makes no sense to me. If people want to move on, that is their call and I offer no criticism, but I do not understand the reaction or feel any blame for it galls on the person offering the criticism.

I also don't understand turning to politics as a source of joy. It is clear a lot of people really want to, but I cannot imagine wanting to jave that sort of relationship with a political campaign. To be frank, I find a lot of manifestations of it offensive. A lot of it seems misogynistic. Harris isn't being treated like a serious politician with a record and positions. Being "brat" is a kind of trivialization and infantilization a male candidate would not receive. It is also pretty gross to see people praising a candidate to the moon when they are actively involved in a genocide and have a history of hurting vulnerable people subject to the US legal system. I am not going to try to shut down people doing those things. It is clear my opinion is an outlier. But I am not going to fail to mention Gaza or the Uncommitted movement where they are relevant to the conversation. And I don't think the people doing so, and arguing for the appropriateness of doing so, have any need to repent of their position.
posted by pattern juggler at 7:27 AM on August 29 [18 favorites]

So this morning I was getting screamed at by a person who was accosting me and I was trying to politely ignore her. She finally screamed, "STUPID!" at me and I just said, "Yup, I'm stupid" and kept on ignoring her until someone else stood up for me and told her to back off.

If nothing can be done about the situation, which it cannot, at the bare minimum, you can pull your energy out of the situation and not engage. You're not going to change anyone's mind and arguing does no good. You don't have to quit everything here, but there's no point in going round and round over the same thing and all you're going to do is get madder.

Also, frankly maybe there should be a politics ban on Metafilter if only the fun aspects of it can be done well by human beings in discussion. But taking that kind of action doesn't sound like it's going to happen, so in the end, all you can moderate is yourself.
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:41 AM on August 29 [3 favorites]

Removed several several and forth comments between two people. Diskeater, please stop and take a break from the thread. Pattern juggler, please don't respond and instead flag or alert the mods. Everyone, please move on from this derail and refrain from making things personal.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 8:00 AM on August 29 [4 favorites]

FIAMO.
posted by Winnie the Proust at 8:13 AM on August 29

"If nothing can be done about the situation, which it cannot..."

Why not? Why is the Gray lightly moderated? Why don't the mods break up pile-ons? Why are people allowed to bully here when the whole purpose of the site is "chat," and the whole purpose of bullying is to get someone to shut up?

The Gray routinely loses users to buttonings, yet management never addresses it, even while the site shrinks precipitously. If the most contentious conversations happen in the Gray, then it makes sense to put a mod full-time on long conversations here.
posted by Violet Blue at 8:25 AM on August 29

So it's misogynistic to use joy or brat in reference to the Harris campaign? Someone should tell the Harris campaign
posted by chris24 at 8:42 AM on August 29 [3 favorites]

There are plenty of people who are uncomfortable with using her first name only, or the whole coconut thing, and even the proper emphasis on syllables in Kamala: because they feel it is disrespectful along gender, racial, and cultural axes. It's a conversation that's happened in the threads already, and they should be allowed to express themselves.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 8:52 AM on August 29 [3 favorites]

A few more comments deleted. As per the guidelines: If someone criticizes your ideas or statements, or points out harmful impacts, it's not a personal attack. Remember that you can do harm without intending to. Sometimes it is necessary to take a step back and let the conversation move on.
posted by loup (staff) at 8:57 AM on August 29 [1 favorite]

I'd be happy to discuss the ways Harris' gender impacts how she is portrayee by both campaigns and the US media, in an appropriate thread, but I don't wanna derail this thread any more.
posted by pattern juggler at 9:01 AM on August 29 [3 favorites]

MetaTalk used to be a place where users could interact with the mods and clarify, and sometimes hash out, what the moderation policy was.

Now it's just a place to fight. I don't know why it still exists if mods no longer meaningfully interact with it.
posted by rikschell at 9:04 AM on August 29 [13 favorites]

I agree there are issues with how gender stereotypes are used to discuss Kamala Harris, and think that the choice to lean into gender stereotypes because of perceived electability reasons does not negate their harm, but don’t think it’s relevant to this MeTa as they are not being deleted from threads.

Things that it would be helpful to hear, and that I would be interested to hear mod feedback on are:

1. Would mods be open to simply deleting personal attacks re Gaza rather than policy discussions?

2. While I do hear the frustration that some people respond to genocide criticism of a favored candidate by not wanting to hear it: does the vibes thread solve that issue for people and how do mods feel about it?
posted by corb at 9:06 AM on August 29 [7 favorites]

The perception of joy or enthusiasm as inherently trivializing and unserious explains so fucking much about this site.

I am trying to assume good faith, but that is a terrible misreading of what I what I wrote, and you cut the next line where I explained what I thought was misogynistic and trivializing. It isn't joy. It is saying "Kamala is brat", or calling her a "fun aunt" which I don't think would be applied to a male candidate for president of the United States.

That is entirely a separate from the fact that I find wanting an emotional relationship with a political campaign very hard to understand. I find it rather off putting to see a sort of fandom style parasociality with candidates. That isn't a dig at people who want that, but it makes no sense to me.
posted by pattern juggler at 10:34 AM on August 29 [4 favorites]

calling her a "fun aunt" which I don't think would be applied to a male candidate

Here I am humbly asking for Tim Walz to be my dad.
posted by phunniemee at 10:37 AM on August 29 [18 favorites]

I also don't understand turning to politics as a source of joy. It is clear a lot of people really want to, but I cannot imagine wanting to jave that sort of relationship with a political campaign. To be frank, I find a lot of manifestations of it offensive. A lot of it seems misogynistic. Harris isn't being treated like a serious politician with a record and positions. Being "brat" is a kind of trivialization and infantilization a male candidate would not receive.

One of the most powerful political statements I've ever heard was from an Iranian activist. A woman. The interviewer asked her how she could remain optimistic in light of everything that was happening in her country. She responded, "Optimism is a political act".

Harris is bringing joy as a political act. The centrality of joy in the campaign originated with the candidate. It was not imposed on her by misogynistic outsiders. It is central to what has allowed her to turn the race around in just a few short weeks. It is a specific antidote to the hatred and divisiveness of the Trump campaign and the doom and exhaustion of the Biden campaign.

It was not misogynistic for Emma Goldman to say, "If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution." It was the opposite of misogyny. It was an embrace of life and human values over systems that only value capital and productivity.

But more importantly, on Metafilter if a user doesn't understand or can't imagine something that a large number of other Mefites clearly believe, how should they respond? I've hung out in Metafilter all these years because of the atmosphere of mutual respect. Sure, there has been learning along the way, and there is still learning to do. But that's gotta start with mutual respect, and not disdaining things you don't relate to.
posted by Winnie the Proust at 10:38 AM on August 29 [42 favorites]

I agree that we need to respect other people's approaches, even whwn we don't understand them. That is why I made an effort to distinguish what I personally do not get or want (which is seeking emotional engagement with electoral politics), and what I think is actually problematic (making heroes out of politicians with complex legacies and treating women in politics less seriously than men of the same level of achievement.)

I don't think optimism or dancing require us to fall in love with (our ideas of) candidates. But I also think that you can have that emotional connection without treating women in politics unseriously.
posted by pattern juggler at 10:48 AM on August 29 [8 favorites]

Sometimes you've been on a long, miserable trip, and you're headed home, and the thought of home fills you with joy, even though when you get home it's just gonna be you getting back to the same problems you had before, the same laundry and dishes you had to do before your trip, all the unresolved everything of life. But it's home, it's normal, and after a long period of trauma, home and normal can be sources of joy. We've seen that vilified in various threads as "liberals want to get back to brunch," but that really misses how bruised we feel after the events of the past...ah...however many years. I think we deserve some brunch.
posted by mittens at 10:50 AM on August 29 [17 favorites]

Re:brunch, I think we all understand people feel that way. But for a lot of people, in the US and outside, our experience of that same time period was not civil or comfortable. It was brutal and awful, and a desire to get back to those good old days lands very differently, as anolutely emotionally and psychologically understandable as it is for others to. feel that way.
posted by pattern juggler at 10:57 AM on August 29 [4 favorites]

Please let people lie to themselves that things might ever improve. In America, in the world, in our individual lives. This fiction is literally the only reason to continue doing anything on this increasingly heating planet full of selfish idiots (the human condition). Why do anything at all ever if you can't believe things will get better, someday, for someone.

Some of y'all are so goddamned exhausting.
posted by phunniemee at 11:02 AM on August 29 [33 favorites]

Things can get better. In the long term I'd say I think it is very likely they will. The problem is that things were already really bad for a lot of people, and I am not psyched to cheer for us getting back to the point where the middle class can comfortably ignore that.

That's why the initial "I should be at brunch" thing pissed so many people off.
posted by pattern juggler at 11:09 AM on August 29 [6 favorites]

Interim Supreme Beings of Metafilter, I propose the following:
* Ban the known most-divisive topics from the Blue. Optionally move them to...
* New frontpage: "hottopics.metafilter.com" (I prefer 'argumentclinic' but I'm a Python fan)
* Color scheme: Black and white, naturally
* Gimmick: Free to read, USD5 or equiv per month to post. If you want to stir up controversy and bash hornet nests, you can pay like Fark for better moderation. The site is being rewritten, here's an existing capability ($5 to sign up) to extend.

Implement this... or don't, I don't care. How many folks have buttoned during this discussion? 5? 10? At this rate, if you wait long enough it won't matter anyway.
posted by zaixfeep at 11:10 AM on August 29 [6 favorites]

We understand the value of community in these difficult times
MeFi's new slogan. Stencil it like Banksy on every MeFi front page and high-five Winnie while you're at it.
posted by zaixfeep at 11:15 AM on August 29 [2 favorites]

hottopics.metafilter.com

Image macros will finally be allowed but only if in the format of that rude bunny character.
posted by phunniemee at 11:17 AM on August 29 [3 favorites]

Please let people lie to themselves that things might ever improve.

We need to stop asking for this. Doomerism is the hill some users will die on, and pushback just makes them post more doom more places. They won’t compromise with the rest of the community, and the mods refuse to negotiate or enforce any kind of compromise and will only delete comments that are personal attacks. Our choices have narrowed to (1) submit to the doom, (2) Mute-a-Filter on Firefox, (3) button.
posted by rikschell at 11:19 AM on August 29 [11 favorites]

I find it amusing that the "doomers" are the ones saying things can get better and the "anti-doomers" are saying "let us lie to ourselves."

I think there is a tendency to conflate actual despair with people pointing out that the easy solutions won't het us where we need to be. Saying we can't vote our way out of fascism isn't despair. Insisting it is all we can do is.
posted by pattern juggler at 11:23 AM on August 29 [6 favorites]

Doomerism is the hill some users will die on

No, no, doomerism insists we will ALL die on the hill. Probably of mpox.
posted by mittens at 11:26 AM on August 29 [5 favorites]

After a long long road I feel like this meta is actually at the heart of the matter. We have some mefites who believe they should be allowed to be joyful even while they are aware of suffering elsewhere, and we have some mefites who say things like

"What i want is for everyone to never be allowed to forget, not even for an instant, that we are being made accomplices in the eradication of a people."

"I also don't understand turning to politics as a source of joy."

I do not believe the majority of joy seeking mefites are unaware of the suffering in the world, or are asking that it never be mentioned. They seem to be asking that it not be brought up quite so frequently, and that it not be brought up in ways intended to make them feel guilty for being joyful.

I can't figure out how to finish this comment. In the spirit of being a single-threaded community, I wish we would all try empathize more, have more understanding, and post with more compassion and less heat.
posted by jermsplan at 11:29 AM on August 29 [21 favorites]

The problem is that things were already really bad for a lot of people, and I am not psyched to cheer for us getting back to the point where the middle class can comfortably ignore that.

Then can you at least let us cheer for maybe, just maybe not going off the cliff into fucking Dollar Store Gilead in November for five goddamned minutes? Does that fit with your approved commentary on this site? Is that permissible by you?
posted by Mr. Bad Example at 11:31 AM on August 29 [16 favorites]

Then can you at least let us cheer for maybe, just maybe not going off the cliff into fucking Dollar Store Gilead in November for five goddamned minutes?

I don't understand who is preventing you from doing this? Other people saying other things doesn't force you to care.
posted by adrienneleigh at 11:33 AM on August 29 [8 favorites]

Winnie the Proust, thank you for an excellent comment, -- I can think of no way to improve it.

I'm disheartened that after that eloquent comment, the hot take in response is to essentially double-down on the implication that this is somehow "treating women in politics unseriously." Which is a perfect example of the kind of bad-faith, unmoderatable misrepresentations that that led to this MeTa thread to begin with.

Somehow, over 500 comments, in which there has been a LOT of threadsitting, have brought us no closer to a meeting of the minds on how and why this is destructive behavior. It really feels like we've reverted 35 years to the old BBS debates at this point, and I don't really have the energy for it anymore.

On a more personal level, I'm reminded of two movie quotes that seem apt to describe my rather conflicted feelings of the moment.

The first is from Danny DeVito's speech in "Other People's Money", when his unsavory-but-insightful character says:

...You know the surest way to go broke? Keep getting an increasing share of a shrinking market. Down the tubes. Slow but sure.

You know, at one time there must've been dozens of companies makin' buggy whips. And I'll bet the last company around was the one that made the best goddamn buggy whip you ever saw.

It really feels to me like MeFi is getting better and better at satisfying a smaller and smaller cadre of members. Over time, this forum, if it lasts, may become the best place on the internet for joyless activists to vent and argue and share the latest outrage, or whatever, while others will simply have moved on to more moderate, or at least more moderated, pastures.

Maybe that's even a desirable goal for some members, I don't know. Maybe even for some Mods, too. The departure of several members, in this thread alone, does not seem to have spurred a sense of urgency for intervention on this issue. Perhaps if all the people who find all of this objectionable just leave the site, then it will become a lot easier to moderate? *shrug*

Anyway, the second quote that occurs to me is at the end of the Temptation of Galadriel. Having resisted the terrible draw of the power of the Ring, as the tension of the scene abates like a breaking fever, she says "I pass the test...I will diminish, and go into the West and remain Galadriel."

I've come to realize that I'm far too emotionally invested in MeFi to be healthy. These MeTa threads, and the politics threads, are ultimately a less-than-productive investment of my mental bandwidth. I don't need another forum in which to debate comity, or policy, or argue logical fallacies, or whatever. My day job is inordinately demanding, and having the drama of MeFi live rent-free in my head is not sustainable.

I could continue to engage, to wield the -- admittedly trivial -- power of an open account to continue to comment and argue and carry on debates and vent frustrations with the site and commenters, suggest improvements ad nauseam, call out straw men, tilting at what I perceive are tendentious windmills, etc. But that would basically continue to drag me down into the mire of drama and grar, and continue to occupy my mind when I really should be focusing that mental energy elsewhere, etc.

At some point, the cost-benefit just seems so imbalanced...like, what is the actual point of pouring in the time and attention and effort when there seems to be no actual progress?

I've tried to avoid engaging, but I'm not really very good at that, evidently. So it seems like the best course of action is to simply reject the power -- again, acknowledging that it is of a trivial sort -- that comes with having an open account. If, by closing my MeFi account, I can "pass the test" and resist the temptation to engage, and in so doing remain a less stressed version of myself, then it's probably for the best to respectfully button.

So with that, I'll just say thank you, MeFi, for the past 20 years. I truly wish you all the best! :)
posted by darkstar at 11:34 AM on August 29 [34 favorites]

We have some mefites who believe they should be allowed to be joyful even while they are aware of suffering elsewhere,

Or, some people want to discuss people committing genocide without having to remember they are doing so.

No one is popping into the thread about weird books to mention gwnocide. Just the theead about the people contributing to it.

Then can you at least let us cheer for maybe, just maybe not going off the cliff into fucking Dollar Store Gilead in November for five goddamned minutes? Does that fit with your approved commentary on this site? Is that permissible by you?

I don't care if you do or not. I'm not the one suggesting the mods silence anyone.
posted by pattern juggler at 11:37 AM on August 29 [5 favorites]

Proposal: each user gets 10 comments in the gray per day for free. After that you get charged a nickel a comment. Fund the site and improve the atmosphere at the same time!
posted by Winnie the Proust at 11:44 AM on August 29 [1 favorite]

But what we can't tolerate ... is that the US is implicated in the genocide of Palestinians.

I am not sure that's actually the topic of this latter movement of the thread.
posted by mittens at 11:47 AM on August 29 [2 favorites]

We can tolerate everything including valid dissatisfaction from and about trans people, we can tolerate the mention that abolishing the death penalty is now gone from the platform, we can even somewhat barely tolerate reminders that the US border policy doesn't have any significant daylight between the two parties. But what we can't tolerate, without saying so because at least there's a sense it's morally gauche to admit that they're not just marginalized they're untermenschen, is that the US is implicated in the genocide of Palestinians.

I think those other things were comments that maybe got a few replies, while the Palestinian issue is an endless reel of fight after fight. A mention or a reminder is one thing, but the need to always make it about you and your issue--even if it's a valid and vital issue!--is the difference. It becomes impossible to talk about many things when one thing takes up all the air in the room.
posted by rikschell at 11:48 AM on August 29 [10 favorites]

Oh if I was unclear - this thread is getting as long as it is, yes, but the rest of my para is about the originating FPP thread
posted by cendawanita at 11:49 AM on August 29 [4 favorites]

endless reel of fight after fight

And there we have finally arrived, without prevarication, the Kurosawa's Rashomon of it all. People are clearly recalling and reacting to what's happened differently.
posted by cendawanita at 11:51 AM on August 29 [6 favorites]

I think those other things were comments that maybe got a few replies, while the Palestinian issue is an endless reel of fight after fight. A mention or a reminder is one thing, but the need to always make it about you and your issue--even if it's a valid and vital issue!--is the difference.

Fights tend to involve two parties at minimum.
posted by pattern juggler at 11:53 AM on August 29 [3 favorites]

It's never just five minutes though. If they get elected, the vibes will have to last until they're in office, because of fascism. Of course, after that the midterms are only two years away, so stop criticizing them, because of fascism. Then they're up for re-election, so better shut up until she's re-elected, because fascism.

Rinse, lather, repeat.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 11:59 AM on August 29 [8 favorites]

Proposal: each user gets 10 comments in the gray per day for free. After that you get charged a nickel a comment. Fund the site and improve the atmosphere at the same time!

Oh great! Now you want to bankrupt my family! ( ;) )
posted by pattern juggler at 12:01 PM on August 29 [5 favorites]

What if the Post Comment button triggered a function that would sometimes just randomly close the discussion to new comments. Just to acknowledge the meaningless of it all, and give the universe a chance to say, "you all are done now. move on." This feels like a discussion that would benefit from that sort of intervention.

and please read the note between the live preview box the "Post Comment" button before tapping the "Post Comment" button.
posted by Winnie the Proust at 12:02 PM on August 29

A few comments deleted and one user banned for the day. When several mods ask you to take a step back and let the conversation move on, please avoid escalating the issue by ignoring said requests.
posted by loup (staff) at 12:05 PM on August 29 [2 favorites]

I'm going to start flipping people off that drive past at my town's weekly Free Palestine demonstration/protest, on the assumption that those people driving by care more about vibes than genocide. I'll let you guys know how it goes !
posted by Jarcat at 12:05 PM on August 29 [10 favorites]

some users can have a little bit of ban, as a treat
posted by phunniemee at 12:10 PM on August 29 [21 favorites]

Phunniemee I regret any negative thoughts or vibes I may ever had about you, you're genuinely hilarious and I appreciate it, no sarcasm or snark.
posted by Jarcat at 12:12 PM on August 29 [4 favorites]

We have not been allowing I/P discussion in other threads is because this is a historically contentious issue that goes badly on MeFi but at the same time, such an important one that we will not stop I/P discussions... we will just try to contain them.

Also, light moderation exists in MetaTalk so that members can freely discuss their thoughts, concerns and differences. Obviously, this doesn’t always go well and generates friction, but we believe this allows members to make informed decisions about other MeFites. In the past, harsher moderation on MetaTalk has led to conversations being derailed around mod decisions taken within the same thread, even more frustration and several people buttoning.

This can’t be solved with moderation alone, we all need to give other users some grace, and sometimes, just let them be and go on with the conversation.

Now, as part of the “grace” we give each other, can we please not “Beetlejuice” anyone into any conversation, people have the right to get involved in conversations as much as they want and we need to respect that.

I hate sounding like a broken record but: As much as we can change policies and guidelines and make adjustments around these issues, we can't really we can't change the root cause of the issue; that is, the fact that people here hold conflicting views among themselves, and this often leads to mischaracterizations, and unnecessary attacks.
posted by loup (staff) at 12:27 PM on August 29 [4 favorites]

How many people have quit the site entirely over this issue, now? At least three I saw in the last 24 hours?

I'm not planning to because frankly, the only sites with enough chatter to keep me interested (while trying to stay off social networking) are here and Reddit and discussions are dying elsewhere, but if some people are just driving other people off, and it's happening more and more.... If you're at a party and one or more people are doing something unpleasant, you're going to get a lot of people leaving that party.
posted by jenfullmoon at 12:27 PM on August 29 [8 favorites]

How many people have quit the site entirely over this issue, now? At least three I saw in the last 24 hours?

Frankly, I'm starting to consider it as well.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:34 PM on August 29 [2 favorites]

Please don't leave.
posted by Winnie the Proust at 12:37 PM on August 29 [6 favorites]

that is, the fact that people here hold conflicting views among themselves, and this often leads to mischaracterizations, and unnecessary attacks.

Holding conflicting views does not automatically lead to mischaracterizations and unnecessary attacks. The lack of facilitated conversation and the history of simply deleting comments, rather than steering the conversation, has led to an expectation that things people agree with deserve to be disappeared from the site, rather than people developing skills around talking through disagreement.
posted by lapis at 12:48 PM on August 29 [7 favorites]

"can freely discuss their thoughts, concerns and differences."

This would be great if it were the main outcome. But at least two people have already complained of bullying, and several others have complained about the negative impact of a handful of people, many have brought up Mute-a-Filter, and, of course, several have simply quit. That doesn't sound like a free discussion to me, so much as one small group dominating another with destructive results.
posted by Violet Blue at 12:50 PM on August 29 [4 favorites]

The fact that someone has a stronger reaction to a conflict does not necessarily mean they are the more agrieved party.
posted by pattern juggler at 1:13 PM on August 29 [7 favorites]

From Feeling Good Doesn't Require the Democrats:

The left has gotten just as used to a Democratic party that swings right and spits in their face at every opportunity – just like the neolibs, they were convinced Kamala would choose Shapiro and fuck over the activist base – and so are quite susceptible to recuperation by the spectacle of representation.

A divide has quickly emerged between them and people who have not been sucked up in the emotion, activists and radicals who are incredulous at the enthusiasm, trying desperately to remind these Walz-pilled posters that Democrats are currently behind the genocide in Gaza, that Kamala is in fact already in power. Comrades from Minnesota have pointed out that Walz, who was a national guardsman himself, was the one who sent in the National Guard to put down the George Floyd Uprising in Minneapolis, and that Walz, despite getting to the governor's mansion on a campaign focused on climate and ecological justice, crushed an indigenous led water-protector movement to push forward the Line 3 Fracking Pipeline. The aforementioned enthusiastic supporters are responding with some variation of "yeah, we know, but stop killing our vibe".
posted by ftrtts at 1:15 PM on August 29 [4 favorites]

I heard if you close your account on MetaFilter, loup comes to your house and cuts your hands off and disables speech to text so you can never, ever come back. They also take all your pencils and sturdier long pastas so you can't type a reactivation request using an implement held between your teeth.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 1:31 PM on August 29 [2 favorites]

NOT MY BUCATINI
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 1:37 PM on August 29 [6 favorites]

These aren't stronger reactions. These are strong negative reactions.
A small selection from the thread.

[T]here really are only a handful of people creating the vast majority of the problem.
[T]he handful of problematic participants can't or won't fix it themselves
[L]et people get their bad feels out, before they wander into non-political threads and bring their doom and venom there.
I feel inside me, because you can't have a conversation about that, you're not talking to someone, you're pointing your doom at them.
Doomerism is the hill some users will die on, and pushback just makes them post more doom more places. They won’t compromise with the rest of the community, and the mods refuse to negotiate or enforce any kind of compromise
HECTOR - to rhetorically bully or intimidate. No matter how virtuous the point being made, HECTORING one's allies is rude and divisive.... Make your point. Consign the rest of us to the lowest circle of hell for not enthusiastically capitulating to your unappreciated brilliance if you want. Defend your point clearly and succinctly if challenged. Then move on…. Here, you're just being a dick. You are being intolerable, and you're choking the life out of this site.
And frankly, it's not even the topic that has me soured on these discussions itself, it's the increasing accusations from other users that they know better than me what is in the contents of my head, what my priorities are, and what my level of engagement is. If this was a debate about something like how to butter bread or something, and I faced the same kind of bullying, I'd still be this damn frustrated.
[W]hat gets me about the discussion of I/P policy in US election threads is the high horses of the folks with strong opinions. It all comes off as "if you disagree with me in the slightest, you're a bad person and I'm going to rub your nose in it"
The problem is that a fighty topic get posted, people then fight about it, usually a small group, who then want to endlessly fight about it, which creates negative feelings all around and often people shut down, either by quitting the thread or the site, and then only the people who really want to fight about the issue are left…. Nobody wants to live someplace where there's a never ending argument about the same topic, over and over.

posted by Violet Blue at 1:39 PM on August 29 [9 favorites]

These aren't stronger reactions. These are strong negative reactions.

Yes, I don't know what other reaction you would expect from conflict.
posted by pattern juggler at 2:05 PM on August 29 [2 favorites]

We have some mefites who believe they should be allowed to be joyful even while they are aware of suffering elsewhere,

Or, some people want to discuss people committing genocide without having to remember they are doing so.

The really big divide here that I see is in many ways is kind of the eternal Metafilter divide: that between liberals and leftists, who fundamentally are not operating on the same wavelength.

So you get people quoting Emma Goldman, when what they actually seem to be meaning is “if I can’t dance *at the strike-breaking boss’s party* then I don’t want to be part of your Revolution”. (There are leftist critiques of the extent to which Emma Goldman needed to hang out at the parties of the rich in order to get their donations to workers causes, but I think we can all agree she would not agree with dancing at the employer’s gala).

Leftists are full of joy. I don’t see anarchists and communists suggesting that you can’t have joy in the middle of doom. That’s what kissing on the barricades is all about. There’s just a difference between leftist joy, which is largely joy that happens as you fight, or what I can only describe as a form of compersion, the joy you take in others who fight beside you, and liberal joy, which appears *from the outside, and I realize it may seem different to others* to be more of a parasocial experience where you are joyful that others who are not in comradeship with you appear to be fighting on your behalf.

Like pattern juggler, I don’t think it’s a good idea to place control of your joy in the hands of a politician, whose mind you do not know and whose actions you cannot predetermine. But I understand it a little more, because I once believed that Obama would end the war and I believed in him. I understand the appeal of wanting to believe someone else can save the day. But if you really believe in those people, how does it harm you to have other people not believing in them? If it’s a quasi-religious belief, how does the existence of Kamala Harris atheists, or people who believe she is enabling or participating in genocide, harm you?
posted by corb at 2:09 PM on August 29 [11 favorites]

To be frank, I find a lot of manifestations of it offensive. A lot of it seems misogynistic. Harris isn't being treated like a serious politician with a record and positions.

Kellyanne Conway agrees FWIW.
posted by mazola at 2:09 PM on August 29 [2 favorites]

Man I had a whole thing typed up about how I feel the "vibes" are a stand-in for something much more politically significant than what folks here are dismissing, and how it's possible to be disappointed in the near-term options while still feeling that a wave of enthusiasm and positive engagement is utterly critical to establishing long-term futures that are more than just brunch for middle class people.

But honestly? What would I be saying that people here haven't said 1000000 times before? The positions are entrenched, the fights are eternal, and MeFi politics just ain't for me no more. (Indeed it already barely was! The only reason I ever dipped back into any US politics threads was because I thought maybe the vibe shift might mean we could have productive discussions here again! WHOOPS.)
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 2:11 PM on August 29 [19 favorites]

Come on, we all know Kellyanne Conway doesn't believe things.
posted by pattern juggler at 2:11 PM on August 29 [5 favorites]

'F@#$ your feelings, my point is more important', is the kind of attitude I would expect out of a MAGA acolyte. This ain't the UN Security Council, it's just a faded little web forum in an unremarkable subnet of the Internet. If you 'win', what the heck have you won?

If you want a life-or-death struggle, go fight Pantomime Princess Margaret.
posted by zaixfeep at 2:18 PM on August 29 [7 favorites]

I did not know #ANSWER_ME was a thing. My questions about moderation were sincere:

1. It sounds like discussion of the genocide is disallowed in threads not explicitly about the genocide as per loup's most recent update. Just want to confirm - is my understanding correct?

2. If 1 is true, then is "Kamala Harris Happy Vibes Thread" moderated any differently from any other non-genocide discussion?

3. Can we have an update on the 'avoid linking to specific comments' thing that Brandon Blatcher said earlier? Is it a new rule? Is it specific to discussions about the genocide? As CPAnarchist mentioned earlier, it seems like there are comments at the start of this thread that would break such a rule, but have not been removed.
posted by ftrtts at 2:21 PM on August 29 [5 favorites]

Catching up on this thread, I've got two broad reactions:

1) This has really illustrated the wisdom of moving away from political megathreads, where the interminable discussion and lack of anchoring topic could encourage people to agitate for their favored issue to take center stage in a way that's hard to avoid. Things were difficult enough when the primary fight was *literally* a primary fight within the Democratic Party, even more so when it's pitting an infamously fraught ethno-religious atrocity against the prospect of America falling to fascism (with opponents of each tending to accuse the other of ignoring or enabling the greater disaster). The slow inching back to a megathread model in recent weeks was temporarily buoyed by the outburst of enthusiasm and relief for Harris, but I don't see it being viable long-term under the current moderation coverage. Best solution, imho, is to enforce a return to focused topical threads -- not just "Gaza" vs. "Vibes", but any discrete issue or event -- the debates, major announcements, phonebanking 101, etc. Allow Gaza discussion where it's directly relevant, redirect otherwise.

2) Folks have got to stop getting so tied up in knots about people disagreeing with them, even heatedly, on this site. Part of avoiding the filter bubble problem plaguing social media is developing a reasonable tolerance for divergent opinion, not blocking it out entirely or angrily hyperfocusing on it. Everyone knows we need to improve user growth and participation, but apparently expect that any such growth will consist entirely of people who are totally cool with our opinions. Absent that, when a contentious thread sees a handful of vocal users making thorny or even unfair accusations, that's somehow reason to bail on the site as a whole? That's seems like a baffling overreaction. Why should a couple of users being judgey or censorious about Palestine on MetaTalk mean abandoning making or commenting on apolitical FPPs, or helping answer questions on Ask, or talking about shows in FanFare? Even if you find their comments supremely irritating in the moment, why give them that kind of veto power over your participation here? Just disengage from those users and threads, not the entire community (which focused topical threads would make easier, hint hint). Even if somebody accused me of being Literally Hitler for supporting Harris, who gives a shit what they think? It's just an internet comment, not a criminal trial verdict. Flag it and move on.
posted by Rhaomi at 2:34 PM on August 29 [18 favorites]

It's never just five minutes though. If they get elected, the vibes will have to last until they're in office, because of fascism. Of course, after that the midterms are only two years away, so stop criticizing them, because of fascism. Then they're up for re-election, so better shut up until she's re-elected, because fascism.

Rinse, lather, repeat.

Okay but Slippery vibes slopes is a newsletter I'd sign up for
posted by Jarcat at 2:40 PM on August 29

Absent that, when a contentious thread sees a handful of vocal users making thorny or even unfair accusations, that's somehow reason to bail on the site as a whole? That's seems like a baffling overreaction.

I don't think it's any weirder to bail on this place than it is to bail on a book you don't like or a TV show that jumped the shark. There's many a pitfall on MeFi even without the politics threads, as the history of MetaTalk attests. Maybe for a lot of folks this conflict is just the thing that took the site from "mostly fun, couple assholes" to "More likely than not to be a drag, I could do better stuff with my day."
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 2:51 PM on August 29 [12 favorites]

I'm taken aback by how reactionary it is that, in response to people criticizing political figures for their material support of a genocide, community members here felt the need to start a special thread specifically for only praising those political figures. If you had someone in your life, say a co-worker, who was Palestinian, or had relatives in Gaza, how would you explain this impulse to them? I won't beat around the bush, it's hate and it's so ugly.

Vibes are a Hate Crime lmao

i know those four letters get thrown around terribly lightly these days but i will have to ask you to accept that i am actually getting a genuine belly laugh from this
posted by Sebmojo at 2:54 PM on August 29 [13 favorites]

If you want to communicate with someone, tell them how you feel.

If you want to make someone mad, tell them how they feel.

I feel angry and condescended to when someone claims to understand the nature of my joy and tell me that it is inferior and mistaken, and that by extension I am ignorant, misled, and part of the problem. I feel alienated from the person who treats me that way, and inclined to discount things they say in the future. When the response to anything I say is, "well actually," I no longer want to be in conversations with that person because they've already decided how the conversation is going to go.

YMMV.
posted by Winnie the Proust at 2:55 PM on August 29 [30 favorites]

Kurosawa's Rashomon
😂

I thought of Dreams were
the Demon is chasing me out of Staples™
posted by clavdivs at 3:01 PM on August 29 [2 favorites]

But if you really believe in those people, how does it harm you to have other people not believing in them? If it’s a quasi-religious belief, how does the existence of Kamala Harris atheists, or people who believe she is enabling or participating in genocide, harm you?

I think both “sides” are mistaken in treating this like a conflict of affective preferences. Many people here seem to be fighting as a way to avoid considering that we can’t actually know what the right strategy is. It’s just impossible to know how important it is to ie throw unquestioning support to Harris; or how important it is to be a vocal one issue voter on the genocide of Palestinians. Instead of acknowledging that pretty much everyone is doing their best in murky and deeply fucked up circumstances, people retreat into blame and hostility. It’s not because this is “quasi religious” on one side or a commitment to misery on the other side. There is a very real decision to be made that may have very real and very bad consequences no matter what path we take.
posted by knobknosher at 3:06 PM on August 29 [14 favorites]

Many people here seem to be fighting as a way to avoid considering that we can’t actually know what the right strategy is.

Yes. This right here is at the heart of it. Certainty or powerlessness could be dealt with. Agency combined with ignorance is close to unbearable.
posted by pattern juggler at 3:16 PM on August 29 [4 favorites]

It certainly seems as though there are three or four of us who have been collectively appointed as The Problem With Metafilter. And i mean, i know i'm not really part of The Metafilter Community and never have been, even back before the first time i buttoned; but the others who are in The Problem bucket with me are all longtime users in good standing and the whole thing seems pretty unfair to them.
posted by adrienneleigh at 3:25 PM on August 29 [3 favorites]

the only conclusion i am able to draw is that some folks have guilty consciences.
posted by Jarcat at 3:30 PM on August 29 [3 favorites]

Whatever happened to this policy?

A few deleted. Those of you who are here to attack other members, create drama, and show off, please stop or we will ask that you discontinue commenting in politics threads (and begin banning after that). Our space here is limited, and most people would rather use it to discuss developments and have a conversation rather than be a forced audience to a virtual bar fight. Act like grown-ups or go somewhere else."
posted by taz (staff) at 2:10 AM on July 13

posted by Violet Blue at 3:37 PM on August 29 [11 favorites]

I am not sure that is a ruling you would enjoy the enforcement of.
posted by pattern juggler at 3:40 PM on August 29 [10 favorites]

Pattern Juggler, please do not attack other members.
posted by Winnie the Proust at 3:44 PM on August 29 [10 favorites]

He’s not wrong though 🤷🏻‍♂️
posted by knobknosher at 3:47 PM on August 29 [8 favorites]

Pattern Juggler, you have commented 67 times thus far, and I have commented 16 times, which means you have thus far spoken 418.75% more than I have. Please have the grace to let me comment without repeatedly playing peanut gallery.
posted by Violet Blue at 3:47 PM on August 29 [10 favorites]

If pattern_juggler's comment counts as "attack[ing] other users" that is definitely an important data point about why everything is *waves hands* like this.

(It obviously only counts as an "attack" if you like the user in question, though, because multiple people in this thread have said worse shit to pattern_juggler without the slightest pushback!)
posted by adrienneleigh at 3:51 PM on August 29 [10 favorites]

318.75% more, let's not overstate things
posted by ryanrs at 3:51 PM on August 29 [5 favorites]

If you think I am attacking someone, I would advise you to flag my post so the mods can respond.

Violet Blue did not bring up that ruling out of genuine curiousity. It was a (clumsy) attempt to comment on others behavior.

Please have the grace to let me comment without repeatedly playing peanut gallery.

If you want grace you might try extending some. You have repeatedly come into this thread trying to score points and make accusations, with no effort at all to actually address the topic of this MetaTalk thread.

Most of your commentary seems to be a continuation of the efforts in your last thread to paint anyone critical of Israel or the Biden-Harris administration as a bad actor or a dupe.

I'm not especially interested in pretending otherwise.
posted by pattern juggler at 3:55 PM on August 29 [7 favorites]

Well, I had a thoughtful comment I had started typing up in response to some of the kind and measured responses I received to sharing my experience.

But then I had to help a friend in suicidal crisis who has been considering killing herself over her student loans. And I see things have now devolved and I'm not interested in having my heartfelt response picked apart, so. I will simply share the bit of story a lot of my feelings center around, which is that one of the previous times I've been abandoned by leftists is when a white woman activist (and her feminist group) disengaged from a community of leftists engaged in collective action when she couldn't force sexual assault to be the issue they focused on. Despite the fact that she had an entire other functioning group and a lot of fucking money already going to that issue, while the one this group ended up focusing on had zero of either. "I will never stop caring about sexual assault," she said, despite the fact that no one had asked her not to, before walking out on a group of people who faced significantly higher risk of sexual assault than she did.

She and her group didn't participate in any of our campaign, even though we showed up for hers. You know who did, though? Frat boys that I invited in for some stupid, joyful activities that let me slip in a little "Yeah, it's SO bizarre that wheelchair users can't even get into the library!" while they were being entirely inappropriate with some mobility equipment. Because I cared more about getting a ramp in the fucking library than I did about whether they were taking the situation appropriately seriously. You don't actually need your average person to be educated on all of the finer points or appropriate strategy for an issue like this--you need them to talk about it enough that you get the attention of people in power who do. Which it did. And I got the ramp.

There are, of course, plenty of differences between that situation and this one. But in my experience, if you want a message to spread to people who don't know shit or fuck about it, joy and good vibes work a lot better than trying to score rhetorical points or unloading your justified rage and pain. That's what the leftist group chat is for! I am trying to personally get better at utilizing that when someone is Wrong On The Internet instead of getting into protracted arguments, so I have the energy left over to invite people in with what I will dub "tactical warmth."

YMMV. Obviously, I'm not doing this now, which I acknowledge the irony of. Emphasis on trying. Maybe some others would like to try with me.
posted by brook horse at 3:55 PM on August 29 [38 favorites]

Maybe the tldr; of that is "heat on the people with power, light to the people without."
posted by brook horse at 4:00 PM on August 29 [15 favorites]

But I understand it a little more, because I once believed that Obama would end the war and I believed in him.

As someone who has taken several classes in metafilter history, lol.
posted by phunniemee at 4:10 PM on August 29 [21 favorites]

Most of your commentary seems to be a continuation of the efforts in your last thread to paint anyone critical of Israel or the Biden-Harris administration as a bad actor or a dupe.

Are people who are not critical (enough?) of Israel or the Biden-Harris administration bad actors or dupes (or genociders)?
posted by mazola at 4:17 PM on August 29 [1 favorite]

Or, some people want to discuss people committing genocide without having to remember they are doing so.

Perhaps I’m extrapolating unfairly but this comes a little too close to suggesting that your purpose is to remind them. And that’s not helping your case - approaching this site with the intent to be a thorn in the side of the complacent is not constructive engagement any more than approaching it with intent to act as a Harris-Walz surrogate.

I have generally been sympathetic to “your side” of this whole debate, insofar as I dislike the reflexive negativity about any negativity, about criticism, that I perceive in some of the opposing takes. If users can’t have frank, good-faith discussions of huge, relevant, international issues in explicitly political threads, and if other users reading those discussions can’t keep differences in perspective in a mature way, I don’t see what the point is in having those threads. But you have to treat it as a venue for discussion - at some point being a MetaFilter activist is neither good activism nor good MetaFiltering.
posted by atoxyl at 4:18 PM on August 29 [19 favorites]

Genocide (or any political violence) is going to be relevant to political threads until there's not a genocide. People should try to skim relevant comments regarding a current genocide if they don't want to engage with that topic.

As we can see from this post, going back and forth about whether and how often genocide is mentioned in posts about politics of countries that could exert pressure to end a genocide is going to suck up way more air than just letting people discuss things.

However, and not calling out this poster in particular, but just the idea: What i want is for everyone to never be allowed to forget, not even for an instant, that we are being made accomplices in the eradication of a people.

That attitude towards anything individual people have little to no control over is not a call to action, just a call for life ruining mental illness. I know, it's presumably hyperbole, but no one should feel guilty for not constantly bearing witness to atrocity. There's more atrocity than you have time for anyway. Do what you can, and then do something else.

I am removing this thread from my activity once I post this. I am not leaving metafilter over this.

I am making donations to both the Harris campaign and UNWRA to make up for not having the good sense to refrain from posting this comment. Be well.
posted by the primroses were over at 4:23 PM on August 29 [24 favorites]

Are people who are not critical (enough?) of Israel or the Biden-Harris administration bad actors or dupes (or genociders)?

I feel like this is supposed to be clever, but I don't understand how.

Perhaps I’m extrapolating unfairly but this comes a little too close to suggesting that your purpose is to remind them.

It absolutely is not. I do not care if they remember or not.

The problem is that a subset of posters respond very negatively to anything that does remind them. Including other people making what should be perfectly acceptable comments about the policies of the current administration.
posted by pattern juggler at 4:23 PM on August 29 [5 favorites]

Metafilter: I feel like this is supposed to be clever, but I don't understand how
posted by mazola at 4:26 PM on August 29 [8 favorites]

The boulder will surely be easier to push uphill if I exclaim exactly how heavy it is.
posted by lucidium at 4:31 PM on August 29 [1 favorite]

Vibes are a Hate Crime lmao

i know those four letters get thrown around terribly lightly these days but i will have to ask you to accept that i am actually getting a genuine belly laugh from this

This is so quintessential of a certain predominating strain of Metafilter culture, lol. Anything that dislodges the slightest uncomfy feeling triggers the most superficial, dishonestly dismissive reaction possible.
posted by dusty potato at 4:32 PM on August 29 [5 favorites]

I feel like this is supposed to be clever, but I don't understand how.

This seems dismissive without being particularly thoughtful.
posted by mazola at 4:34 PM on August 29 [5 favorites]

Are people who are not critical (enough?) of Israel or the Biden-Harris administration bad actors or dupes (or genociders)?

On the chance I misread the intended tone and this was a genuine question, absolutely not.

There is no minimum criticism level of Biden or Harris. People who are fond of them are often earnestly so, for reasons of their own. And no one posting on MetaFilter has the power to move US or Israeli policy one inch.

My impression was, (and honestly still is) that this was meant as an attempt to make some sort of point. But if not, I wanted to give you an actual answer.
posted by pattern juggler at 4:36 PM on August 29 [3 favorites]

Anything that dislodges the slightest uncomfy feeling triggers the most superficial, dishonestly dismissive reaction possible.

I assure you my reaction was both honest and sincere, and the feeling was not uncomfortable in the slightest. It is good to laugh.
posted by Sebmojo at 4:41 PM on August 29 [4 favorites]

Seb I've read the comment you just replied to several times and I'm forced to conclude they were talking about themselves.
posted by Jarcat at 4:43 PM on August 29 [4 favorites]

This is so quintessential of a certain predominating strain of Metafilter culture

This. This is why people are bailing. For a few people, there is no need to have any generosity of spirit, no need to consider how other people interpret things, no conception of what it means to use language as anything other than a cudgel, no seeming capacity to have an actual conversation that respects the other person . . .

Also, no real capacity to consider that there are other ways than their own to see the world and important issues that have value and validity.

And the constant responses of "Who, me? I never specifically said that negative, cutting, cruel thing, not so you could hold me to it."

Also, and again, the endless variations of "Just don't read it"

This is the single most depressing thread I've seen in 19 years of being a MeFite.
I'm not about to go away, but for the first time I wish some members would, and I feel horrible for feeling that way.
posted by pt68 at 4:44 PM on August 29 [23 favorites]

The very first item I addressed was the topic of the thread. My comment on the topic of the thread is here.
I think you linked the wrong post. That post is by Glegrinof.

I think this is your first post in this thread.

And it doesn't have much at all to do with the topic of this thread,

Feeling a little paranoid?

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Are you suggesting I am actually a Russian agent?

You were in the thread on Disinformation under a different name, weren't you, Pattern?

Yup, The Manwich Horror. Which is also in my profile if you click on my little name linky.
posted by pattern juggler at 4:48 PM on August 29 [7 favorites]

I'm taking some of the advice offered here. I'm leaving this conversation and 'letting it go'. Not buttoning, just letting 'this' go. Ordinarily I'd just stop commenting, but in this case I don't want anyone to think I'm going away angry or sad.

Life is too short and precious to be upset with people who appear to me as blocks of text on a webpage (like I do to you). Thank you all for helping me understand your perspectives. I feel like I know all of you 'text blocks' a bit better than I did before this, and MeFi makes a bit more sense to me now.

In this discussion, I defined the issue as I see it and why I feel it is worth being actively addressed. I offered a realistic, actionable solution, and I noted a couple other points in the discussion I felt deserved illumination. Any more and I would just be repeating myself and overstaying my welcome. And i don't want to get further involved in the ongoing back-and-forth here.

I'm always gratified that you take me seriously even if you don't agree. I haven't always been granted that respect during my life.

I will now turn to venting my frustration on a local instance of flarum.org software I've been playing with. I don't expect to ever deploy it to the public web, but it is a nice fantasy.
posted by zaixfeep at 4:51 PM on August 29 [6 favorites]

Did I accidentally click on your AMA, pattern juggler?
posted by Jarcat at 4:52 PM on August 29 [9 favorites]

I started wondering why this thread hadn't closed now that the question seems to have been resolved in favor of vibes thread + more granular news threads, and I realized:

Holy motherforking shirtballs, y'all, this is the bad vibes thread.

(It might be genius if people weren't buttoning.)
posted by mersen at 5:31 PM on August 29 [9 favorites]

And no one posting on MetaFilter has the power to move US or Israeli policy one inch.

That attitude towards anything individual people have little to no control over is not a call to action, just a call for life ruining mental illness. I know, it's presumably hyperbole, but no one should feel guilty for not constantly bearing witness to atrocity.

This is the single most depressing thread I've seen in 19 years of being a MeFite.
I'm not about to go away, but for the first time I wish some members would, and I feel horrible for feeling that way.

This. Beating people over the head constantly with GENOCIDE!!!!111!!!! and screaming it as loud and long as you can, is making people angry and depressed and frustrated and they're quitting. It's not changing Harris' position on genocide. It's not making people "pro-genocide." It seems like the goal is "I feel awful over this and you must feel this level of awful with me, and if you don't you're pro-genocide and awful." I get some of you feel more strongly over this than anything and can't stop, won't stop, and nothing is going to change there, and you're going to deny that y'all are having this effect on people and say you didn't say that, blah blah blah. But it feels like that's your "vibe." I truly don't get what the goal of this behavior is other than to make everyone else feel as awful as you do on the topic. Yes, America is in league with evil. What country isn't. But harping and dwelling and yelling (on any topic) does nothing but drive people away. If you wanna harass the Harris campaign on this, go to it, but This. Is. Too. Much.

And now I'm going to nope out of here for awhile and think about more cheerful things, like the Black Death.
posted by jenfullmoon at 5:33 PM on August 29 [46 favorites]

Like Kamala Harris. /s
posted by brook horse at 5:48 PM on August 29 [1 favorite]

aspire to not evolving over the course of more than a decade.

decades* plural
posted by phunniemee at 5:49 PM on August 29 [7 favorites]

Yeah, that’s the thing. You can preach with the fervor of the born-again-yesterday, or you can boast that you were dyed in the wool before it was cool. But you kinda have to pick one.
posted by armeowda at 5:54 PM on August 29 [10 favorites]

If only we could all aspire to not evolving over the course of more than a decade.

Evolution of one's ideas is admirable. Retconning one's self as a "decades"-long leftist activist when a decade ago that selfsame person was gleefully denigrating actual leftist activists by calling for the execution of innocent prisoners, defending George Zimmerman, promoting income inequality as necessary for society, etc., etc. -- well, at best, it's laughable. At worst, it's straight-up imposture. No doubt I feel this way because I lack the Correct Kind of Joy.
posted by paper scissors sock at 6:15 PM on August 29 [14 favorites]

Corb has mentioned regret over their past positions, including aspects of their military service, so if their was some imposture, it was piss poor. They are also reliably one of the most thoughtful and compassionate posters on this site. Dredging up decade old posts is a petty attempt at a gotcha.

Go back to your sad little subreddit.
posted by pattern juggler at 6:23 PM on August 29 [14 favorites]

I forget what was that old quote again about you exist within the context of all that you live and all that came before you?
posted by phunniemee at 6:29 PM on August 29 [8 favorites]

Too meta for me now. I hope you folks sort everything out. Good luck!
posted by mazola at 6:31 PM on August 29 [3 favorites]

'forking shirts' would make a great band name.
posted by clavdivs at 6:38 PM on August 29 [6 favorites]

i suppose the play here is that if enough people are petty and vindictive enough and insist on taking things personally and assume everyone else is always taking things personally, then the rest of us will relax on the genocide thing because the victims are just people and this megathread-dregs ad hominem shitposting right here is what people, evidently, are and so no big loss? or what? jesus christ many of you suck in a really specific way. (ETA: by which i mean lay off corb, you assholes.)
posted by busted_crayons at 6:42 PM on August 29 [6 favorites]

IANAL but I'm preeeettty sure we're not supposed to call each other assholes
posted by Jarcat at 6:50 PM on August 29 [6 favorites]

We're not supposed to be assholes, either
posted by pattern juggler at 6:51 PM on August 29 [11 favorites]

Retconning one's self as a "decades"-long leftist activist when a decade ago that selfsame person was gleefully denigrating actual leftist activists

I don't believe I've ever said that I was a leftist for decades; if anything I said conveyed that, my apologies. I've been both on Metafilter and also an activist for decades, primarily an anti-war activist, which was a very broad coalition. Both I think placed me in the spaces with people and conversations to start evolving my positions. I believe I've also talked here on Metafilter about being regretful for many of the things that prior bad positions led me into; most notably, participating in the Iraq War, but I'm happy to add "making wrong statements on the internet" to that.

I'm happy to account for any harm that people feel I have done with those past beliefs - my memails are open - but I do feel that bringing those past beliefs up at the tail of a long Meta where I'm asking if we can talk a little bit more about an ongoing genocide is not only a bit of an ad hominem but also a bit of an odd one. Like, the most absolutely predictable thing in the world is that someone who watched a bunch of innocent people get butchered in the Iraq War by US weapons and feels regret over not doing more to stop it is going to be fervently opposed to a bunch of innocent people getting butchered again by US-provided weapons.
posted by corb at 6:51 PM on August 29 [30 favorites]

We're not supposed to be assholes, either

Aw, beans. I knew I was doing something against the rules.

Unrelated:
Corb; I'll admit I've had a few moments of cognitive dissonance at your takes because of the evolution of your views, but you've always been thoughtful and presented yourself with integrity.

That said, it seems like people are getting genuinely upset here so I'll stop coming through with my posting isn't praxis vibes
posted by Jarcat at 6:57 PM on August 29 [3 favorites]

Kind of Joy.
posted by paper scissors sock .

you know it would be cool if you flagged your own comment about corb for deletion, that'd be cool. not only do you question corbs character you're questioning their service and I wont abide by that.
now I'm angry. forked shirttail angry.
posted by clavdivs at 7:01 PM on August 29 [6 favorites]

Aw, beans. I knew I was doing something against the rules.

Heh.

That was not a criticism of you. Just a comment on the general breakdown of the spirit of the rules, in addition to the violation of the letter.
posted by pattern juggler at 7:01 PM on August 29 [2 favorites]

(clavdis I want to be in your band. Now I'm really gone)
posted by Jarcat at 7:02 PM on August 29 [2 favorites]

I appreciate the comment from Loup, which is the closest we've gotten to a response from the Mod Team about the topic of this thread.

But while it addresses the specific issue of I/P discussion (it will be kept out of general threads), it doesn't address what I think is the larger issue of antisocial behavior very well summarized by Jen Full Moon.

Maybe the Mod Team feels it would be too much of a subjective judgement call to try to shut down this kind of behavior. But what we've seen in this thread is a steady stream of members identifying the same pattern, calling it toxic, and asking for it to stop. At least a couple of long-time members have left. And in response the handful of people who have been engaging in this behavior just keep doing it, acting like there's nothing wrong and it's just about the topic, not the behavior.

The comment from Loup didn't address that at all. I hope the Mod Team finds a way to address it.

Meanwhile, I'm going to try to take a break from this thread and go hang out in other parts of MeFi where hopefully things are more copacetic. The gray is often the most contentious part of this town and it's good to remember it doesn't have to be that way.
posted by Winnie the Proust at 7:02 PM on August 29 [16 favorites]

I think we hit some actual useful ideas and some genuine understanding among people of good will in earlier parts of this thread. Hopefully they'll be acted on. The interactions since that high point have mostly detracted from whatever benefit might be derived.
posted by pattern juggler at 7:09 PM on August 29 [7 favorites]

So... no mute button then. The rule is the threads will be at the mercy of whoever has the time and attention to carefully not violate the guidelines while making the conversation exhausting for users without that kind of focus and determination.

I buttoned a while ago after 15+ years for a similarly asymmetric and self righteously non-empathetic few's ability to drive otherwise interesting and valuable discussions into exhaustion. We were doing better. FPPs were a bit more diverse in tone and depth (and less often a dedicated nuance free hate-on).

And when big politics things happened I came here for the well-informed, thorough, thoughtful without being unprincipled discussion. Nobody does that part better than here, and I miss it. I signed back up because of it. And I'm watching it dissolve because...

Absent that, when a contentious thread sees a handful of vocal users making thorny or even unfair accusations, that's somehow reason to bail on the site as a whole? That's seems like a baffling overreaction. Why should a couple of users being judgey or censorious about Palestine on MetaTalk mean abandoning making or commenting on apolitical FPPs, or helping answer questions on Ask, or talking about shows in FanFare? Even if you find their comments supremely irritating in the moment, why give them that kind of veto power over your participation here?

Tell me you're not going to do anything to make the experience here better without... Forget it.

Look...

Why should a couple of users being judgey or censorious about Palestine on MetaTalk mean abandoning making or commenting on apolitical FPPs

Because the users reacting that way no longer feel safe that the next thread won't be or become a politics thread. That they will have to wade through whoever else can afford to fight asymmetric activist battles on whatever topic they decide is the most important for everyone and whatever value the users once got from the discussion trends to zero and then to negative because... you hope you can still somehow have a conversation about other important topics and get some of that sweet expertise and insight but then... find out again and again it's whoever has the breath to be left standing, carefully breaking no guidelines while making the discussion intolerable.

Jesus the fact I have to explain this to someone responsible for the organizational migration and board selection of this site makes me so exhausted and sad. What is even the take away? Don't be snowflakes? Why so serious?
posted by Lenie Clarke at 7:57 PM on August 29 [14 favorites]

Lenie Clarke (and dozens and dozens of others) said ...

That they will have to wade through whoever else can afford to fight asymmetric activist battles on whatever topic they decide is the most important for everyone and whatever value the users once got from the discussion trends to zero and then to negative because... you hope you can still somehow have a conversation about other important topics and get some of that sweet expertise and insight but then... find out again and again it's whoever has the breath to be left standing, carefully breaking no guidelines while making the discussion intolerable.

... which more or less echos Brandon Blatcher ...

The problem is that a fighty topic get posted, people then fight about it, usually a small group, who then want to endlessly fight about it, which creates negative feelings all around and often people shut down, either by quitting the thread or the site, and then only the people who really want to fight about the issue are left…. Nobody wants to live someplace where there's a never ending argument about the same topic, over and over.

... and Taz, who is the only one who outlined any sort of plan to address it.

A few deleted. Those of you who are here to attack other members, create drama, and show off, please stop or we will ask that you discontinue commenting in politics threads (and begin banning after that). Our space here is limited, and most people would rather use it to discuss developments and have a conversation rather than be a forced audience to a virtual bar fight. Act like grown-ups or go somewhere else."

Two of those three people are mods, so the mods recognize what is happening. What will it take for them to do something collectively and consistently to control the bullying?
posted by Violet Blue at 9:01 PM on August 29 [9 favorites]

I think the comparison to anti-abortion protestors is not accurate.

Boy, were you wrong about that.
posted by 2N2222 at 9:03 PM on August 29

Okay! I'm not inside your mind, so I guess I'll just stick with superficial and dismissive, and swap in cruel for dishonest.

In all honesty, i urge you to post with joy in your heart instead of whatever this is. Namaste, friend.
posted by Sebmojo at 10:05 PM on August 29 [6 favorites]

So wait, this is now the Vote ~~Richard Hatcher~~ corb Off The Island/Vote corb The $1 Million Dollar Winner Meta? I must've missed the similar Meta votes for St. Alia of The Bunnies and ironmouth, this explains a lot!

As ever I'm voting quidnunc kid #1, but in my view that is no reason to therefore throw one of our most entertaining, evolving, earnest, sometimes maddening, and deeply human contributors overboard. There but for the Grace of God go we all. Well, ok, not you, nor of course you, but you get my point. Or, you don't, and you will kindly let me know in detail. :)
posted by riverlife at 10:16 PM on August 29 [2 favorites]

Lenie Clark, our focus right now is on laying the legal groundwork for self-governance of the site, not making any moderation decisions. I come at this commenting like any other member. (And if you were hoping for the NP move to solve all your concerns for you, be aware that self-governance by definition requires a lot of discussion and work and compromise among members, including with people who don't see eye-to-eye with you. Think MetaTalk, but with an actual structure for translating these debates into policy and action.)
posted by Rhaomi at 10:19 PM on August 29 [1 favorite]

~~Richard Hatch, natch.~~
posted by riverlife at 10:37 PM on August 29

Two of those three people are mods, so the mods recognize what is happening. What will it take for them to do something collectively and consistently to control the bullying?

It seems worth pointing out that while you cite three comments there, only the first one -- not from a mod -- is aimed solely at the users whom I think, from context, you have in mind.

The other two, from Brandon Blatcher and Taz, to my eye at least, are aimed at anyone over-engaging in the sort of baiting, jabbing, back-and-forths that lead things astray in already-contentious contexts.

(I mean, unless I've missed one, mods have publicly asked two people to step away from this thread so far, and, of those two, one of them is much more aligned with what you're saying than what the people you've been arguing with are saying.)
posted by nobody at 10:59 PM on August 29 [3 favorites]

Two of those three people are mods, so the mods recognize what is happening. What will it take for them to do something collectively and consistently to control the bullying?

Well, I just cancelled my monthly donation; maybe if more of us do so?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:19 AM on August 30 [6 favorites]

Corb, thank you for starting this MeTa, and for how sincere and gracious you have been throughout it, in all your comments. I’d also like to say that I really respect you for the way you have responded to what must have been very traumatic experiences in Iraq.

The negative reactions to the people posting about what is going on in Palestine have really surprised me. Israel has been committing international crimes (war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide) for months, and the US is aiding and abetting these crimes by continuing to supply most of the weapons being used to commit them, in violation of its obligations under international and domestic law. It would be weird and reflect very badly on this site if people weren’t consistently raising this issue in the election threads, in the same way that people consistently (and justifiably) raise issues relating to Trump’s criminal behavior and his efforts to destroy the rule of law.

I understand that people are overwhelmed just trying to survive, and I would be the last person to accuse anyone of not doing enough on this issue as I feel that what I am doing myself is utterly inadequate. But that doesn’t cause me to feel as if I am being attacked or bullied when other Mefites provide information, point out double standards, or respond to other people’s comments. Rather, I’m grateful to them for making these efforts.

I also noticed that we were getting to a good place in this thread a few days ago (in the interactions around wenestvedt’s comments) and then suddenly all the positivity was destroyed when another user appeared, completely ignored the current state of the discussion, and started accusing people of propagating disinformation. Personally I think that fits the definition of bullying far more accurately than anything those posting about Palestine are supposedly doing.
posted by mydonkeybenjamin at 3:42 AM on August 30 [16 favorites]

(And if you were hoping for the NP move to solve all your concerns for you, be aware that self-governance by definition requires a lot of discussion and work and compromise among members, including with people who don't see eye-to-eye with you. Think MetaTalk, but with an actual structure for translating these debates into policy and action.)

I hope you didn't mean this as condescendingly as it reads.

Self governance isn't an excuse, suggesting that the pattern you're seeing people complain about is somehow part of the system you're planning suggests you're planning a very broken system that will be at the mercy of whomever shows up and hectors the most consistently.

I know philosophically it may be hard to square but part of the often unwritten tenets of a community is that it is a good thing if it persists, even thrives and grows. That can be a little at odds with radical self governance principles where intransigence and single minded (if maybe sincere) focus raises the barrier to entry into a conversation to not only the problem we already had ("is my posting of impeccable quality and consistency so it's not picked apart by the community") but now "is reading through and adding to this conversation going to require being the target of repeated hectoring or just watching it happen to others, which is also an empathetically unpleasant experience I don't know if I want to endure just to participate."
posted by Lenie Clarke at 4:05 AM on August 30 [4 favorites]

another user . . . started accusing people of propagating disinformation. Personally I think that fits the definition of bullying

I assume you are referring to this comment which is the first occurrence of the word "misinformation" in this thread. I think you need to go back read the seven comments previous to that in which Violet Blue posts a their reasonably on-topic take and then five different people get snippy about it, ending with "why is this person allowed on MetaFilter?"

Yeah, no. There is no world where a person who just got jumped by five people because they dared to exist is the bully. No matter how that person reacts.
posted by Press Butt.on to Check at 4:16 AM on August 30 [8 favorites]

I assume you are referring to this comment which is the first occurrence of the word "misinformation" in this thread. I think you need to go back read the seven comments previous to that in which Violet Blue posts a their reasonably on-topic take and then five different people get snippy about it, ending with "why is this person allowed on MetaFilter?"

Yeah, no. There is no world where a person who just got jumped by five people because they dared to exist is the bully. No matter how that person reacts.

I'm well aware of who said what. Please also see CrystalDave's helpful and productive response.
posted by mydonkeybenjamin at 4:44 AM on August 30 [7 favorites]

Hi, just dropping in to say that digging up another member's comments from a decade ago to make a point is not helpful. If you feel that such an action is necessary, please just flag a comment with a note or use the Contact Us form and/or consider removing yourself from this thread.

No comments have been removed from that recent exchange, but everyone should seriously consider whether your continued participation in this thread is worthwhile for themselves or the community.

Discussion is fine, of course, but the jabs and snipes and fights go terribly, so please try to bring your best, most gracious self, to these intense discussions that everyone is viewing from a personal point of view. Be kind to each other.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 6:47 AM on August 30 [9 favorites]

Good God, why is this thread still open? What is it accomplishing, or intended to accomplish? Not actually a rhetorical question!
posted by praemunire at 8:19 AM on August 30 [12 favorites]

Good God, why is this thread still open? What is it accomplishing, or intended to accomplish?
It appears to be intended to determine whether it will be safe for people to express abolitionist ideas in US politics threads on MetaFilter. Nobody much loves abolitionists in real time. In long retrospect they're revised into heroes, but at the time they're active, they're strident and one-note and serious downers and they inconvenience people who would otherwise not be inconvenienced. Without them causing inconvenience, however, impossible-seeming mountainous injustice doesn't get better. It just perdures because that's what's easiest, to put it mildly. It perdures because it not perduring appears impossible. Abolitionists make the impossible possible. Abolitionists of various stripes are what led to the dismantling of the slave trade and apartheid in South Africa and the end of the US involvement in the war in Viet Nam. They're a pain in the ass at the time, but they do great work.

The chipping away at what can seem like monolithic popular support for Israel's suppression of Palestinian people is great work. Moving people from "it's horrifying and I can't stand it and I can't even think about it because I can't do anything about it" to "I can think about it sometimes" (which is where my extremely timorous and risk-averse ass is at the moment) and thence, maybe, to "I can speak and act against it" is great work. It's how this horror finally finally ends. It would be so great if that happened in our lifetimes.
posted by Don Pepino at 9:02 AM on August 30 [11 favorites]

Don Pepino, you seem to be mistaken about my position on this matter, which you might have taken a second to check before writing such a long and condescending answer--I have participated in some of these conversations on the site, though not extensively, and, as I have said, I think Uncommitted's tactics before and at the convention were appropriate and justified.

Anyway, just because sometimes activism needs to make onlookers uncomfortable or unhappy does not mean that just because you're making people uncomfortable or unhappy you're doing activism. This thread left activism behind some time ago.
posted by praemunire at 9:09 AM on August 30 [30 favorites]

The current strategies seem to be moving people further into “shut down and not talk about it” mode, though. This is not what I would consider useful coalition building or development of grassroots support of an idea or action.

I mean, that may be the goal. But it’s demonstrably not working.
posted by brook horse at 9:09 AM on August 30 [6 favorites]

you might have taken a second to check before writing such a long and condescending answer
Oh, that was idiotic of me; I'm sorry. Somebody waaaay upthread said something about wanting to be able to forget? Not wanting to remember it every minute? Something like that. That's what I actually wanted to respond to but it was like four days ago or something and conceivably not even in this thread, so I lazily grabbed your comment instead. Not great.
posted by Don Pepino at 9:16 AM on August 30 [5 favorites]

I mean, that may be the goal. But it’s demonstrably not working.

Feels different from my end.
posted by cendawanita at 9:28 AM on August 30 [7 favorites]

Feels different from my end.

So, this thread...where folks are quitting the site and sniping at each other left and right...to you...feels like everyone has come together into a grassroots coalition...?

I mean hell I guess coalition means different things to different people but I generally thought it meant some level of coalescence.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 9:31 AM on August 30 [8 favorites]

Feeling like you’re winning doesn’t change the fact that the number of people on Metafilter who are willing to have conversations on Gaza is shrinking further and further, as is clearly demonstrated across this entire thread.

The point is to get people to want to have more conversations, not less. Do you think you have succeeded in getting more people on Metafilter to want to have conversations about Gaza?
posted by brook horse at 9:31 AM on August 30 [6 favorites]

The current strategies

I don't think what's going on in this thread at this moment (as distinct from advocacy in other posts, or even the opening of the thread to begin with) has really anything to do with implementing any strategy. It's just become the bad place. I know the UN peacekeeper helmet sits oddly on my head, but...
posted by praemunire at 9:33 AM on August 30 [3 favorites]

my first comment in this thread.

I'm the UN peacekeeper who's been afraid to even go into the valley in question. I may live to be ashamed of this cowardice, but at least I'll still be alive.
posted by philip-random at 9:36 AM on August 30 [2 favorites]

I’m including the strategies in other threads, which are what have resulted in quarantining Gaza conversations even being a question. The argument seems to be “let us keep doing exactly what we’re doing” even though it obviously just makes people want to talk about the issue less. Which is the point in any kind of campaign or advocacy work that you take a break and restrategize because your messaging isn’t working. So this is just a reminder that now would probably be a good time to do that. It’s what I’ve been trying to do at various points across the past week or two. Haven’t hit on a solid alternative yet, so a lot of this is thinking out loud.
posted by brook horse at 9:40 AM on August 30 [8 favorites]

To elaborate slightly: as mentioned before I've been lucky enough to not get abuse via DM. What has surprised me, and this is unplanned, is how much just posting regularly on the genocide (as a form of news-tracking) has instead caused my inbox to (relatively) blow up in the opposite more positive direction - it's been a long ten months so buried amongst all that are my references to various links or heads up that I've received, so I can share them (mainly because it seems I have a reckless sense of self-risk? I don't, but I get those tips as thanks for even doing it here). (ETA: Apparently this includes a Hebrew translation service). Inadvertently encouraged more people to post FPPs even. New members too, joining in or rejoining even from their hiatus. When propagandist talking points get bandied about, those posts become reference points other posters point to.

Now, how that all relates to the discomfort of even seeing it mentioned more than once as part of commentary on the policies of presidential nominee.... Well. I guess as a community we've been planting signs that a US presidential nominee and a present member of the current administration that it's just like other policy stuff, it's as relevant and timely and apparently, not something "mefi is bad at".

That's just my personal perspective. I know and am aware whenever Palestine is somehow part of the discourse, buttoning happens, as a red flag to show how distressing and uncomfortable it's making people. It gets trotted out as evidence - see how much by its financial neck mefi is held up. Decorum.

Maybe it's just me though. To anyone who's been sending me ko-fi money, please do throw in a couple of dollars to this site please.
posted by cendawanita at 9:42 AM on August 30 [15 favorites]

Truly, I would separate any discussion of the efficacy of an approach like cendawanita's (and largely I have been very grateful to her for her willingness to grasp this nettle) from the question of whether this particular thread, as it has evolved now, is accomplishing anything anyone actually wants or needs accomplished to justify the extraordinary outpouring of bad feeling and interpersonal conflict it has ended up generating. Mods? Are you there? Because at this point you should at least have an answer to this question that explains why you haven't closed it.
posted by praemunire at 9:47 AM on August 30 [12 favorites]

It appears to be intended to determine whether it will be safe for people to express abolitionist ideas in US politics threads on MetaFilter.

Or, counterpoint, it is intended to determine whether it is good practice and best community for people to express nonstop abolitionist ideas in very hostile terms, including implied or direct personal attacks, in every single US politics thread on Metafilter to the significant detriment of literally every other political conversation.

Maybe it is! Maybe it is the only conscionable practice, to think and talk about nothing else. In which case I don't belong on this site anymore, and if you want to think that's because I'm too "uncomfortable" or because I'm a seeekrit genocider or a russian plant or whatever, fuckin fine.

(though FWIW I am not uncomfortable thinking about Gaza, I think and talk about it a lot! Just not AT people, ALL DAY, even when those people are trying to talk about housing or healthcare or trans rights.)
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 9:52 AM on August 30 [25 favorites]

What has surprised me, and this is unplanned, is how much just posting regularly on the genocide (as a form of news-tracking) has instead caused my inbox to (relatively) blow up in the opposite more positive direction -

That’s great and evidence of that as a good strategy! I think most people are not bothered by the news tracking and have said as much (though there may be exceptions). It’s the back and forth arguments that seem to be bad strategy, to my eye. I should have clarified that.
posted by brook horse at 10:02 AM on August 30 [6 favorites]

I think we can definitely not let back and forths carry on too much, but I'll have to admit, in the first Kamala/VP thread, what I perceive was a combo of personality clashes (which can be individually addressed) and consecutive comments from separate posters already preemptively Not Feeling It as soon as Palestine/Uncommitted news/commentary was starting to also be discussed - in a way that was reminiscent of the Biden will-he-wont-he-grow-up-he-wont threads... Until the old man decided it for us.
posted by cendawanita at 10:08 AM on August 30 [7 favorites]

at this point you should at least have an answer to this question that explains why you haven't closed it.

I am obviously not a mod and will never be a mod, but it seems that allowing MeTas to be closed by way of heckler's veto seems a bad move; it would only encourage people to threadshit any MeTa they didn't like as a way of encouraging them to be closed. Whether or not this is deliberately happening currently or not, of course (not you, I mean, but others) is best left as an exercise to the analyst/reader, but I can absolutely see it setting a bad precedent.

This is another reasons why I am an advocate for simply enforcing regular rules against personal attacks, but allowing the actual content to stand, for material about the genocide in relevant US politics threads (particularly Harris threads, which is what this MeTa was started over). I would still very much like to hear if this is particularly difficult for mods and if so, why this is more difficult on the subject of genocide than it is on other subjects. Is it just an issue of the coverage?
posted by corb at 10:09 AM on August 30 [12 favorites]

Sorry I don't have time to be succinct.

Everyone knows we need to improve user growth and participation, but apparently expect that any such growth will consist entirely of people who are totally cool with our opinions. Absent that, when a contentious thread sees a handful of vocal users making thorny or even unfair accusations, that's somehow reason to bail on the site as a whole? That's seems like a baffling overreaction. Why should a couple of users being judgey or censorious about Palestine on MetaTalk mean abandoning making or commenting on apolitical FPPs, or helping answer questions on Ask, or talking about shows in FanFare?

While my Gen-X heart and alt.flame.die.die.die memories agree some with this sentiment, I think it is missing a few considerations.

Site culture currently is based around a few things. One thing that's often struck me about MetaFilter is how the way the profiles are set up, along with the way people interact, results in the general feel that people get a sense of each other. People click on the profile name and browse people's posting history across all the site channels. You can see that in this thread quite a bit.

There are also obituary posts, meet-ups, etc. Not to mention fundraising.

Because of that, there is a sense - for better or for worse - of community in the sense of people having a continuous reputation on the site. It's imperfect, but people want to support those who have said they have cancer, they have conversations across threads, etc. etc. This is not an accident; it's been nurtured and developed here. So it's not surprising people will treat a perceived lack of X in one area of the site to apply across the board.

It's also been a moderation decision to promote a sense of like-mindedness to a fair degree. MetaFilter prides itself, in general, on having moved away from boytown, espousing certain values, etc. There are absolutely views that MetaFilter does not host. Let's not pretend MetaFilter supports all views or requires everyone to emotionally self-regulate in the face of opposition (and that's a good thing in a lot of cases.) There have been considerable hours of moderation put in on making those lines clear.

And the flip side is, if you operate within those values, the base assumption will be in most cases that you get some benefit of the doubt that you are within the community and not outside of it. I haven't gone into the threads to look but I can see here in this thread views expressed that are basically communicating "if you were a good person, you would X-thing-you-aren't-doing-or-feeling."

I agree that people don't have to leave. And I hope they come back.

BUT if they value community, and then they no longer feel in community - they will.

If they aren't having some degree of fun/learning, they will. This isn't a moral boot camp. That doesn't mean you make decisions on everyone's feels, but as an organization, if you don't recognize what people value or don't value, you can't make good decisions.

With I/P there also is a what, 10? year history of not allowing discussion. Again, for better or for worse -- there are some thoughtful comments in this thread about that and I appreciate very much the work people have done to bring things up with context and ideas.

The original topic of this post was a really good question, because the policy really isn't externally clear to me - I/P posts are now allowed given a change in understanding and in escalation of conflict (some would say overdue), but what about as it relates to US policy? That's not a mirage for users. That happened. And it might spark fears that the whole conversation is going to be shut down by mods. If I thought a genocide was happening and people were about to shut the entire conversation down (not meaning off-topic threads, but in general), I might well escalate my comments about it (even though I personally do not think this is effective; it would just be my response to feeling a bit cornered.)

Clarifying the policy would be great, not way down at the bottom of a thread.

And let's not pretend the people who are saying "it's abhorrent to me that you could care about vibes in the face of a genocide?" are making a neutral statement - it is intended to judge. If you said that at the Thanksgiving table, you would not expect that everyone would say 'you're right' and move to a discussion of how to mobilize.

So there is a sense of -- I won't say aggression because I don't think it's that, but how about urgency that can be overwhelming.

On the mod side...they have been through a lot in past few years. Before cortex resigned, they knew who had their back/was the boss/was the decision maker. It may have been bumpy, but there was clarity. Now it's not really clear who holds the responsibility for final decisions. A lot of people are using their donations as a way to wave the flag and that has to feel bad - no one wants to make the decision that ends up costing the site money and people their jobs. (I would point out that no decision is also a decision, but human nature tends to run a particular way.)

If the path forward for the site is truly 'we're not going to moderate this anymore' then I hope and expect that tools like the mute tool or a snooze button that expires at 30 days would be developed like, asap. I thought the board was hiring a ED who would be the person responsible for certain decisions, and that is a different model.

Whatever it is though, expecting that everyone will miraculously adjust without clarity is a big ask. I know it's hard to sort out - been there, done that, there were no t-shirts.

But I think what would help the community would be for mods, and potentially board members if they feel like it, to do what Brandon just did a bit more, which is state both the value of the discussion and the value of community and being committed to working towards both even if it's messy - because that mix, not just one or the other, seems to me like the secret sauce.
posted by warriorqueen at 10:11 AM on August 30 [28 favorites]

in a way that was reminiscent of the Biden will-he-wont-he-grow-up-he-wont threads... Until the old man decided it for us.

To add on to this: recall also the first time Harris did the whole "I'm speaking"/do you want Trump to win - any criticisms of it was so quickly countered with justifications (in order to conclude that it's pointless to talk about it even), and then the next speaking tour, she was the one who changed her tack. Clearly her team doesn't read metafilter, but if mefi is representative of American mood, then perhaps the comments shouldn't have been dismissed so readily.

(On preview: as this was written at the same time as warriorqueen's, please don't see this as any kind of ignoring her fine comment)
posted by cendawanita at 10:14 AM on August 30 [9 favorites]

Just to be clear: I DO think a genocide is happening. I don't think necessarily the conversation is being shut down. If I do, I will be loud about it.
posted by warriorqueen at 10:15 AM on August 30 [3 favorites]

but if mefi is representative of American mood

ha ha oh this is a good one, do another
posted by phunniemee at 10:27 AM on August 30 [3 favorites]

What to do, I was making a non-American assumption...
posted by cendawanita at 10:32 AM on August 30 [5 favorites]

What to do, I was making a non-American assumption...

I'm in a strongly Blue part of coastal Northern California, but I'm seeing multiple in-person demonstrations that are pro-Palestine, local church signs offering support, and even 'Free Palestine' graffiti on bridges and overpasses. Not saying this is enough but there is more popular support than is expressed or visible, at least in some places. Adding this in for context, not correction.
posted by Jarcat at 10:42 AM on August 30 [6 favorites]

In all honesty, i urge you to post with joy in your heart instead of whatever this is. Namaste, friend.

Thanks for the advice, "friend!" I have a lot of joy, and other times (or at the same time?), I have a lot of sorrow and anger. I think you're being really weird here. We're talking about something more important than whatever this cutesy, ironically detached attempt at engagement is.
posted by dusty potato at 11:43 AM on August 30 [5 favorites]

I live in academic circles in the US; the opinions I hear are *all over the place* ranging from pro-Israel to pro-Palestine to “shut up already” to nuanced positions in between. That’s just in the sort of center-left urban circles I swim in here.

I have absolutely no idea what the MAGA-world thinks.

My only exposure to actual left thought is through Mefi. I am glad to hear it even when I don’t agree; I definitely appreciate getting news and background that I wouldn’t otherwise see. It’s one of the reasons I’m here.

I am also here to get news and discussion on other topics, from housing to gun control to trans rights to yes, the positive vibes some feel around the Harris-Walz campaign.

So I guess this is why I support separate threads, since none of these things has room to breathe if it gets buried by the others. Even those of us who want to read about all of these topics can’t do it when theyre commingled and overly fighty.

So there’s still a question about how to moderate those threads. Personally I’d vote for deleting or mod-noteing comments that attack other users. Problem is, we don’t all agree on what comments are attacking other users. I’m not even sure we agree that other users shouldn’t be attacked.

Any proposals about how to draw a boundary here, between comments that are ok vs comments that are attacks?
posted by nat at 11:56 AM on August 30 [8 favorites]

you're being really weird here

At least he didn't call people being happy hateful, that would be really really weird!
posted by Jarcat at 12:00 PM on August 30 [13 favorites]

I am also here to get news and discussion on other topics, from housing to gun control to trans rights to yes, the positive vibes some feel around the Harris-Walz campaign.

So I guess this is why I support separate threads, since none of these things has room to breathe if it gets buried by the others. Even those of us who want to read about all of these topics can’t do it when theyre commingled and overly fighty.

There's been a comment in the housing policy discussion which says that debating the particulars of Harris' housing policy is "moot" because "proud support for genocide is unacceptable".

I also support separate threads. And that's why in addition to wanting a boundary against comments that are attacks, I'd also REALLY love a boundary against comments that are off-topic, so that separate threads really are separate.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:29 PM on August 30 [10 favorites]

One thing to keep in mind is that activism can easily lead to burnout, especially for people who suffer from an excess of empathy. We have to practice self-care and we have to choose our battles. I can't effectively fight for reproductive rights and climate change and gun control and trans rights and Palestinian rights and defunding the police and Sudanese refugees and prison reform and gerrymandering and Supreme Court reform and voting rights and indigenous rights all at the same time, nobody can. I can read heartbreaking stories about suffering and death all day long and it will do nothing to help anyone except drain my actual ability to take positive action while also living my life.

I can understand to some people the Palenstinian genocide should outweigh everything else on the list and is something we should constantly be talking about, which has been articulated here quite clearly. I think we need passionate folks fighting for Palestinian liberation! I'm glad we have them! But currently my focus is on restoring abortion rights, and keeping Trump out of office in 67 days seems like a very concrete place for me to put my activist energies right now. I've chosen my battle, at least for the next two months.

This doesn't mean that I don't want to help where I can, in terms of contacting congresspeople and donating money (thank you for the link to donate to help Palestinians upthread, whoever included that). It doesn't mean I don't care. It means I have chosen an avenue where I feel like I can have an impact on a cause that's important to me.

I don't think the framing of liberal joy or good vibes as "sitting back while others fight for me" is fair. I'm excited to support a candidate who aligns with my values so much and I am trying to combat my 2016 baggage from when leftist infighting arguably helped weaken Hillary Clinton as a candidate. (Yes, there is plenty to criticize about her, but we'd still have Roe v. Wade and it breaks my heart every single day that we don't.) I'm trying to leave that baggage behind and be an effective activist for whatever fight comes next. Vibes help.
posted by Threeve at 12:31 PM on August 30 [17 favorites]

Any proposals about how to draw a boundary here, between comments that are ok vs comments that are attacks?

We do already, if imperfectly. "Okay, ease up on the pile on" means hey, whether you're right or not let it rest for a bit. "Keep comments focused on the topic not each other" means say "Policy on Israel is critically important especially during a genocide" vs. "anyone who is into vibes supports genocide." "Let's not make light of a very important topic" covers don't come into a serious thread and propose dancing for brat summer. "This is off topic; start your own thread" covers the housing example I just read above.

I mean yes, you can rules-lawyer each of those but the mods do this every day. I actually think they do it best when to some degree (depends on the specific topic) they can sit back and look at comments structurally/categorically and less about the right 'side' of history. (Sometimes this too falls flat.)

The rest of us can flag, which helps prioritize things, and use the comment form.
posted by warriorqueen at 12:32 PM on August 30 [10 favorites]

I mean yes, you can rules-lawyer each of those but the mods do this every day.

I completely agree with your examples but I don’t think the mods have been doing this, and it’s a huge contributor to the problem.
posted by knobknosher at 12:35 PM on August 30 [18 favorites]

I mean, in this thread the head/manager mod basically threw up their hands and said they couldn’t do anything.
posted by knobknosher at 12:35 PM on August 30 [7 favorites]

Yes, your examples are great, warriorqueen. I also agree with nat:

So I guess this is why I support separate threads, since none of these things has room to breathe if it gets buried by the others. Even those of us who want to read about all of these topics can’t do it when theyre commingled and overly fighty.
posted by Threeve at 12:38 PM on August 30 [4 favorites]

I completely agree with your examples but I don’t think the mods have been doing this, and it’s a huge contributor to the problem.

Fair. That would be a takeaway for the mods and perhaps the board.
posted by warriorqueen at 12:39 PM on August 30 [7 favorites]

The issue i have with the idea of separate threads for separate issues is that we all know that's going to be applied extremely selectively. Someone bringing up abortion rights in the Harris campaign threads isn't going to be told "this isn't on topic, start your own thread about abortion in the US", because Democratic policy on abortion rights is obviously on topic for a thread about the Harris campaign!

Democratic policy on genocide is just as obviously on topic, but people want to treat it differently for some reason! (Oh look, it's the Palestine Exception again!)
posted by adrienneleigh at 12:47 PM on August 30 [9 favorites]

People aren't objecting to the topic, they are objecting to the behavior of the people bringing up the topic.
posted by Jarcat at 12:53 PM on August 30 [25 favorites]

After some thought I've deleted a few of the comments Brandon left above, trawling a user's comments to bring them as an argument against them (or bringing them into a thread they are not otherwise involved in) is rude and such comments should not be allowed to stand.

I agree that this thread could have been closed earlier but closing a thread is a measure I avoid whenever possible. Then the thread was getting flightier in between mod gaps and then the next mod was left just catching up as the thread was already going off the rails...

A few things are clear though:

– We need clearer policies for derails, when to create a separate thread, and when we issue warnings and bans. And by clearer I mean something that is easy to understand, easy to enforce and that can be enforced systematically. While this was mentioned last week in the site update we need to prioritize this.
– There are behavioural patterns that need to be addressed directly and privately with specific members.
– We need to be better at communicating what actions are being taken in the background.

I hope you understand this involves some back and forth between the mod team as a whole. For now, we'll keep this thread open since valuable feedback is still coming (and has come in the past few minutes) but, please, please, do consider what is the type of involvement you want to have in this thread for the remainder of it.

posted by loup (staff) at 12:54 PM on August 30 [12 favorites]

People aren't objecting to the topic, they are objecting to the behavior of the people bringing up the topic.

Jarcat: people say that the behavior is what they are objecting to, but i have been repeatedly sniped at by other users in those threads just for posting links/excerpts. Not saying I haven't gotten fighty, because i have a couple times, and that's bad and i shouldn't do it -- but i get sniped at even when i don't offer any personal comment at all.
posted by adrienneleigh at 2:02 PM on August 30 [7 favorites]

The issue i have with the idea of separate threads for separate issues is that we all know that's going to be applied extremely selectively.

I think that's entirely possible, and that's part of having human moderation that makes judgement calls. It may not be fair, but it might be based on experience not just on which topics are more raw, but also on the general behaviour/style/habit/tenor of particular topics.

And for sure, a little annoying and confusing for new people and you would want to keep that to a minimum. But in this particular case -- if that's the one in this thread -- it has very long been a practice that I/P discussion is a special case. I'm not supporting this at a topic level but at a consistency of moderation level, it is consistent.

I think it could also be possible to put some guardrails in place, like if there are 6 back and forths about something that's the point at which a moderator suggests a new thread, or if a warning has to be given or some other metric.
posted by warriorqueen at 2:17 PM on August 30 [6 favorites]

I don't think the framing of liberal joy or good vibes as "sitting back while others fight for me" is fair.

So, I'd like to be a little bit clearer on this one, since I was the one who tried to respond to the joy angle: I did not in any way mean to suggest that liberals aren't fighting in the best way that they know how, or that they are necessarily "sitting back" simply because they appear to be taking joy in politicians. While I don't know each Mefite's individual activity, I know many are doing a lot of work in the realm of voter engagement and activation, especially this year.

When referencing a parasocial, or one-sided, media-curated relationship, or saying politicians are "not in comradeship with you", I meant something very specific which by my analysis is innate to structured and hierarchical politics. To me, the nature of hierarchical politics means that you are going to be receiving a curated version of the individuals in question, they are going to be protected from more flat interactions, and they engage in a way that prevents them from forming sincere and equal relationships and friendships with other people engaged in similar work but who are not on the same "level", in a way that leftist organizing does not. So even if you're on the same side, in my view, they aren't exactly comrades. Comrades, to me, are people who work with you, are vulnerable and accountable to you, and consider and support you as equals and friends.

I think politicians work really hard at creating the perception of intimacy, but it's actually really difficult for average Democrats to drop an email or a phone call to Harris and tell her about the work they're doing and get her feedback, or to know her true hopes and dreams. This isn't necessarily the case for leftist organizing, because it is both smaller and also intrinsically flatter. For example, when I saw that someone had done a really amazing protest against the genocide in California, I was able to call an organizer to ask their opinion on how I could organize a similar one in my area. In my experience, even more well-known activists don't generally maintain distancing from other activists in the way that politicians maintain distance - and I think that makes it difficult to form two-sided friendships or to interact as equals with politicians.

Hopefully that helps!

Any proposals about how to draw a boundary here, between comments that are ok vs comments that are attacks?

I think we are seeing that it's extremely difficult, for a number of reasons, because everyone is really, really on edge. But I think a really good starting position would be to allow general statements when they're about broader Democratic demographics, but not to allow them when they're about Metafilter demographics, and to suggest that site-based comments about Metafilter groups or users should go to MeTa. One thing I've been seeing in thread has been mods saying "Use the Contact Us form", and whlie I understand why they are saying it, I think it's actually causing people to be fightier than they normally would, because they feel, whether correctly or not, that anything they say is going into a black hole and will be ignored, whereas a MeTa will at least get their opinions heard by other users. "Take it to the Grey" used to be much more common as a comment on Metafilter, but I haven't heard it much lately.

So for example, allowing things like, "I think Harris wouldn't actually lose that many votes by taking a stronger stance on Palestine; she would gain votes in Detroit and only lose them in X city" would be fine under that analysis, but "If Harris took a stronger stance on Palestine, I bet *you* guys wouldn't vote for her anymore" would be out of line entirely, and "My god, that's the fourth time in thirty minutes you've posted about the same thing, would you and the others just be quiet" would get a "Take it to MeTa".
posted by corb at 2:19 PM on August 30 [10 favorites]

Thankyou, loup. For me that's the ideal mod response both to the thread's topic and to how the thread has gone, and I'm optimistic that three takeaways will have a positive impact when implemented.

The policy against trawling old comments to attack a user makes sense. However, as applied earlier on in the thread it seems to leave little room for a more legitimate purpose: In a metatalk thread concerning patterns of derailing discourse that have arisen repeatedly in two series of threads each closely strung together over 11 months, it's necessary to be able to discuss what those patterns are and to be able to establish agreement about what behaviours and mod action/inaction drove them. An earlier comment attempted (in my view) to do that, and it referred only to the threads directly leading up to this one, but its (not ideal) approach was to name specific users and suggest searching for their posts in those threads, and so was deleted under this policy.

In this context, how do mods suggest this purpose (evidencing longterm patterns of behaviour, discourse, and moderation in threads directly leading up to a MeTa) be accomplished if specific commenters can't be named and specific comments can't be linked to?
I don't think that purpose inherently entails an additional purpose to draw attention (negative or otherwise) to a specific user (though it may come with a request to change moderation approach to that behaviour, but it's much, much simpler to establish that kind of agreement by referring to content on metafilter itself, even if on metafilter all of those comments have an unredacted username. If the suggested approach is to quote relevant comments,
1. that's a lot more text on the page,
2. it's pretty much equivalent to naming the user if it's in a known thread, and
3. quoting users out of context, often in small fragments, immediately juxtaposed with the unkindest possible interpretation of their words, divorced of the author's name but immediately recognisable to them as an attack (motivating them to defend themself by explaining their intent in context), is itself one of the most common dynamics for how this thread itself, plus all those leading to it, get derailed.
Is there simply a line between who has been recently-active enough for their participation in relevant threads to be cited as relevant to a policy/moderation MeTa? (that sounds like gold for anyone who wants to rules-lawyer)

How should a thread like this, which addresses a long history that readers may want to catch up on without reading thousands of comments going back almost a year, be given a factual basis?
posted by polytope subirb enby-of-piano-dice at 2:28 PM on August 30 [7 favorites]

corb, I disagree with your framing of leftist joy (or activism) as comradeship vs. liberal joy (or activism) as parasocial engagement, but thank you for clarifying what you were getting at there.
posted by Threeve at 2:31 PM on August 30 [3 favorites]

It made me mad the other week when a few of the folks posting about Gaza expressed that they felt they couldn’t post in the DNC thread about the Uncommitted movement there anymore. It was 100% relevant to the topic and as a percentage of the discussion there had been very few comments posted. So I posted a link myself that adrienneleigh wanted to post in a similar manner to how they posted and I got a few constructive responses and no one seemed upset about it.

I am also someone who has had very little sociopolitical hope since 2016. In fact, the last time was briefly after the election was called for Biden in 2020. And I increasingly found hope after Biden backed out and Harris seemed to be gaining a ton of momentum. It meant maybe our four-year-old would grow up in a country meaningfully addressing climate change, housing, economic equality, and a host of other intractable issues. So I also understand the feeling, to put it very tritely, that the yum was being yucked.

But it’s all fucking relevant! It should be talked about at the same time. It’s like 90s BBS rules simple.
posted by Captaintripps at 2:37 PM on August 30 [10 favorites]

-- but i get sniped at even when i don't offer any personal comment at all.

Adrienneleigh- your point is entirely fair, and I should have said "many" or "some" because you definitely have gotten some weirdly over the top negative responses. I also checked out of a lot of the discourse here over Gaza (I kept up on news just by going to Cendawanita's profile and following the news links she posted). So yeah, I don't have a claim to correctly making such a sweeping statement.

I think a win state from this whole mess, to my mind, would be everyone feeling like they had the ability to communicate and be heard around this stuff, but I know that won't change unless how we treat each other changes. Gods know I need to be better at following that myself.
posted by Jarcat at 2:54 PM on August 30 [10 favorites]

trawling a user's comments to bring them as an argument against them (or bringing them into a thread they are not otherwise involved in) is rude and such comments should not be allowed to stand.

To be more clear about what actually happened, since it's good to keep this straight: a user didn't just trawl another user's comment history and bring their old comments to this thread; she trawled that user's *previous account's* comment history and linked it here, calling them out by their new account. I have no idea if that linkage was correct, but the user obviously thought it was, which was a pretty gross move.
posted by mediareport at 3:08 PM on August 30 [8 favorites]

The mod note was referring to corb, mediareport.
posted by Captaintripps at 3:10 PM on August 30 [6 favorites]

I think it was also referring to a comment from Violet Blue, which I called out; both comments were deleted after Brandon's last message, so I assume loup was referring to them as well.
posted by mediareport at 3:11 PM on August 30 [4 favorites]

I would like to note that i posted a link with excerpt in the current Harris campaign thread, and it got some faves and a little bit of discussion, and nobody has gone off the rails yet. Which I consider to be a good sign, i think?

Also, Jarcat: some of your snark has been a little rough to take when it's directed at me, but i truly do appreciate that you're trying to keep everyone honest. <3
posted by adrienneleigh at 4:53 PM on August 30 [14 favorites]

To be more clear about what actually happened, since it's good to keep this straight

I don't want to get into details because it's impossible to tell what is and is not allowed these days,* but I don't believe what you described as what actually happened is what actually happened. You are conflating two separate exchanges.

* Clearly even the mods don't know
posted by Press Butt.on to Check at 5:19 PM on August 30 [4 favorites]

some of your snark has been a little rough to take when it's directed at me, but i truly do appreciate that you're trying to keep everyone honest.

It's not really an excuse to say "I direct it at myself way more than anyone else" but I'm also not someone who ignores clearly stated impacts like that. I'll set my snark dial down a few notches to match my intent. I hope you (and everyone reading this thread) have a safe and enjoyable rest this weekend.
posted by Jarcat at 6:25 PM on August 30 [14 favorites]

I don't believe what you described as what actually happened is what actually happened

Well, only our mods know for sure at this point, and I'll admit my reading comprehension can be imperfect when going quickly, but what I saw was Violet Blue linking to an old comment in another thread and stating that it was a previous username of someone involved in this discussion. Happy to be corrected by a mod if my grasp of that is faulty. Before it was deleted, I'm guessing it was Brandon who de-linked the specific comment in the old thread so it just went to the top of the thread itself, which was nice since it stopped the outing of a user's former persona, but after I noted that Violet Blue's comment itself was still a violation of site norms, I'm guessing it was loup who went ahead and erased it.

Whatever else also happened, the above is something I saw, to the best of my recollection after the memory-holing. Anyway, I will happily apologize if I got this wrong.
posted by mediareport at 9:18 AM on August 31 [2 favorites]

There's a previous metatalk thread that's been mentioned a few times in this one, even after the clean up. Violet Blue asked a (very loud) participant in this thread if they commented in the other thread under a different name. The loud participant answered in the affirmative. They themselves gave the name of their former persona which was (and is) already clearly linked in the current persona's profile. There was no outing as I remember it.

The exchange was probably removed because it was pointless and fighty, not for BND reasons.
posted by Press Butt.on to Check at 9:33 AM on August 31 [3 favorites]

If a mod did edit a comment w/o note to alter an anchor tag that would be a new frontier of mod policy. I can kinda see it as an experiment they might decide to be worth trying though
posted by Press Butt.on to Check at 10:53 AM on August 31

Then why keep bringing it up after removal?
posted by Press Butt.on to Check at 11:20 AM on August 31 [3 favorites]

In context, though, it was very clearly an accusation/gotcha, and pretty gross to see.

Yes, it would be great if we could all just stop dissing other members by name, even when we feel it's justified. As someone who's not involved in this particular spat, it's a downer to see it happen from either side.
posted by Winnie the Proust at 11:39 AM on August 31 [3 favorites]

There's a previous metatalk thread that's been mentioned a few times in this one, even after the clean up. Violet Blue asked a (very loud) participant in this thread if they commented in the other thread under a different name

It was a metafilter thread from March about disinformation. She also asked them if they were “paranoid” which was confusing af but seemed to be a possible suggestion that they may be a Russian agent. Typically, we don’t drag user information from profile pages into threads given that profile information can be made non-searchable. I would have given a timeout for it.
posted by knobknosher at 12:09 PM on August 31 [7 favorites]

Typically, we don’t drag user information from profile pages

Correct and I'm glad that Loup deleted the comments they did. I am surprised the links to corb are still up but I'll just say there's a reason? or they we're not flagged. In the instance that I pointed out I think this is typically bad faith and wa quite upset about it. I could see highlighting a past users comment for a relative subject matter or topic that's on hand, I guess you have to use it judiciously and within context, leave that up to the poster but my experience is very rare to do so.

a long time ago in metatalk, a mefi basically reconstructed a biography from a person's links/posts/comments and posted it, it wasn't an attack, it wasn't meant to harm but it was quite devastating just as an effect if someone decided to do the same with the malice aforethought. the research involved and framing top notch. I remember a few other people did the same and I think folks came to the consensus that we just do not do that. I suppose if someone wants to do their own in a jokey way in a Halloween thread or something funny, maybe. But it appears to others as a type of sub-doxxing which conflicts with the Brand New Day policy, right to relative privacy and about 20 other reasons.
posted by clavdivs at 2:15 PM on August 31 [5 favorites]

I am surprised the links to corb are still up but I'll just say there's a reason? or they we're not flagged. In the instance that I pointed out . . .

Is this comment what you mean by "pointed out"? Because the original comment by paper scissors sock was indeed deleted. Jesus fuck is it gaslight metatalk day or something?

Also please note that the loud particpant's profile names their sock puppet even in public view and that the mefite who mediareport decided to smear long after the fact "since it's good to keep this straight" was NOT the person who brought up the Russian Disinformation debacle. That was the pig-named user.
posted by Press Butt.on to Check at 3:04 PM on August 31

Violet Blue, in fact, misidentified pattern juggler's old account and accused him of being a different user entirely. Which is yet another good reason not to do that shit.
posted by adrienneleigh at 3:30 PM on August 31 [7 favorites]

I don't think anyone has been hectored

Oh good lord
posted by Sebmojo at 3:42 PM on August 31 [8 favorites]

my sorta bad, yes comment gone but I also pointed out this
which I don't think is directly related to corb though I haven't read through both the posts. I'm going to cop to a latent assumption the poster was inferring, again my bad.
posted by clavdivs at 3:42 PM on August 31 [1 favorite]

At this point I think a fundraiser thread explicitly promising to add a mute function if we hit a certain mark would make serious bank.
posted by AdamCSnider at 3:58 PM on August 31 [20 favorites]

I don't know about everyone else, but my sympathies shift toward whoever's being less of a jerk.

(I also kinda wish we could start reserving "gaslight," let alone "jesus fuck[...]gaslight," for the (largely gendered) violence it was initially meant to describe. Slinging it around at someone clearly earnestly trying to describe how they see things, but maybe ending up a bit off from your recollection, really doesn't lead anywhere good, and that's true even if your recollection ends up being the more accurate one.)

[deleted joke that if clavdivs is gaslighting anyone, it's with grammar games, not with...whatever this disagreement is.]
posted by nobody at 4:36 PM on August 31 [6 favorites]

(I already kinda regret posting that comment, but I do think there's something off about borrowing the rhetorical power that feminism imbued that phrase with to...slap at people you just disagree with on the internet. But I also get that language moves on, and this is probably a lost cause.)
posted by nobody at 4:56 PM on August 31 [2 favorites]

Okay but what if clavdis is Plato and we're living in his cave?? Thanks I'll take the answer off the air.
posted by Jarcat at 5:26 PM on August 31 [3 favorites]

Hold up.

I like all of you too much to have read this thread too deeply up to this point, but I'm all for clavidivs' philosophical cave.
posted by thivaia at 6:38 PM on August 31 [3 favorites]

I'm not good at internet, can someone see if clavdispartycave.com is taken. I don't want to get ahead of myself but we might have just saved metafilter y'all
posted by Jarcat at 6:47 PM on August 31 [4 favorites]

Wait, I like where you're going with this, but are you two suggesting that in the Plato's Cave reboot Plato's the one who locks everyone up and makes them face away from the fire and the sun and does the shadow puppets on the wall? Is it like a Misery thing where he just wants us to keep writing comments, is all?

(p.s., and only because it's been three times now: it's clavdivs, like Claudius but with those carved-into-stone v's for the u's!)
posted by nobody at 7:17 PM on August 31 [4 favorites]

I like Fredos cave, it's smat.
posted by clavdivs at 7:39 PM on August 31 [5 favorites]

it's clavdivs, like Claudius but with those carved-into-stone v's for the u's

Yeah I know. I just had a holiday gin and tonic and I suck at typing on the iphone.
posted by thivaia at 7:47 PM on August 31 [2 favorites]

(Oh, yours weren't any of those three typos, thivaia, tipsy iphone fingers or no. Jarcat was consistently missing the second u, so I figured they might be missing the Claudius thing.)
posted by nobody at 7:54 PM on August 31 [1 favorite]

I was told there would be no math
posted by Jarcat at 8:56 PM on August 31 [7 favorites]

It’s actually cla5di5s
posted by nat at 9:44 PM on August 31 [6 favorites]

(might also be 150au501us)
posted by nobody at 7:33 AM on September 1 [2 favorites]

I'm sorry, 150 Australian, 501 US? Is that an AU-defaultist/US-normative jeans reference?
posted by legendary hot air bassoon pilot at 8:49 AM on September 1

METAFILTER: I just had a holiday gin and tonic and I suck at
posted by philip-random at 9:01 AM on September 1 [3 favorites]

150 Australian, 501 US?

Sorry, 150=CL and 501=DI, but I probably should have just given up on it once seeing VDIV doesn't parse. (Maybe we should all go back to fighting now, so I can stop embarrassing myself. I believe we were, indeed, promised that there would be no math.)
posted by nobody at 10:40 AM on September 1 [7 favorites]

Did mods fall asleep today in the Israel's Torture Regime thread? Why was a poster allowed to make a bunch of the most obvious concern-trolling comments and drag us back to arguments that were pernicious even in the days immediately after Oct. 7?

And mods wonder why we're not extending absurd amounts of charity, either to posters or to the moderators themselves. If this kind of scenario that erodes trust that there's any sort of even-handed moderation occuring, rather than certain viewpoints being given space to centre themselves and distract from Israeli crimes in threads about exactly those crimes.
posted by sagc at 6:41 PM on September 4 [9 favorites]

Sorry, that should be the US Response to Gaza thread.
posted by sagc at 6:46 PM on September 4 [5 favorites]

I have been flagging generously and sent a memail to the mods.
posted by tofu_crouton at 6:49 PM on September 4 [4 favorites]

I’m an asshole but now I feel like there *has* to be a conversation about Kamala’s I/P debate answer somewhere. As she discusses her position it becomes clear that she is actually in line with the status quo that people are deeply unhappy with and it would be wild to assume that she’s lying to appease the centrists or something and that once she gets in she’s going to start swashbuckling on behalf of Palestine.
posted by Selena777 at 8:04 AM on September 12 [8 favorites]

toastyk just set up a new US/Middle East thread, that might be the place now.
posted by cendawanita at 9:08 AM on September 12 [5 favorites]

/me waves the mod flag to try to get them to do something about the "do you even think Israeli civilians have the right to live" whataboutism currently happening in the thread about the Lebanon pager terrorist attack
posted by sagc at 4:02 AM on September 18 [9 favorites]

Ok, I composed that last night, and the thread has only gotten so much worse in the intervening time.
posted by sagc at 4:04 AM on September 18 [5 favorites]

What mefi guideline or policy do you believe is being violated?
posted by Press Butt.on to Check at 5:27 AM on September 18

I feel like direct attacks against members including the statement "Y'all are masks off for your straight-up support of Hezbollah" is the sort of thing that would have caught at least a quick delete and a temp ban previously.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 5:29 AM on September 18 [9 favorites]

That line was too much, agreed. But it was one line in an overall interesting set of comments

I mean the accepted standard of behavior is to accuse anyone opining with the slightest hint of pro-Israel view of being a genocider. By multiple people posting multiple times. Surely you can let that line go w/o calling for bannings?
posted by Press Butt.on to Check at 5:45 AM on September 18 [2 favorites]

And yet, despite allegedly being the "accepted standard of behavior" there's not a single comment there doing what you accuse them of. Meanwhile, in between accusations of terrorist sympathies there were apparently the usual attempts (thankfully deleted) to imply users, including many Jewish users, of being antisemites for their valid criticisms of the attack and the Israeli govt and military.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 6:23 AM on September 18 [7 favorites]

I mean the accepted standard of behavior is to accuse anyone opining with the slightest hint of pro-Israel view of being a genocider. By multiple people posting multiple times. Surely you can let that line go w/o calling for bannings?

"fair and balanced"
posted by busted_crayons at 1:07 AM on September 19 [2 favorites]

Another day, another poster coming into a thread to remind us all that we're Hezbollah sympathizers who wish to forcibly transplant to Israeli population... somewhere. (because, you see, anyone who calls a state illegitimate must clearly wish for it to be destroyed and the earth salted)

projection, baby!
posted by sagc at 4:14 AM on September 19 [6 favorites]

What DO. you wish for? "The IsraelibState is illegitimate and therefore _________'?

What should the consequences of that "illegitimacy" be?
posted by OnceUponATime at 4:33 AM on September 19

Nope, not engaging with a question that has been asked and answered to exhaustion. Perhaps work your way through the many, many threads where people have been pushing back against the "You said Israel is an illegitimate state - explain why you want to destroy Israel utterly" false equivalency.

(canada and the US are also illegitimate states founded on ethnic cleansing. 🤯)

(a state can actually work toward making amends for historic wrongs, even if I'm not sure I've ever seen such things exculpate them; making an effort to be moral is actually a good thing)
posted by sagc at 4:37 AM on September 19 [5 favorites]

I mean the accepted standard of behavior is to accuse anyone opining with the slightest hint of pro-Israel view of being a genocider.

When the "pro-Israel sentiment" is being expressed by minimizing or justifying atrocities, claiming people protesting genocide are all in support of Hamas, or that everyone angry about a terror attack is a Hezbollah supporter, it becomes difficult to interpret it as anything other than support for atrocities.
posted by pattern juggler at 7:16 AM on September 19 [5 favorites]

When the "pro-Israel sentiment" is being expressed by minimizing or justifying atrocities [...] it becomes difficult to interpret it as anything other than support for atrocities.

When people won't specify how their position differs from that of Hamas, it becomes difficult to interpret it as anything other than support for Hamas.

... And that's why these conversations don't go well. To me it sounds like anyone who goes around saying "Israel isn't a legitimate country" is endorsing Hamas (which does want to end Israel.) To you, it sounds like anyone who says "In spite of everything Israel still has a right to exist/defend itself" is endorsing genocide.

What if you're not endorsing Hamas and I'm not endorsing genocide? And we both actually want the same thing: for the region to be governed as a secular democracy (or two secular democracies) where civil rights do not depend on ethnicity or religion?

What if Israel is a real country with the same rights as other countries, and which is currently committing atrocities?
posted by OnceUponATime at 8:47 AM on September 19 [3 favorites]

As per your usual bad faith, pattern juggler, you elide the context of my statement. A call was made for moderator action to silence certain viewpoints in the pager thread. My comment was those viewpoints were not expressed in a way that was out of line with the tenor of the conversation. Your explanation of the logic you employ to justify attacking other members is a non-sequitur.

But since you seem think it's so terrible to imply any here have some sympathy for terrorist organizations, is it safe to assume you flagged the comment that called people "terror apologists in this thread" even though it was not in reference to Hamas or Hezbollah?
posted by Press Butt.on to Check at 9:00 AM on September 19

When people won't specify how their position differs from that of Hamas, it becomes difficult to interpret it as anything other than support for Hamas.

If you make the assumption anyone disgusted by genocide supports Hamas unless they explicitly state otherwise, that is not reasonable.

If someone comes into a thread about deliberate genocide and says "Israel has a right to defend itself" they are going to be understood differently than saying the same in other contexts. If I say "the US has a right to defend itself" in a thread about atrocities committed in Afghanistan, no one should interpret that as a good faith argument about the law of war.

What if you're not endorsing Hamas and I'm not endorsing genocide? And we both actually want the same thing: for the region to be governed as a secular democracy (or two secular democracies) where civil rights do not depend on ethnicity or religion?

I'm sorry, but if we have had any interaction before I don't remember it. I don't have any teason to think you support genocide. I do remember people saying that the best response to the October 7th attacks was ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Or that anti-genocide protestors are pro-Hamas. And other things along those lines, mostly deleted now. Those are the voices that I think are beyond the pale.

What if Israel is a real country with the same rights as other countries, and which is currently committing atrocities?

No countries are real. Israel as currently constituted is an apartheid state and should cease to exist as such, the way South Africa did.

Sorry if I sound terse. Don't mean to rude, I am on my phone at work.
posted by pattern juggler at 9:04 AM on September 19 [6 favorites]

Okay, well, it's probably not worth debating what "real" means or what social constructs qualify. I would be happy if people went around saying "Israel is as real a country as the US or Canada" and "The same thing that happened in South Africa should happen in Israel."

So I'll leave off commenting for now on that note of agreement.
posted by OnceUponATime at 9:27 AM on September 19 [5 favorites]

As per your usual bad faith, pattern juggler, you elide the context of my statement

You were talking about a supposed "accepted standard of behavior". The rest of the context about a specific post was irrelevant.

Your explanation of the logic you employ to justify attacking other members is a non-sequitur.

I don't think any justification for criticizing war crimes apologia is necessary. I am sorry if that makes you feel attacked.

But since you seem think it's so terrible to imply any here have some sympathy for terrorist organizations, is it safe to assume you flagged the comment that called people "terror apologists in this thread" even though it was not in reference to Hamas or Hezbollah?

I don't think there is anything wrong with making such an accusation. I just object to it when it is baseless. Anyone who said "Palestine has a right to defend itself" in response to October 7th deserves the same level of criticism. Implying everyone with a problem with apartheid or genocide is a supporter of terrorism isn't quite the same.
posted by pattern juggler at 9:28 AM on September 19 [3 favorites]

"Israel is as real a country as the US or Canada" and "The same thing that happened in South Africa should happen in Israel."

That is very much my position. I will try to be more clear about what I mean in future. There is enough genuine disagreement without my accidentally creating misinderstanding on top of it.

Thanks for the thoughtful response, I appreciate it.
posted by pattern juggler at 9:31 AM on September 19 [5 favorites]

Okay but what if clavdis is Plato and we're living in his cave??

Better hope he has firewood...
posted by y2karl at 1:13 PM on September 19 [2 favorites]

No countries are real.

how is this going to meaningfully apply to the issue at hand, though? I take the point, and I'm happy to consider a future where national borders are meaningless and we've solved all kinds of problems plaguing the world. But for now, it's Canada (a nation construct) showing its ass by abstaining on a pretty simple vote at the UN. It's Germany and England making sounds about moderately slowing their shipments of arms to Israel. Etc.

for our lifetimes and lifetimes before us, this is how we discuss reality. what on earth is the point of getting sidetracked about the legitimacy of a word when people are getting genocided? I don't get it
posted by ginger.beef at 2:50 PM on September 19 [3 favorites]

Ray Bradbury's novel Fahrenheit 451 (1953) explores the themes of reality and perception explored in Plato's allegory of the cave and Bradbury references Plato's work in the novel.

-wikipedia
posted by clavdivs at 2:56 PM on September 19 [3 favorites]

for our lifetimes and lifetimes before us, this is how we discuss reality. what on earth is the point of getting sidetracked about the legitimacy of a word when people are getting genocided? I don't get it

It isn't just about the anarchist future. States cease to exist all the time. The Confederacy, the USSR, apartheid South Africa. These weren't entities with rights, nor were they identical to their inhabitants or their territories. People attribute rights to states, or see them as identical to the people living in them. And so they take offense to ideas like "Israel is an illegitimate apartheid states". When what is being called for isn't mass murder or ethnic cleansing, but the end of a political entity.

I think it is important to make that distinction because supporters of the status quo in Israel often use Israel's "right to exist" to create a deliberate confusion over whether they are discussing the right of the current inhabitants of Israel to live there peacefully, or the right of a political entity to exert its authority, with the intent of portraying criticism of the political system currently in power as murderous antisemitism.

I didn't spell this out at greater length before because I was typing on my phone on my break at work.
posted by pattern juggler at 3:05 PM on September 19 [8 favorites]

We ask clavdis for firewood and he brings us Farenheit 451 facts, which I cannot overstate, is *perfection*
posted by Jarcat at 3:21 PM on September 19 [3 favorites]

and it's a work of fiction.
posted by philip-random at 7:18 PM on September 19

Montag!
he does memorize Ecclesiastes- King Solomon - nothing new under the sun.
posted by clavdivs at 7:44 PM on September 19 [1 favorite]

« Older MetaFilter Community Foundation Nonprofit Update... | birds? Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments

MetaTalk

Discussion of Kamala Harris’ positions on Palestine verboten? August 21, 2024 1:57 PM Subscribe

Tags

Share