The Moderation Policy
| April 17th, 2007There’s an interesting discussion of “Alas” comments and moderation in an older post; the current round of discussion begins with comment number 297 by Mandolin. Here’s the complete text of Mandolin’s first comment in that discussion:
I know this has been said before, but I guess I feel the need to add my voice to the din. For whatever reason, Alas, which theoretically has an emphasis on civil discourse, seems to host more vile sentiments than any other blog I read regularly (note: I dropped Hugo from my reading list for similar reasons*).
I like being here, and I like reading the posts, but the way Ann and Pheeno have just been attacked — really, dramatically attacked — is kind of galling.
Why does the emphasis on civil discourse create this feedback loop? Is it because the posters on Pandagon, for instance, are more comfortable mocking the creeps before they get so creepy? Is it just a different bannination policy? Is it an illusion caused by the way comments thread here? Do the comments get as vile in other places, but the reaction of the population is just different, so the scary stuff isn’t as clearly delineated?
If no one else is interested in opening up this can of worms, it’s cool. And I appreciate that Chris has been asked to leave. But, it still happened.
–
(*Leading me to be curious about why it is that the feminist blogs hosted by men have such an infestation, but with a group of 2, it’s hardly a real pattern.)
There’s a lot more discussion there, which I’m not going to attempt to summarize. However, since loading over 300 comments is a pain for some folks, I’m starting this new post for continuing that discussion. (Admittedly, people will have to reload that page initially to read the discussion, but eventually we’ll be able to move the conversation over to this thread).
UPDATED TO ADD:
I do have several ideas of what we can do, some of which contradict each other.
1) Stop having comments on “Alas” at all.
This is actually pretty appealing to me, in some ways; I’d miss some of the discussion, but having comments is also a major pain in the neck. But I don’t think other people would love it. I certainly wouldn’t do this (or any of the other ideas, actually) if Rachel and Maia disagree.
2) Get more folks to moderate.
But they’d have to be folks who “get” the idea of the site, who don’t hate the idea of the site, and they’d have to be willing to volunteer. (Feminists only, natch.)
3) Put a “email the moderators about this comment” link with every comment that appears.
One thing pointed out in the discussion is that people tend to hesitate to report comments they’re concerned with — but in fact, I’d find it very, very useful if people emailed me right away when things go over-the-top. (Maia, Rachel, would you mind receiving such emails?) The problem, of course, is that I’m not online 24/7, and neither is Rachel, or Maia. This is an area in which having more moderators might help some.
4) Add a “progressive anti-racists only” condition to some posts, similar to the “feminists only” rule condition some posts have.
This will definitely happen — we just need to work out the wording. (Just saying “anti-racist posters only” won’t cut it, because everyone considers themselves to be anti-racist.)
5) More “progressive anti-racists only” posts. More “feminists only” posts.
6) Create an “Alas annex,” meant for polite debate between different idealogical views, and outsource most of the non-feminist, non-progressive comments to the annex.
That’s some of what I’ve been thinking. A number of folks suggested various technological solutions, but I’m not sure those solutions are things I’m technically capable of implementing.
I’ll post more later, but right now I’ve got to go get my teeth drilled. :-(
April 17th, 2007 at 11:37 am
I don’t read a lot of blogs, but I’d agree that the tone of the discussion can get unusually nasty here, with a lot of personal attacks.
I don’t think that personal attacks are ever legitimate in this context. One may disagree with any statement without calling the good character of the other poster into question. It is especially important to remember that most of us have never met in real life, and that the person you are lambasting may be a perfectly delightful human being with whom you simply happen to disagree on some point.
As to why discussion here tends to degenerate, I have very few ideas. I do visit several very pleasant blogs where this kind of thing seldom happens. In all those cases, so far as I can tell, the moderator ruthlessly deletes any and all messages which contain personal attacks, and there is also a sort of three-strikes philosophy that if you are a repeat offender you get banned. After a very short time of this, bad actors get bored or get banned, and the rest of us can disagree in a civil fashion. (This is, of course, a lot of work for someone.)
It would be ideal if we as posters could police ourselves and our own comments, and not require Mommy (or Daddy, as the case may be) to come in a discipline us from Above, but I’m not sure how to produce that situation.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
#3 is used to great effect on Free Republic. Each post there is labelled with a few options, one of which is “Report Abuse”. Clicking there gives you a comment box. Filling that in and closing it alerts the moderators immediately.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
What’s the difference between “anti-racist” and “progressive anti-racist”, and why would you need to make the distinction?
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
One last thing (sorry about the multiple posts); I think that the number of posts on here that strike me as abusive are not particularly high. I don’t see the need for extraordinary action. Of course, it’s Amp’s standards that matter, not mine - just my 2 cents worth. Me, I’d let a couple get though. That way, you know who the a$$holes are, instead of just banning them immediately.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
hmm. It seems like the the wording on the anti-racist thing needs to be worked out considerably. or a definition. I cant see anyway aroudn it:
“anti-racist posters only”*
*for the purposes of this blog, anti-racist posters are those who recognize and oppose both structural racism and white supremacy which are among the central organizing elements of the social world today.
This comment was written by curiousgyrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
of course the group of intellectuals around Race Traitor mag of the 1990’s used the term “abolitionist” as opposed to anti-racist to make this distinction, both as a way of drawing on the legacy of radical abolitionists during slavery, and to put the “abolition” of whiteness front and center in thier political self-definition.
This comment was written by curiousgyrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Bean, I read the discussion, and the arguments being made. I agree that my proposals aren’t responsive to your arguments, but I think they are responsive to what some other folks have said.
And I’m also discussing proposed changes that Rachel and I have been discussing in email.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Well, I don’t have any answers, but I too would hate to see the comments go away. Put me down as one more person who’s learned something about feminism here — although I’d also agree with others that that’s less true since the site was sold and a lot of feminists left. While I disagree with some feminist ideology, having many fewer feminist voices in the comments has narrowed the discussion and skewed it the other way, and that’s too bad. It’s also made some of the really creepy stuff seem closer to the mainstream.
Some time ago I was the target of some of that really creepy stuff. The discussion had nothing to do with racism and only indirectly to do with sexism, but I found it quite hurtful and I took a hiatus from “Alas” for a while (even though the commenter in question was banned). My choice, and I’m not saying that I or anyone else should expect to be “protected” or “safe,” just that I know how it feels.
I rather like Maia’s moderation style, although I was somewhat taken aback by it at first: she will say (both on a post itself and in comments) “I don’t want to hear/I’ve heard enough about x” and drag a discussion back on topic or away from potential vitriol by the scruff of its neck. As others have noted, that of course requires pretty close monitoring of threads. It does let me know where I stand, though, and helps me decide if I am feminist enough for a given thread. (Many feminists would not consider me feminist enough, or possibly at all, on certain topics, so I self-moderate.) It might — or might not — be helpful to take this approach in defining in some detail what is meant by anti-racist. I know we shouldn’t need to, but that’s true of a lot of things.
I’ve also seen Amp say in a thread, “N, you’re on thin ice wrt your remarks on xyz, back off,” but not as much lately.
I like the idea of reporting abuse, and I like the idea of multiple moderators. I’d have to think about the idea of having everyone rate comments: it could work very well or it could turn into a game of “The Weakest Link.”
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
I’d stop reading if there were no comments; it’s the discussions that are interesting.
But sometimes blogs have a life span. Perhaps this one is winding down. It’s a tremendous amount of work to keep a blog going properly, and often sooner or later the people involved get tired of it or find something more pressing to do with their lives.
The two long-running still-vital blogs I can think of are both by writers, one a book writer, the other a newspaper columnist. These two blogs are intended to sell books and newspapers, at least indirectly, and to further the careers of the blog owners. If this works (and I have no idea whether it does or not) that would keep the blog going, I’d think.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
“The two long-running still-vital blogs I can think of are both by writers, one a book writer”
Scalzi?
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Pandagon is cleaned up weirdly because we get more hostile commenters. Which is to say that a lot of the people who can maintain a veneer of politeness on white male-owned bloges absolutely lose their shit on Pandagon, because they simply cannot find reserves in themselves to refrain from acting like utter fuckards to me, my commenters and Pam (who gets more abuse that gets deleted, I swear).
This comment was written by Amanda Marcotte.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Oh, so that means they get banned quickly. They just can’t skirt so easily on the edges of acceptibility.
This comment was written by Amanda Marcotte.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
I read Bean as saying that the comments here weren’t responsive to the other discussion. For instance, Susan saying, “The key is to reemphasize civility again,” makes it appear, to me, that she didn’t see the other discussion (though she might just disagree with it).
FWIW, your suggestions do resonate with the concerns I had, Amp.
Like others, I’d find it sad for comments to go.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
I think you should get rid of the comment policy completely and do something like Bitch Ph.D–just say “my blog, my rules and whoever doesn’t like it will deleted at will.” I think it keeps people on her blog from getting too rowdy too quicky.
Overly elaborate moderation policies are a ton of work ( from what I hear) and it might end up being more trouble than it’s worth.
This comment was written by Jamila Akil.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Hear, hear! Consider this a second vote for the marketplace of not pissing Amp, Maia or Rachel off enough to get deleted. (Although, I have no objection to the existing system. As a traditionalist, it is sufficiently non-evil to command my support by virtue of already existing.)
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Robert
Or Charles, musn’t forget Charles.
This comment was written by Tom Nolan.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Hear, hear! Consider this a second vote for the marketplace of not pissing Amp, Maia or Rachel off enough to get deleted.
That’s rather suspect coming from someone who, like me, will never be banned.
I see the problem more as a paucity of articulate feminist commenters compared to the number that used to comment here. As Lu says, the comment threads have been skewed to the anti-feminist and regressive side due to that loss.
Will more feminists start commenting here? I dunno. If not, it’s a shame. The education and direction provided here was much, much better than I have seen anywhere else. It would be, I think, a tremendous loss. There was a certain synergy between the posts and the commentary that may very well not be able to be duplicated anywhere else.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
I rather like #6, and suspect that it would result in a higher quality of comment in both spaces.
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
April 18th, 2007 at 4:57 am
Amp, didn’t you actually try a form of #6 by cross-posting on Creative Destruction? I don’t know that it helped that much.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
April 18th, 2007 at 9:09 am
I don’t know if it’s possible with the current software you’re using or not, but maybe you could keep the comments with a reduced workload by the following:
1) Have a list of people whose comments automatically go through all the time because their comments are always on point and add value to the discussion and you don’t usually have to monitor them; and
2) Everybody else goes into a moderation queue.
Or maybe you could have a second layer where the moderation queue depends on topic.
I appreciate the comments on this site very much - I have learned a lot about all kinds of things here, not just about different brands of feminist thought.
This comment was written by Original Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
April 18th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
[...] going on at Alas, a Blog.The meat, so far, is in the older thread (linked at the top of ‘the moderation policy’ by a jump that will bring you to the most relevant/recent parts of the discussion).Interesting questions and discussion about how to moderate pro-feminist discussion.As I said there: I read and appreciate Alas primarily because I’m interested in seeing what’s going on in ally discourse. (Ampersand, the blog owner, is a man, and many of the commenters are pro-feminist men.) Being a believer that women changing their behavior is irrelevant to ending sexism, violence against women by men, etc., I’m damned invested in what men have to say about misogyny.And what’s put me off the most in Alas comments has actually come from women/theoretical allies, rather than the predictable shrieking of antifeminist trolls.Interesting stuff. If you’re an Alas reader, go add your two cents, for sure - and even if you’re not, the larger questions about civil discourse are useful. [...]
This comment was written by theriomorph.Report this comment to the moderators
April 18th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
“As for some sort of resolution, I don’t see one. Not one that Amp, Rachel, or Maia would probably agree to.”
FWIW, I offered to help moderate, though there are plenty of good reasons why Amp might not take me up on it, even if he does decide to go with the “more feminist moderators” plan.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 18th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
In the other thread, there’s been some confusion about exactly how long “Alas” has existed.
I started blogging around June or July of 2002, in a hand-coded page that was originally intended to present my then-weekly political cartoon. I first started using conventional blogging software sometime in August of 2002. (Or that’s the best I can reconstruct it, anyhow; I’ve got a terrible memory, and it’s been a long time.) So the blog is approximately four years and ten months old if you count from when I started blogging, or four years and 8 months old if you count from the when I started using blogging software and calling it “Alas, a blog.”
In the other thread, Bean wrote:
Those posts were written for “Alas” in August of 2002, and then somehow got misdated as April of 2002. I’ve just this moment fixed their dates.
There are also a couple of blogger biographies falsely dates in 2000. I forget now why I did those that way, but as Bean points out, the dating is false.
Most of the early “Alas” posts, and virtually all of the reader comments for the first two years or so (iirc), were lost in various moves from server to server, and from software to software. A bunch of the early posts have been restored by me “by hand,” but there are too many to restore them all, and restoring the comments would be overwhelmingly difficult.
(I have much more of an idea of what I’m doing now, so it’s unlikely that anther huge data-loss like that will ever occur.)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 18th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
So basically Bean was right. She’s right too about the way people lose track of webtime. For instance, I could have sworn that I had been reading Robert’s comments since I was about twelve years old, but - as Bean pointed out - his presence on Alas doesn’t seem to predate early 2005.
Blog comments are like dreams, aren’t they? You can have the most vivid recollection of one without being able to locate it in time.
This comment was written by Tom Nolan.Report this comment to the moderators
April 18th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Well, in fairness to you Tom, I have been beaming my commentary directly into your sleeping mind ever since you were born. But don’t make a big fuss about it, or everyone will want the feed.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 18th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
If we decide to go with the “more feminist moderators” plan, I’ll definitely invite you to be one of the moderators, and I appreciate your volunteering. But I’ll definitely need input from Rachel and Maia before making that decision.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 18th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Oh, sure. Didn’t mean to come off as impatient, just responding to Bean.
[Edited by Amp to re-anonymize Mandolin. And don't worry, you didn't come off as impatient. :-) ]
This comment was written by Mandolin.[Edited a second time by Charles, 'cause I've never seen Mandolin put in a web link, and it isn't pseudonymous either]
[Thanks, Charles! Sorry I missed that. --Amp]
Report this comment to the moderators
April 18th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
*cough*
That was me. Anonymity resumed. If any mods want to fix my slip up, I would appreciate it. (It’s not a big deal; I just like to keep a mild separation between “professional life’ and “commenting on feminist blogs.”)
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 18th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
Making Light has been talking about moderation lately, quite fruitfully:
http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/008856.html#008856
This comment was written by A.J. Luxton.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 12:06 am
I have definitely changed my opinions as a result of reading Alas. The hard-core misogynists and quasi-trolls are not likely to change their opinions, but seeing people destroy their arguments politely but effectively has shown me that such arguments are worthless or coded misogyny, whereas had I not read Alas, I might have taken such arguments seriously.
However, one view I have not altered is on civility; I am still not at all convinced that civility is bad for women or bad for feminism. That’s a big part of the reason why I generally lurk here. It’s hard to contribute to a discussion if my views on the meta-issues of how a good discussion should happen put me into conflict with most participants.
Also, I suspect it’s not worthwhile for most feminists to bother convincing me of anything. Compared to many of the commenters here, I probably look like an anti-feminist who has become slightly less anti-feminist, thanks to Alas. Why bother arguing with hateful trolls for the sake of someone who isn’t among the Saved anyway?
This comment was written by Individ-ewe-al.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 12:46 am
[Thanks for the moderation help, Amp and Charles. :)]
Individ-ewe-al:
“Why bother arguing with hateful trolls for the sake of someone who isn’t among the Saved anyway?”
Do you characterize that as civil?
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 2:09 am
Yeah, the whole “Saved” comment was….I don’t even know how to put it. Typical of the low-level yet constant baiting that I was talking about on the other thread.
The implication behind it being that we feminists never have to deal with “the outside/real” world. As if we didn’t have to listen to viewpoints violently opposed to our own and deal with face-to-face sexism and misogyny on a daily basis. Complete nonsense.
I can’t help but believe that if I went to a conservative or white supremacist blog and parked myself there for a few years, commenting constantly, people–even those people who share my worldview–would wonder what the hell was wrong with me. *I* would begin to wonder what the hell was wrong with me.
Though of course the above scenario would likely never occur because my ass would get banned from any right-wing blog in pretty short order, and I wouldn’t be allowed to perpetually derail threads and bait right-wing posters.
This comment was written by crys t.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 4:37 am
Mandolin, I described trolls as hateful, but observe that I did not call any individual poster hateful. I assume that feminists hate trolls even more than I do!
Crys, I know that you have to deal with anti-feminists and sexists in daily life. I think part of the reason that this discussion about moderation is getting bogged down is because some contributors think that Alas should be a place where feminists can discuss things with like-minded people, and others think Alas should be a place where feminists can convince fence-sitters like me to commit to their side. I agree entirely that feminists need feminist-only spaces, and I certainly did not mean to imply that wanting such spaces means that feminists are unable to cope with opposing viewpoints. The debate here is whether Alas should be such a space.
Some feminists were arguing that nobody would ever change their mind because of the arguments on Alas. If that’s the case, there is no point in feminists going to all the grief of having the arguments; Alas should just be explicitly feminist-only and that should be strictly enforced. I was presenting myself as a counter-example: yes, I have changed my mind about feminist issues, and changed in a more feminist direction, because of Alas. However, I acknowledge that that’s a weak counter-example; feminists have expended a lot of effort and dealt with a lot of vicious attacks, but I have not changed to the extent of becoming a committed, activist feminist myself. I would understand perfectly if feminists felt the payoff wasn’t justified.
Does that make more sense? It wasn’t intended as baiting, I was just trying to express that I don’t expect feminists to fall over themselves to change my mind at any cost. Not that I think feminists are lazy and stupid because they can’t be bothered to argue with me.
This comment was written by Individ-ewe-al.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 6:07 am
Individ-ewe-al, I think it was probably the “Saved” that bothered people. It struck a sour note (even with me, and I’m by no means a dyed-in-the-wool feminist) because it implied that feminists are holier-than-thou, self-righteous, my-way-or-the-highway true believers eager to jump on anyone who deviates one micron from orthodoxy. (I base this description on my acquaintance with far-right Christian blogs.)
My experience here has been that (with very rare exceptions) that’s not the case. I’ve certainly learned a lot more here than I ever could on any of those far-right blogs. I’ve found feminists to be occasionally impatient and irritable — news flash! feminists are human beings! — especially when beset by trolls. And, after explaining (again) in the Duke thread how the deck is still stacked against a woman who wants to report a rape, never mind seeing the ugliness that went on there, I frankly understand those feelings.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 6:10 am
Is the goal to change people, or to change them so that they reach a certain level?
Anecdotally: Irrespective of where folks might classify me on the various political measures, it is 100% clear to me that my perspective has changed quite a bit over the last year or so. And I credit much of that to Alas (the primary blog on which I participate) as well as some other blogs.
In other words: while I clearly haven’t reached a level of feminism that Q Grrrl, say, would classify as “fully feminist”, nor a level of race awareness that Rachel, say, would classify as “fully anti-racist,” the reality is that both those posters have affected my bottom line quite a bit–disagreements notwithstanding. And of course those are only two posters of many.
So, does Alas want to view that change and similar changes as successes or as failures? It seems like a fairly high bar to only look at whether the people change into a given category or not. Social change is a gradual process. I think this has been a very successful blog in that respect.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 7:03 am
To be blunt, in order for it to be a success, the changes need to be more than private, personal realizations. When those men on this blog, such as yourself or Individ-eww-al, start challenging other men on their misogyny or sexism, then I will consider it a success.
Moderation in the form of top-down control of trolls is limited in its functionality. A larger pool of men who will challenge trolls or MRA’s on their assumptions will be more effective.
As long as the “converted” stay silent in the pews, your change is mostly a selfish exploration of personal beliefs. Put your money where your mouth is and start politically supporting women and feminism.
edited by bean to correct blockquote, cuz it was driving me a little crazy.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 7:08 am
Individ-ewe-al: I take your point, but I’d like to make a clarification, at least for my own personal position (and please note that the “you” I use later on is a general “you,” not you specifically). I’m not saying that there is no chance of ever changing anyone’s mind here, but that there are a number of people who’ve been here for a good long time, commenting regularly, who show no signs of really engaging with debate, let alone change. And I have to wonder what the attraction is of coming to a place day after day, month after month, year after year, where you are opposed to the basic principles and know (because it’s been stated repeatedly by a number of people) that your presence is disruptive and inhibiting to others.
I don’t know how to illustrate it any better than I did in my previous message. Yes, we’ve all been guilty of the drive-by where you go to the blog of someone whose views are repugnant to you and leave a comment, or maybe even a few comments over a short period. And yes, we’re all guilty of all of that sadistic pleasure when we see how our words have made the regulars jump up and down. But after that short period of time is up, we go away, usually feeling a bit dirty.
But there are a whole handful of guys here (maybe a few women, but mostly they are men) who have been doing this NON-STOP for months or years. That to me is not only off-putting, as their continued tolerated presence here makes it seem as if this is a blog for right-wingers to comment on left-wing ideas while left-wingers are less and less welcome, but it is also disturbing.
This comment was written by crys t.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 7:45 am
Lu, thanks for explaining that. I was using “among the Saved” as a short-hand for the group of people who are accepted as feminists by most here, the people that feminists would feel comfortable having a friendly debate with and devoting their feminist engeries to. I admit that I am somewhat ambivalent about the constant demarcation of the in-group; often, instead of opinions being addressed directly, posters are classed as feminist or anti-feminist and judged accordingly. And it’s likely that that bias prompted me to choose a more negative term than I might have done. I apologize if the analogy to a certain type of Christian attitude caused offence.
Q Grrl, I think we agree. I am in fact female, but I don’t think that matters; I don’t expect you to care what my personal political views are, unless I do something active to fight misogyny and sexism. That’s what I meant by saying that it probably isn’t worthwhile for feminists to try to change my mind. I think I do challenge sexism (as I see it) in my speech and blogging, and make political choices which I think will benefit women. But I don’t align myself with the feminist movement, and I often disagree with feminist opinions expressed here. I don’t bother arguing with them very often, because I don’t want to be intruding on a feminist discussion. I just read and learn and come to my own conclusions.
Perhaps that para will clarify for you, crys, why I read Alas at all. I don’t consider myself opposed to feminism. I have been called an anti-feminist for what I thought was honest disagreement about what is most beneficial to women. I get a lot from Alas, and part of that benefit is from seeing the response to the persistent anti-feminist noise here. I don’t know why people insist on making the same stupid noises over and over again for years. I am trying to avoid being part of that noise by lurking unless I have something directly relevant to say.
This comment was written by Individ-ewe-al.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 8:52 am
Yeah, this would greatly help. And I agree with some of what bean said about coming here to read what anti-feminists feel about feminism(and race apologists feel about racism). There’s still a lot of good comments and commenters but a dearth at times of the feminist commenters who used to be here. That’s one reason why I mostly lurk, but I’ve been busy too so.
The articles and topics are good. And I like the discussions except when there’s a dynamic that feels like anti-feminists say something, feminists disagree sometimes vigorously and then get scolded for not being civil. Or how many of the threads on feminist issues and racism issues become threads that are about, “what about men?” or “What about Whites”. There’s enough of that offline and certainly a lot of it online as well, not just here but there’s only a certain amount of hours in the day and a lot of this has to be dealt with offline.
I thought how Ann was treated was horrible.
As far as commenting, I met up with someone in real life who reads my site who said that there’s people who will never change but there’s people who read it and it makes them think and apparently most of the discussion of my blog and its issues occurs off-line from what I’ve heard. So there’s different venues where discussions might take place and not just online in the comments threads. I don’t know if it’s typical.
It’s up to the administrators and moderators to make a decision on what they want to do, though thanks for allowing for feedback.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 9:08 am
This is a completely unfair description of how I moderate, Radfem. At no time [*] have I ever moderated someone merely for offering a “vigorous” response to anti-feminists. (Unless by “vigorous” you mean a post that essentially says “fuck you, you misogynist shitbag,” in which case I think you and I have different ideas of what vigor is.)
I agree that the treatment of Ann was horrible — which led to several racist and racist-apologist posters being banned from “Alas.” We’re discussing ways that we can make it less likely that such a thing happens again (although the essential problem of my inability to be online 24/7 won’t go away). But can you please point to where I even once told people criticizing Ann’s attackers to be “civil”?
[*] Actually, I can think of one time I did do this — but I was in the wrong, I admitted that, and I apologized. It was caused by my failing to read a comment which set essential context. One time in nearly five years isn’t so awful. It’s certainly not typical.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 9:19 am
As far as what the purpose of “Alas” for me is:
1) I do this as a hobby, because it entertains me, and makes me feel like I’m not the only one in the world who can see that the world sucks.
2) I want to provide useful arguments and data for feminists and progressives who are googling for ammo for debates they’re involved in.
3) I would like to contribute to changing people’s minds. But I think occasions in which anyone’s mind is changed by a single argument or discussion are rare to the point of practically not existing at all. What happens more often, I think, is that people’s minds are changed (when they’re changed at all) through the cumulative effect of dozens of different arguments, experiences and discussions.
I don’t really expect to persuade Robert, Branden or RonF of very much (although I think it has some impact). But I do think that if I and other posters here do a good job debating them and others, it has an effect on fence-sitters. A small effect — at best, one of dozens of discussions and experiences having a small effect — but still worthwhile.
I don’t find it a bad thing, therefore, that “Alas” often tends to be a “feminism 101″ site. In the other thread, Q Grrl said (paraphrasing) that we shouldn’t have to defend the basic premises of feminism, because by now they should be a given. Yes, they should be. But they aren’t. A lot of anti-feminist views still have credibility in mainstream US political discourse, and must be addressed. We don’t get to decide what is and isn’t part of the mainstream political discourse; just because I think that pro-life views should be marginal views that no one takes seriously, doesn’t mean that they are.
I also think that Robert, Branden and RonF help me by keeping me honest, by forcing me to consider how my views look to someone who doesn’t share my ideology and viewpoint. I realize that many of the other folks here don’t find that valuable, but that it’s valuable to me is enough. It also helps to keep me from completely dehumanizing people who disagree with me. When I deal with people more abstractly — reading what Bush has done, reading the National Review, reading anti-feminist books, etc. — I tend to get consumed with rage at them, and to think of them as simply evil. Dealing with people in a responsive way, in a forum in which I have to address people directly — helps me to think of my opposition as people.
Again, I’m not saying that anyone but me needs this. I’m just talking about what having conservatives here does for me.
Of course, I realize that other people have other reasons for wanting to read or post to “Alas,” and that’s fine. I’m just speaking for myself.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 9:23 am
True, but are we addressing them or are we endlessly chasing our tails?
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 9:37 am
Q Grrl, I don’t know. The only way to answer that question would be to jump forward 40 years and see how the culture has progressed (or regressed).
Probably we’re doing both. Probably some of the debates we’re in are pointless tail-chasing exercises, because cultural momentum or whatever has already decided what’s going to happen, and resistance is futile. And probably some others are ones where, if enough people speak out in whatever forums they use (water cooler chats, blogs, family dinners, whatever), the momentum could be positive.
But I think most successful arguments are repeated ten thousand times over in order to have impact. I mean, how many times do you suppose the emancipationists made their arguments? It was literally generations of repeating the same damn arguments before women were able to take the vote.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 9:45 am
crys t:
I don’t know much about conservative blogs, but I do read many libertarian blogs, and only on one (a very obscure one) have I ever known anyone to get banned simply for expressing dissenting opinions. Banning tends to be much rarer than it is here and at the other major feminist blogs, and it’s generally reserved for flat-out nastiness. A left-wing analogue of Michael or Tangoman would probably not be banned at your typical libertarian blog. Tuomas, maybe.
It’s generally just accepted that there will be leftists among the commenters, even among the regular commenters, and nobody really thinks that there’s anything strange about it. Disagreement is more interesting than agreement. Actually, we’d like to have more intelligent, left-wing commenters at Catallarchy. Robert or Ron: If either of you have an evil twin, feel free to send him over.
Also, for those who are wondering, I come here because Ampersand’s the best left-wing political writer I know of. Then I stay to comment because I feel a strong compulsion to correct things which I think are wrong. And because disagreement is more interesting than agreement.
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 9:47 am
All this goes to the question, “What is the purpose of this blog?”
Some blogs, as noted above, are thinly disguised self-advertisements or advertisements of one’s product. (This usually by professional writers.) Some intend some sort of social or political change. Some seem to be merely places for people to blow off steam.
The “purpose” for which this blog is maintained in existence can only be determined by Ampersand (and perhaps his small group of co-moderators). We out here can make suggestions, but theirs is the final decision.
Then, there’s the question,”why am I [are you] here?” I don’t know about any of you, but I’m here to learn, not just from reading what other people say, but from saying a few things myself, being the kind of person who hardly knows what she thinks before she has to articulate it.
For that kind of goal it’s most useful to find a place where you agree somewhat maybe with the people there. If you right off the bat agree with everyone on everything you’re just going into an orgy of mutual stroking, which is OK but not too educational. On the other hand, if you violently disagree with the whole premise of the place, you’re going to just scream at everyone and/or everyone will scream at you, and you’ll be banned, as crys t points out.
Alas is interesting to me, although feminism/non-feminism isn’t a big issue for me or in my life. I’m a woman; I’ve done my share of butting heads with misogynists; I succeeded in what used to be a male-dominated profession in spite of the best efforts of the latter. So now I mostly just ignore them. The issues that are really important to me are elsewhere.
Still, I’d be sad if Alas went away, or if comments were shut down. The quality of commentary here is unusually high (though I am occasionally bothered by the degree of personal attack). People here, of all views, seem to be intelligent and articulate. I’d personally vote in favor of a bit more civility, but on the whole a positive experience which I would miss.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 10:19 am
What Amp says, in 43, is pretty unassailable, to me - and FWIW, I do find valuable ally discourse here in addition to the troll stuff, which is why I come back.
Whether Alas is a 101 feminism blog or something larger and more complicated doesn’t strike me as the salient question - Alas is Amp’s blog, made for the reasons he states above, providing a discussion forum/community which then takes on a life of its own, which is what we’re talking about here, and which he and Rachel and Maia then have to figure out how to moderate within the reasonable constraints of time and living.
Commenters can play an essential role in moderation without necessarily imposing an easily corruptible flagging/blocking system.
One constructive idea, addressing one thing, anyway:
Over on the other thread (I’ll move the links here in case people want to click), I mentioned the new-ish site Finally, A Feminism 101 Blog. It’s a FAQ and 101-level compendium of info created for the express purpose of supplying a place to direct people who have basic (redundant, dismissive, obnoxious, or plain tiresome) arguments, questions, or blind spots about feminism.
It’s a site-in-progress, and will only be as good as we collectively make it, since that, too, is part of its express purpose (Tig Tog, the site’s crafter, asks for links and improvements to each resource category and post).
The post I asked some feminists a question and instead of answering, they sent me here - why? could be a great resource to address some of the recurring problems people have commented on here.
It says, straight up: ‘Don’t waste thread time and be a self-centered creep demanding feminists drop their discussion to take care of your ignorance: educate yourself a bit before declaiming. Here, have some resources.’
A real troll isn’t going to use it, obviously, but a person interested in actually participating in a discussion will, and will come back to the discussion with more of value to say. So it’s a potentially valuable tool for respectfully, usefully re-directing a commenter who’s behind the curve of discussion while keeping the thread on track.
Not only does it save time - ‘Commenter X, please read whatever link before commenting again’ - but the referral resource grows for all bloggers.
Now I feel like I’m making a pitch or something. It does seem a useful tool, to me, though.
This comment was written by Theriomorph.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 10:40 am
“A left-wing analogue of Michael or Tangoman would probably not be banned at your typical libertarian blog.”
Which is what, exactly? I’m serious. What is the left-wing anolog of Tangoman’s hideous opinion that black people are naturally genetically inferior?
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 10:49 am
What is the left-wing anolog of Tangoman’s hideous opinion that black people are naturally genetically inferior?
Depends on what lines you want to draw the analogy. If you want a direct “holding objectionable views about a group” analogy, the view that white people are naturally oppressive and violent, perhaps? Or the view that men are naturally evil, or whatever.
(I recognize that these aren’t universal themes/beliefs among leftists, just as not every conservative believes what Tangoman believes.)
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Which is what, exactly? I’m serious. What is the left-wing anolog of Tangoman’s hideous opinion that black people are naturally genetically inferior?
I may be wrong, because I haven’t read every comment Tangoman ever posted here, but that’s not, to the best of my recollection, an accurate summary of the views he expressed.
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Hey Robert,
“(I recognize that these aren’t universal themes/beliefs among leftists, just as not every conservative believes what Tangoman believes.) ”
Sure. I’m not sure I really believe the idea that anyone thinks white people are naturally oppressive and violent? At least anyone over 18? But then again, I was rather shocked to find anyone would argue what Tangoman did with an apparently straight face.
I was looking for something where the leftists would be denying the humanity of the rightists. After some thought, I’m wondering if the analog isn’t someone with my perspective on abortion. If people really do think it’s murder, then I’m pretty strikingly scary, so that makes sense to me.
Of course, a pro-choice position is relatively mainstream, where a belief that intelligence is race-based is (I hope, I hope) on the kooky side, so it’s not a direct analogy… but I think I understand better what Brandon Berg meant.
*
FWIW, I’m not actually arguing that you (Robert) and Daran and Brandon Berg should be forced to go away (though I admit I wouldn’t mourn you much, and also that I’m still not sure I get why you hang out, even though you’ve explained. Clearly, were I the moderator, I’d ban you. Just as clearly, Amp doesn’t want to). I’m not arguing that all dissent should be shuffled away, either.
I’m not even really arguing that the civility has to stop — though I’m damn curious about what creates the recursive effect where the civility facilitates Chris being a bastard. I think we’ve heard some ideas about that which are probably a good part of the truth. I wonder if another part of the truth isn’t just that people struggling to be civil trigger something bloodthirsty in people who are like Chris. Each new concession seems to make them bolder. Maybe that’s a worthwhile price of civility, although it sucksuscksuscks that the people who are choosing civility actively (e.g. Amp) aren’t the ones who pay for it in the threads. (I’m aware Amp pays in other ways — moderating isn’t easy, and he sounds very tired.)
I think all the arguments that people have made are really interesting, and really valid, and I think they need to be made as a reality check for all of us. Nevertheless, personally, I’m willing to accept this as a space that’s designed for Amp to pursue his goals, rather than for feminists to pursue a deeper feminist conversation. (Which doesn’t mean I don’t think we should keep pointing that out.)
What I would like, personally, is just a way to keep the Chrises and Michaels at arm’s length rather than close enough to kiss.
I don’t know what that entails. Maybe that means calling everyone on their shit earlier. There seems to have had a much more productive discussion with Individ_ewe_al after it was directly said that “this is an offensive phrase” than might have occurred if her words had fomented unspoken resentment. Some number of people will react as Individ_ewe_al did. For those who go nuts when someone questions their words — well, maybe they’ll go straight to bannable behavior instead of dancing on the edge, as Amanda says her trolls tend to.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 11:16 am
“I may be wrong, because I haven’t read every comment Tangoman ever posted here, but that’s not, to the best of my recollection, an accurate summary of the views he expressed.”
He repeated, here and at Happy’s, that he thought they were mentally less able than whites. That’s what I meant; I apologize for my sloppy phrasing.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Well, I’ve seen feminists checked for not being civil who most certainly have not said anything like the example that you gave.
And there have been different discussions on different threads here on the “civility” issues in terms of how that type of behavior here is defined, who defines it and how women have felt that this is used to limit or restrict their ability to express themselves. Maybe these are discussions you don’t remember because they didn’t have the same impact on you that they did on some of us, including those who no longer post but still lurk? The civility debates and discussions here did have an impact on me. Maybe I’m the only one.
And yes, sometimes it does feel that the anti-feminists get away with making personal attacks against feminists more because they are there to provide the resources in part to “keep me honest” and I’m not saying that to be insulting, because I’ve found myself doing the same thing in different venues online and off with my opposition. I think often there’s an important purpose in doing that and I think that it’s also an attempt to consider perspectives different from your own. But sometimes it does feel that the feminists are held to a higher standard of conduct most often, ironically on “feminist” threads.
You’re right. It’s your blog, it’s your decision. I’m just giving my two cents like everyone else. However you choose to take my input is your decision as well. If you think that what I have said is unfair, then that’s your right too. But honestly? It feels like i’ve broken another civility rule.
That said, I think I’ll lurk on this thread. I hope it and the situation works itself out.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
FWIW, I’m not actually arguing that you (Robert) and Daran and Brandon Berg should be forced to go away (though I admit I wouldn’t mourn you much, and also that I’m still not sure I get why you hang out, even though you’ve explained. Clearly, were I the moderator, I’d ban you.
There’s a market solution. (There’s always a market solution.) Pay Amp to ban me. He’s said he won’t, but perhaps if the price were right he’d change his mind.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
” He’s said he won’t, but perhaps if the price were right he’d change his mind. ”
I *have* grown to enjoy your sense of humor. :-)
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
It’s not the case that I moderate feminists more strictly than non-feminists. It is quite the opposite; I routinely ban non-feminists and anti-feminists for things that feminists get away with dozens of times. Look at how far Ginmar had to go before I banned her (and even then, I eventually unbanned her); no anti-feminist would ever get away with that kind of behavior for that long.
So if I even disagree with what you’ve said without moderating you in any way, you imply I’m treating you unfairly and you’re going to withdraw to lurking.
If you “feel like” a civility rule has been applied to you when no such thing has happened — or, rather, when all that’s happened is that I’ve failed to agree to your every word — then maybe that explains how you feel constantly moderated here when in fact I’ve rarely said a word to moderate your posts, ever. (Because I think your posts are virtually all excellent, btw.)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Mandolin, do you see these as mutually exclusive possibilities? I realize I haven’t been reading Alas for that long (under a year), but based on that limited exposure, they definitely don’t seem like incompatible goals, to me.
Unless by ‘deeper’ you mean high-level/feminist & ally-only conversations free of redundant or offensive questions/points, or of hate-speech (which doesn’t even exist on the well-established feminist women-run blogs, sad to say).
This comment was written by Theriomorph.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Radfem:
Let me add, however, that although I find this conversation really hard to be in (and I virtually always do, contrary to what you think), I also am really concerned by what you’re saying, because the last thing I want is for you to always feel in danger of being moderated here.
Regarding Lee’s suggestion in #22, if I were going to make a list of posters whose posts always automatically go through, because I know there’s virtually no chance I’ll need to moderate, you would obviously go on that list, Radfem. Your posts are always great: You know a lot, you make really great arguments, you’ve obviously got passion for what you write, and you don’t make personal attacks on other posters.
So if you feel like you’re constantly being moderated here, that is a real problem. But I feel like I hardly ever moderate you; on the contrary, when I see you’ve posted, my reaction is “oh, great, a Radfem post!,” not “uh-oh, time to put my moderator hat on.” So that we have such radically different perceptions, and that you feel very constrained by the moderation here, is a very big worry for me.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
“Unless by ‘deeper’ you mean high-level/feminist & ally-only conversations free of redundant or offensive questions/points, or of hate-speech (which doesn’t even exist on the well-established feminist women-run blogs, sad to say). ”
I see them as pushing against each other, if not exclusive. Reteaching feminism 101 is tiring; it’s a job. After a certain point, it becomes wearying to the point where it makes me, at least, feel pessimistic about the world. (I have an essay about this coming out in a couple weeks, actually.) And then I have to take a break and let other people do it. In the feminist blogosphere, it’s great, because other people do (which is one reason why I comment here in bursts, and frequently not at all; my energies are direct elsewhere). In my professional life, there are only a few of us who speak, and often when we tire, our silence echoes.
Retreading feminism 101, therefore, drains energy that I could use for other activism — although I gravitate toward teaching, so that doesn’t bother me so much. Further, it drains energy that could be used for deeper discussion, and we’re all familiar with derail where the rehashing of feminism 101 literally replaces the space where that deeper conversation might take place.
More, though, I think there are several feminists involved in this conversation who *do* see them as exclusive, or mostly exclusive, and I think that’s a valid perspective, and one I think has a lot of weight. I understand where you’re coming from too, or I think I do, but I also want to signal to them that I hear what they’re saying, and agree with part of it.
I actually don’t think your position and their positions (as I understand them) are mutually exclusive. Perhaps I’m deluding myselgf, but I feel like I agree with both of you.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
and
Yes, me too. I share the frustration. That’s why I appreciate what Tig Tog’s trying to do (comment 43), since it offers a way to refer out the rehashing, or at least some of it, without shutting down commenters who could potentially be allies.
It doesn’t address the trolls, but if widely adopted, it becomes a good tool for saving some time and energy. Also, if people continually fail to ‘please go read x link before commenting again’ it’s a good cue for moderation.
In ordinary reality, I spend a lot of time teaching and writing at the 101 level, so I have plenty of moments of getting irritated by rehashing, and feeling selfish - this is supposed to be where I get to take it to a next level, dammit!
Not that there’s anything wrong with wanting to be able to come to the nets for a deeper level of discussion, there isn’t. It’s one of the glories of blog communities.
But here at Alas, and re: this discussion, I wonder if there isn’t a civil medium to create; one coherent with Amp’s goals and the diverse brilliances and blind spots of the commenters.
This comment was written by Theriomorph.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Robert or Ron: If either of you have an evil twin, feel free to send him over.
She only comes out at night. Or after my fifth shot of Bushmills’ 16-year-old single malt.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Robert or Ron: If either of you have an evil twin, feel free to send him over.
I used to be a leftist. I suppose I could roleplay it.
No blood for oil, you Halliburton fascists!
Yeah, it’s coming back to me.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Mandolin said:
I’m not sure I really believe the idea that anyone thinks white people are naturally oppressive and violent?
IIRC that’s a central tenet of the Nation of Islam.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Robert, wasn’t that you with us when we made all those crosses out of slats from a snow fence and stacked them up on the steps of 77 Mass. Ave.? I know you couldn’t have been the classic tool (what we called what is now called a ‘geek’) who got pissed off and stomped all over them. Or were you one of the guys running in the crowd with me one of those two times I got gassed by the Cambridge police? I can’t grow the hair back, but I think I could still outrun a Cambridge cop. Yeah, I was the “direct action” type.
Let’s see. “Power to the people!” “Hell, no, we won’t go!” “Gimme an ‘F’! Gimme a ‘U’ …” Hey, I haven’t lost the voice - when I do the announcements at church they make me step away from the microphone. I’ll need all new T-shirts, though - I”m afraid that I can’t fit into a “Large” anymore.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Well…damn. Both of you? Does this mean that I’m going to grow up to be a lefty?
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 12:53 am
You see, Amp? Brandon, RonF and Robert are currently having a big old laugh fest while the rest of us are feeling angry and frustrated. They’re enjoying the fact that they’ve managed to stir up such bad feeling amongst us.
The fact is that Alas has become a comfortable home for anti-feminists and anti-progressives while feeling restrictive and increasingly hostile towards feminists and progressives. How is that a good thing?
This comment was written by crys t.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 3:53 am
fwiw
This comment was written by Joe.Robert does make jokes in arguments but I’ve never gotten the impression that any of them are trying to make people angry take pleasure at upsetting people they’re arguing with. But perceptions a personal thing.
Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 4:47 am
Joe, what you may not know is that Robert and I have a history of conflict here. A small, limited history, but it exists nonetheless.
It’s very telling that most of the people who claim that Robert is just a joking kind of guy who’s really good at heat “just happen” to be men. Of course he treats you all okay–you have penises! The rest of us don’t get even a fraction of the consideration you all do.
I’m beginning to believe that you really just don’t register the nastiness he’s constantly dishing out to the feminist women here.
This comment was written by crys t.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 4:48 am
God, what use is “preview comment” if you’re no damn good at spotting the errors???
Men tend to insist that Robert is “good at HEART” of course.
This comment was written by crys t.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 4:57 am
[...] Don’t mock the comments you eliminate or whose posts you moderate. This aggravates the commenter and others. Don’t let your commenters mock others either — unless that is your policy. Alas has an interesting thread on this line of thought. [...]
This comment was written by Ponderings and Wanderings » Blog Archive » Blog Comment Moderation.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 7:52 am
I don’t know whether Robert is “good at heart” or not. I’ve never met the guy. I haven’t been attacked by Robert personally, and while I often disagree with him he often has interesting things to say. I fully realize that while I am a woman, I’m not feminist enough for some people here, so probably my voice doesn’t count. But really, I don’t have a penis.
crys t, do you mean that your history of “conflict” with Robert is on-line, or do you know the man personally? If the latter, your statement implies that you may have some personal issues with him which are part of your judgment of him.
At any rate, we are all here at Ampersand’s sufferance, and Amp hasn’t seen fit to ban Robert or his cohorts (if they are a cohort). I don’t know that we’re here on this thread to discuss the banning of particular individuals.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 9:00 am
Robert does make jokes in arguments but I’ve never gotten the impression that any of them are trying to make people angry take pleasure at upsetting people they’re arguing with.
There is little doubt that Robert has tried to make people angry on this blog in the past.
crys t makes an excellent point about the jokes here, though. This is where I think that uncivil civility gets past Amp. I could analogize those jokes to various racist or sexist jokes, but what’s the point? The fact is that they are in no way appropriate in this thread. But if crys t were to respond by writing, “Fuck you. We’re trying to have a serious discussion and here you go again, distracting from what we’re trying to do,” she may very well get warned to tone it down. Judging from the past, anyway.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 9:15 am
Damn it, did my jokes use up all the electrons again? I hate it when that happens.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 9:18 am
I’m with Susan on this one. Robert, RonF and Brandon were indulging in a bit of comic relief that as far as I can see had nothing to do with the rest of us and that we could (and can) feel free to ignore and continue the serious discussion.
You may say that their having, in effect, a private snicker among the three of them was rude — but it was quick, it’s over, and conversations between two or three people happen all the time, both here and elsewhere.
If they (or anyone else) continued the joke at length and well past any remaining humor after others had picked up the thread again and repeatedly interrupted the serious discussion, that imo would be rude and worthy of rebuke.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 9:19 am
Hmm.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 9:24 am
I really feel that you and other posters are attacking me for hypothetical moderation decisions that I haven’t actually made. It’s unfair, particularly coming from someone like you, who regularly breaks the moderation rules without being criticized by me in any way.
At the point where you’re making up fictional moderation decisions I’ve never made to attack me over,
it’s obvious that you won’t consider giving me or my view any sort of fair hearingit makes me feel like you and other posters aren’t being very fair to me.But let me ask you: Why is it so completely awful for you to be asked to tone it down? Why is it so completely horrible to think that you might give enough of a shit about my preferences to say “We’re trying to have a serious discussion and here you go again, distracting from what we’re trying to do. I think that’s totally inappropriate”? Is that SO much harder than typing “fuck you”?
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 9:26 am
Okay, here’s a point of view from a reader outside of the various histories in play.
Is anyone else getting frustrated with the fact that in this thread, every time a commenter addresses the apparent topic at hand of how to moderate threads effectively and create a more civil discourse on Alas, the discussion veers instantly into highly personalized, detailed, insider processes or attacks or defenses which effectively derail the topic? Is anyone else feeling like this is perhaps part of the problem?
Sure, it’s a natural function of a community to have to work through/clarify things in discussion, but this seems to happen more here than on any other blog I’ve ever read, and with more uncontrolled vitriol. (Which is why the discussion at hand began.)
Doing my best to remain invested in the conversation, because I value what Amp’s doing here, and have seen, in the last year or so, some amazingly useful and thought-provoking discussion in the comments. Also because this question is a microcosm of a larger (important!) central question about discourse in diverse groups.
For all the talk thus far about how sad it is that people leave the discussion threads - particularly intelligent feminist commenters - I ask you, why wouldn’t they, if personalities trump principles?
Truly, not trying to be a jerk. I just find this very frustrating.
This comment was written by Theriomorph.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 9:28 am
You know, the first time you can claim was innocent joking. To respond like this after people have said that your jokes on this thread are bothering them just shows a lack of consideration for other people.
I’m usually fine with your jokes, for the reasons Lu said. But it’s not asking too much of you for you to cut it out on a particular thread after people have said that they find your jokes insensitive.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 9:31 am
Good point, Bean.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 9:31 am
Lu in 77, I agree - well said.
I just truly don’t get the frequency, intensity, and acceptability of personal attacks.
This comment was written by Theriomorph.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 9:40 am
I have been wondering about whether to chime in or not, but decided finally to throw in my $.02.
I do refrain from commenting often because I don’t have the time or energy to deal with the bull shit arguments. This is ESEPCIALLY true in the race threads. While the more conservative posters are not outwardly racist (usually) their arguments are the same old racism denial stuff that is ALWAYS present. It’s the mainstream view and mainstream argument. While I see the value in having to deal with that to an extent, it is exhausting to never be able to get BEYOND that (if that makes any sense).
Great example - look at the nappy headed hos post. Almost everyone (except Brandon Berg, who by the way if he never posts again in another race thread would not bother me a bit since he doesn’t ever do anything except deny racism, which in my not so humble opinion does not further the type of discussion I’d like to be a part of) agreed that it was a racist comment. It was virtually universal, and YET, what did that thread derail into? A conversation about whether or not people of color’s views on if something is racist or not matter (or to what degree) and a question of if there is no intent, then it isn’t racist. That happens in EVERY SINGLE race thread on this site. The conversation which could have been about what is the appropriate institututional resopnse to such comments, what effect do such comments have and what does it mean that so many people actually tried to defend him and his comments, etc turned into the same old shit of “there’s really no objective criteria for determining if something is racist and the only definition of racism that is appropriate are ones that only consider extreme evil behavior racist.” I wish there was a way to use the eyeroll emoticon on here.
My point is this - while I see value in having the mainstream argument present and I actually take pleasure in watching people defeat mainstream arguments and how they do it, I don’t have the time and energy require to do that AND also go beyond that and have discussions that are beyond the mainstream arguments. I simply don’t have the same amount of time a lot of the other commenters who seem to dominate threads often seem to have and if I’m going use my precious time I’d really prefer to keep the mainstream crap to a minimum and be able to read/think about stuff that goes beyond that.
I’m not certain how you accomplish that, but I will tell you I often want to reply to threads and decide I just don’t have the time or energy to waste arguing with the bull shit so I read, feel frustrated and move on. I’m probably NOT the only one who feels that way.
I think adding additional moderators is a good idea and having a stricter moderation policy in some threads is ok. I, personally vote that Charles have more moderating power. He’s one of the most level headed and even keeled posters on the site and his arguments are always refreshing and I’ve never seen him stoop to personal attacks. I appreciate that about him.
I just wanted to add my thoughts, for what they are worth.
This comment was written by Kate L..Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 9:50 am
But it’s not asking too much of you for you to cut it out on a particular thread after people have said that they find your jokes insensitive.
Quite right. K, I’ll be good.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 9:53 am
Also, as a somewhat outside observer (albeit a biased on) I will say that I notice Robert in particular as someone who is more respectful in general to Amp and other male commenters/posters than he is to women. It doesn’t necessarily have to do with whether they agree with him or not, but it’s there. I don’t especially think it’s even conscious or purposeful, but it does irk me that he is so condescending and subtely rude to Rachel far more often than Amp (though I openly admit I am biased since Rachel is a dear friend and I don’t know Amp personally and I may notice it more when it happens to Rachel, but I think it’s an overall trend nonetheless).
I’m not attacking Robert, nor do I think that should get him banned. I agree with Susan. I don’t often agree with him but I do find he sometimes has interesting things to say I would not agree that he is always respectful about it though. Piggybacking my earlier point however is that when he and other more conservative commenters dominate threads I tend to stay out because it’s just going to be a mainstream argument and I don’t have time to deal with that any more than I already have to.
(Robert, I’m not trying to single you out, but you are a frequent commenter and this is something I have noticed. This is not meant as a personal attack - ugh, tone is so hard to convey online).
This comment was written by Kate L..Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 10:13 am
No worries, Kate. Your points are material.
I do defer to Amp, because it’s his blog. And I am all about the private property.
I think there is, empirically, a difference in the way that I end up treating some women. That difference, in my view, flows from the discussions we have. I believe - though of course, it’s possible I’m wrong - that I generally start off treating everybody the same. And I try to treat everyone well, in the sense of assuming they have good motives, not attacking them personally, arguing ideas and personalities, and so forth. When that approach is reciprocal, we usually end up being able to have a good conversation together/contributing to a larger thread. When it isn’t, I tend to be a jerk, although a jerk who still tries to be civil.
My approach and tone are generally cerebral, abstract, and analytical. Some people find this off-putting. Particularly, in this context, most of those people are women who have a particular approach to politics/discussion and, let us say, a fervent belief in the rightness of their cause. I don’t get along well with people like that; whether that’s a flaw in me, them, or just part of the friction of discourse I leave to someone else to decide. There is a fairly large group of those folks at Alas and, perhaps because of the blog subject matter, a lot of them are women.
But when men with the same approach and beliefs get into it with me, my treatment of them is the same as if they were women. It isn’t the fiddly bits, in other words, it’s the discussion. Could I be kidding myself here? Sure, I guess, but I don’t think I am. There are men and women with whom I can have a productive discussion, and there are men and women with whom it always seems to turn into a fight.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 10:15 am
“arguing ideas, NOT personalities”. Argh.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 10:27 am
For me, and I am only speaking for me, it’s not being asked to tone down that ruffles my feathers - it’s that what has ruffled my feathers in the first place is often overlooked because it is cloaked in civility. There’s a really fine line there, Amp. So fine that I’m not often able to articulate it’s presence.
It’s like the guys joking in this thread. Just boys will be boys, right? Just the class clown acting up, no real harm, right?
No harm until you track just how often this shit goes down; just how often certain posters stick close to the civility line, never cross over it, yet manage to be disruptive almost 100% of the time. And it’s not until someone like me yell’s “fuck off!” that this behavior gets checked.
I don’t consider that civil. It’s boorish and privileged.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 10:31 am
First, Robert thank you for being open to this discussion and not feeling personally attacked. I appreciate that.
“My approach and tone are generally cerebral, abstract, and analytical. Some people find this off-putting. ”
I don’t think anyone has a problem with cerebral, abstract and analytical approaches. Correct me if I am wrong (and I most certainly could be) but you are basically insinuating you are rational and all the rest of us silly women are emotional and lack reason and analytic skills. You are of course putting it more delicately and civilly than that, but quite frankly that’s more irritating than just coming out with it. This is what I mean by “subtle rudeness” you are very good at cloaking unacceptable things in “civil” language.
I might tend to agree that many of the commenters on this site who also happen to be women ALSO use what I might call “emotional reasoning” as PART of their analytic repitoire. As a woman (and one who has been labelled as “overly sensitive and emotional” and dismissed far more often than I happen to think is reasonable and fair) I happen to think that excluding emotion from deeply emotional issues such as racism and sexism isn’t logical.
You see, for people who EXPEREINCE those things overtly and subtely on a daily basis for most of their lives, it is an emotional burden as much as a burden on finances, safety, and intellect. I can only assume it is your relatively highly privileged status that allows you to be able to ignore it. And quite frankly your dismissive attitude toward the emotional aspects of the issues we discuss here at alas is precisely what I am talking about with regard to subtle rudeness. It makes me not want to come here and comment because quite frankly I have taken more than enough crap from men in my life about my ability to use emotion as part of my analytic framework that I don’t want to deal with it in a place I choose to be. There are certain people and places where I can not avoid that, but I don’t want to subject myself to it in places I can choose to be or not to be.
and as far as this comment goes: “let us say, a fervent belief in the rightness of their cause.”
You are just as guilty of this as the rest of us. We are here arguing because we believe firmly in something. I for one have learned a LOT here at Alas and I have absolutely changed my view or altered my perspective because of new knowledge gained. I see many people do that. I do see people who dig their heels in (and I think probably we all do a little of both probably), but I have to tell you I’ve seen both types of behavior from you as well.
This comment was written by Kate L..Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 10:39 am
“I’m usually fine with your jokes, for the reasons Lu said. But it’s not asking too much of you for you to cut it out on a particular thread after people have said that they find your jokes insensitive.”
I actually didn’t find the jokes offensive. I kind of appreciate it when we can blow off steam by being mildly funny (and I think I shocked Robert by joking instead of arguing in another therad, the other day). At times, I think the jokes have been really useful for me; I really meant it when I appreciate Robert’s sense of humor, at least at times. Politics are serious, of course. But, like anything else ludicrous, they’re also funny.
When the conflict came up, though, I wondered if maybe it wouldn’t be useful to put up an open “random social commentary” thread? Where, if Robert wants to make a joke that doesn’t fit in this thread, he could just pop over to the other thread and do it there? Or one could say something else, more personal.
I hesitate to suggest it, and I apologize if it’s an appallingly bad idea and I just can’t see it for whatever reason, but here’s my reasoning:
The reason I suggest it is that I think one of the problems here *does* have to do with personalities. I’m not just tired of feminism 101, I’m tired of watching Brandon Berg say “Racism? What racism?” to Rachel over and over again. I’m not sufficiently tired of it that it would be locus of my complaint (when I’m aggravated, I just skip over BB, or other familiar commenters who are aggravating me).
While I have no idea what is going on with random assholes like Chris and Michael, I do know that part of my personal frustration with someone like BB is just seeing his name over and over again in the same arguments. I think thisis partially because it’s the only thing I feel like I see from him. For instance, when Robert put up some jokes in one of the other threads, my well of patience with him actually increased substantially. Seriously, “I told my wife we would [financial stuff Mandolin should pretend she understands] so we could increase the diamond budget?” That’s pretty clever and self-aware, IMO.
I don’t know about other people, but I have political opponents in my every day life who I like sufficiently to be willing to argue with, even when the headway is minor. It’s easier to argue on a regular basis with someone you like or at least have some understanding of the humanity of. What I know about Daran and BB — I actually feel like I know slightly more about Robert — is that they take a variety of positions I find morally repugnant; that they seem to enjoy poking feminists with sticks; and that they seem to put a higher premium on creating a system that addresses abstractions, even when that system hurts people.
Maybe Daran is really fun when he’s talking about puppies. Obviously, I’m being silly, and obviously I’d disagree with him. But it would be more fun to disagree with him (again, on a regular basis) if I had a sense I wasn’t talking to an antifeminist robot. And while I wouldn’t want to force apolitical discourse, since that’s not what the site’s about, maybe a social thread would allow that kind of thing and also let people blow off steam.
Of course, this was an idea I had at like 3 am last night, so YMMV.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 10:41 am
I really feel that you and other posters are attacking me for hypothetical moderation decisions that I haven’t actually made. It’s unfair, particularly coming from someone like you, who regularly breaks the moderation rules without being criticized by me in any way.
I’m really not trying to slap you down here. I am trying to point out something that I have observed in comment threads from time to time which is that someone who reacts with obscenity or the like to an insult (sometimes horrible insult) is much more likely to catch your attention than the instigator. This happens all the time to referees in sporting events, so this isn’t unique to you. I understand why this is, as I think I explained in an earlier comment, and I sympathize with this. It’s true that I didn’t go back through the archives to find a specific example. I’d hoped that my hypothetical would be good enough, but it obviously wasn’t the right way to go about it.
Perhaps I didn’t word my comment as well as I had wanted to. I kind of had that feeling after I submitted it. I apologize for making it seem much harsher than I had intended.
The problem with this unintended flaw in moderation does not rest solely on you. The rest of us should probably have figured out that we should point out the initial faux civility to you as a first step. crys t did that somewhat in her comment. But…
“We’re trying to have a serious discussion and here you go again, distracting from what we’re trying to do. I think that’s totally inappropriate”? Is that SO much harder than typing “fuck you”?
I honestly think that sometimes it is. There is a lot of emotion invested in these arguments by a lot of people. Sometimes, when emotions are running high anyway, certain insults do make it much harder to reply in a civil tone or even to say, “Hey, maybe I should bring this to Amp’s attention.” Also, there are times when there is a history and the sheer frustration can easily color one’s judgment. Obviously that will vary from person to person, but it is by no means something seen in only a small minority.
I think that this also gives somewhat of an advantage to anti-feminists - they are less likely to be invested enough in the subject to be badly insulted by something couched in civil language.
To try to cut my ramblings down, the essence of the issue for me is how can outrageous, demeaning or insulting comments couched in civil language best be dealt with by both you and the commenters? I’ve answered part of my own question above - maybe that is the entire answer.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 10:48 am
I don’t think anyone has a problem with cerebral, abstract and analytical approaches.
Heh. Come live in my world. ;)
you are basically insinuating you are rational and all the rest of us silly women are emotional and lack reason and analytic skills
That isn’t my intention. I have my own share of irrationality and emotional response to things. I just don’t think those emotional responses are arguments.
That doesn’t mean they aren’t relevant.
I happen to think that excluding emotion from deeply emotional issues such as racism and sexism isn’t logical.
Well, of course it isn’t. I don’t want to exclude emotion; I believe it has a place at the table. Just as logic has a place at the table. Neither are trump cards.
You are just as guilty of this as the rest of us.
(”This” = believing in the rightness of my cause)
Well, to a degree, yes. I wouldn’t argue for things if I didn’t believe them to be true, for example. But there is a distinction between believing you are right, and believing you are righteous. I don’t, generally, believe that I’m righteous; I certainly try not to be.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 10:54 am
This could be read as insinuating that we silly women can’t tell the difference between an emotional response and a rational argument.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 10:55 am
I’m not even aware of, much less enjoying, the fact that I’ve “managed to stir up such bad feeling among you.” I thought this was mostly about people like Chris and Michael.
I disagree. I think I’m probably the least well-behaved member of Alas’s conservative/libertarian coalition, and I walk on eggshells to avoid offending people here, insofar as it’s possible to do so while expressing unorthodox views. It’s not just that I have to bite my tongue when people level personal attacks at me and others. I don’t mind that. I bet it builds character or something.
But sometimes I refrain from expressing legitimate and defensible views simply because I don’t think they’ll be tolerated here, or because I’d just be accused of trying to oppress or reinterpret or something like that. I had a comment edited once because I crossed that line. And I guess that’s okay, too—there’s a time and place for everything, and Alas probably wasn’t the best place to discuss that particular idea. But this certainly isn’t a comfortable home for me. I’m very much aware that I’m a guest, and not a particularly honored one.
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 10:59 am
This could be read as insinuating that we silly women can’t tell the difference between an emotional response and a rational argument.
Yes. If you insist on ignoring my facial text that directly contradicts this interpretation and “reading” whatever it is that you assume I secretly believe, then you could do that. I don’t have the power to compel you to read facially.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 11:02 am
But the emotional response is PART of the argument and I have seen time and again that you want to cut the emotion out of the argument. Look, I’m not saying emotion needs to trump anything else, but it is an integral part of discussions like the ones we have at Alas because the stuff we’re talking about come with extraordinary emotional components and burdens.
“Well, of course it isn’t. I don’t want to exclude emotion; I believe it has a place at the table. Just as logic has a place at the table. Neither are trump cards.”
Yeah, forgive me, but I have NEVER seen this attitude come across in your posts. Just look at your initial response to my post. No where in it do you give emotion a “place at the table”. I agree logic is necessary too. But there’s really no such thing as emotionless logic unless you are a robot. And while the people who argue positions less conservative (for lack of a better word) than yours the emotion may be more highly charged because of their various social positions, but that doesn’t mean you are using emotionless logic either. The arguments against yours might have more emotion present, but that doesn’t make them less valid. Racism and sexism are abstract concepts but they have real and tangible stings - talking about them in the abstract ignores those stings and dismisses the importance of them as part of the discussion.
Am I making any sense at all here???
I’m going to come out and say I have seen the “righteous” attitude you are talking about, but for the most part, most of the people who exhibit that attitude left when the porn debacle happened. And, that attitude in and of itself doesn’t make their arguments any less valid. It’s annoying, yes, but also possible to ignore the attitude without dismissing the poster or the entire argument.
This comment was written by Kate L..Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 11:04 am
“Why is it so completely horrible to think that you might give enough of a shit about my preferences to say “We’re trying to have a serious discussion and here you go again, distracting from what we’re trying to do. I think that’s totally inappropriate”? Is that SO much harder than typing “fuck you”? ”
Hi Amp,
I apologize if I’m making things worse, but I thought maybe I would provide a specific example of one time I thought that you rebuked a feminist for something that I thought — personally, of course — was not out of line. I don’t want to do it to pick on your moderating skills; your decision was, of course, based on your idea of what was appropriate. That’s what holds sway here, and I don’t think anyone’s here to bitch about specific incidents rather than overall patterns. I hope, at least, that we can all allow for some random fluctuation in the former.
I just want to clarify the time that I have felt you were sharp with feminists, in case it illuminates what other people are talking about (though, of course, they may feel differently than I).
And with that disclaimer, I thought it was legitimate for Bean to call BB on being misogynistic about his attitude toward dating women in the nice guy thread. I felt as though censoring that particular word plays into a construction that misogynist is a personal insult like “asshat,” when I viewed it in context as descriptive. “Pig fucker,” of course, is a personal insult, but when one has pictures of the offending party fucking pigs, it also becomes descriptive.
I would argue that disallowing the use of the word misogynist is like disallowing use of the word sexism — it takes a valuable tool from the feminist arsenal. Saying “that’s misogynist,” or even “you’re misogynist” — when in a justified context, for instance when speaking to a man has been representing anti-feminist positions on a blog over a long period of time — is like saying “check your privelege,” IMO. The other party may view it as fighting words, but that doesn’t make it inaccurate.
I don’t know if others felt the same way as I did, but it happened relatively recently, so it might be the cause of some feminists feeling they have fresh wounds.
*
I did say “fuck you” once on this site, and I did it with full knowledge that you might ban me, and I was willing to accept it at the time. I did it because Robert had commented, as I understood it, that black people were mentally inferior to white people. (He clarified that it was not his intent, although I never did figure out how his comment did not lead to my interpretation — but that’s neither here nor there.)
I did it because the idea that black people are mentally inferior to white people is A) so thoroughly disproven as to be sickeningly obvious, B) something I’d seen refuted on this site *while Robert was a commenter*, C) so socially and historically repugnant (as well as flat out bloody hostile to any POC commenters, although TangoMan was willing to tell such people that “maybe they were just smarter” than the rest of their race — I think that was at Happy’s) that the holders of the position are like Holocaust deniers, willing to ignore great evidence in order to cause injury to people who are already hurting. In my opinion, they need to be informed that the only acceptable response is ostracism, rather than being taken seriously.
So, more or less, that’s when I’d say “fuck you,” despite my respect for your boundaries.
*
Again, I, personally, am less worried about the censoring of feminists than I am about the dancing-about-town of Michaels and Chrises. If censoring of feminsits leads to the dancing-about-town, then I think that’s interesting and problematic — and the question I was trying to raise in the first place.
This is not to minimize the people who do feel censored; however, I don’t feel unduly put upon in this space.
For instance, I’ve been mildly rude to posters in the past, including the above “fuck you,” and not been moderated for it.
However, I do comment in another setting where I can’t discern the moderator’s standards of “civility,” and I know that not knowing when you’re going to get censored can make posting a jumpy experience. The line in the sand seems to shift and you never know which side you’re on. It sounds to me like other feminists seem to be experiencing that here.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 11:08 am
“that the holders of the position are like Holocaust deniers”
FTR, I realized this was a bad analogy; I’d have a lot more patience for Holocaust deniers (since I don’t feel their position holds any threatening social weight).
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 11:09 am
In #84, Kate L wrote:
In #91, Mandolin wrote:
These are really good points, and it’s something I’d really like to see change. It’s not that I mind having the “racism 101″ arguments over and over again; I think it’s necessary to have those discussions a thousand thousand times over, because that’s how it works. (See my comment #45 in this thread).
But it’s a big problem, for me and (I think) for some other folks, that the racism 101 conversations are crowding out all the other conversations on race and racism-related threads. Hopefully the forthcoming “progressive anti-racist only” threads will provide the space that’s been lacking. If not we’ll have to try to find other ways to address the problem.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 11:15 am
I really really really do not want this thread to be about attacking Amp’s moderating skills.
While I have seen what some people are complaining about, I think Amp does one hell of a job considering it’s NOT his job (I assume he does not get paid to blog). I agree with Mandolin - I don’t want to deny the way people feel because I get that, but I don’t think the solution is to personally attack Amp for not being able to be online 24/7 monitoring comments.
Stuff slips through. I do think that’s why we’re having the conversation, but the fact that he is willing to open it up to all of us to try to come up with solutions says a great deal about the unintentionality of it.
This comment was written by Kate L..Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 11:20 am
Mandolin’s comment # 98 is a good description of what I was trying to get at. I would add that I sometimes go further than that. I have often made comments which quote a bit from the comment I’m responding to followed immediately by, “Yes, fuck you, too.” In those cases I am pointing out that the fragment quoted is absolutely equivalent to the words “fuck you,” and returning the sentiment.
If nothing else, I think I’ve figured out something that will work better for me, personally. That is to email Amp or Maia or Rachel directly (which I really have never done. I think.) when I see a comment that spurs me to respond in that manner to point out what I see as the original offense. Assuming that that doesn’t consume too much of their time, it may prevent yet another instance of my fanning the flames.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 11:23 am
most of the people who exhibit that attitude left when the porn debacle happened
They peek back in, when they want to take Amp to task for not running his site as part of their emotional support network.
But the emotional response is PART of the argument and I have seen time and again that you want to cut the emotion out of the argument. Look, I’m not saying emotion needs to trump anything else, but it is an integral part of discussions like the ones we have at Alas because the stuff we’re talking about come with extraordinary emotional components and burdens.
I disagree that the emotional response is part of the argument. Emotions are part of the reality in which arguments are operative, but they aren’t arguments. “[X] makes me feel bad/good” is a statement of fact, but is not an argument for or against the existence or continuation of X.
There are cases where emotions can be relevant data to an argument. For example, if we have a support group whose mission includes emotional support of the participants, then a possible argument is “we support our participants emotional state, and your statement of 4/2/2007 undermined that support.” The data is “Alex got really upset when someone called him a name.”
But “you hurt my feelings” isn’t an argument even there; it’s a statement of fact.
Racism and sexism are abstract concepts but they have real and tangible stings - talking about them in the abstract ignores those stings and dismisses the importance of them as part of the discussion.
The first part I agree with. The second part isn’t logical. (See, there I go.) Taking a subset of a large concept or discussion doesn’t dismiss the importance of the rest of it; it means you’re taking up a subset.
To put it another way, if we talk about rape and decide, for purposes of the conversation’s coherence, to say “we’re going to focus, here, today, on how rape harms women”, we aren’t dismissing and ignoring the impact of rape on, say, male prisoners. We’re focusing on one part of a bigger picture, because it’s unwieldy or impossible to discuss the whole thing all at once.
I appreciate the good faith you’re showing in this discussion, so I hope you’ll take this in the same good faith: these kinds of conversational strictures/critiques strike me as more about trying to control the discourse than as valid criticisms of how someone discusses things. “You’re too logical” and “you’re too emotional” are two sides of the same coin: “you’re not talking about this the way I want to talk about it.”
Sometimes the person making that complaint is entitled to control that discourse. More often, they aren’t. In this immediate instance - what you said about racism and sexism - you’re making a vastly sweeping statement about what kind of discourse is acceptable around racism and sexism topics. I don’t acknowledge that you have the power to set that rule. (I don’t think you’re consciously trying to do this here, btw.)
You have the power when it’s your forum, or your living room. Amp (or whomever) has the power here. And there are instances where a particular person’s preference for a discourse can be respected or humored or honored, depending on the particular social matrix; if you say “let’s have a discussion about racism focused around sharing our feelings”, then people probably ought to either do that with you, or leave you alone to do it. But as a general principle, I don’t think so.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 11:29 am
I really have to get some work done before I get fired, but I have time to respond to this right now:
“The first part I agree with. The second part isn’t logical. (See, there I go.) Taking a subset of a large concept or discussion doesn’t dismiss the importance of the rest of it; it means you’re taking up a subset. ”
But, isn’t the emotional part a subset too? And if you decide to take the emotional argument someone is making and say, “Hey, let’s take the emotion out and talk about it in the abstract” aren’t you giving preferential treatment to YOUR subset, forcing the discussion in a direction you want to go? Thus, dismissing the original subset? I don’t have a problem with compartmentalizing certain abstractions for the sake of getting a detailed argument, but often with regard to the stuff I’m thinking about, it’s not about the details, it’s about the thing as a whole.
Sorry, I know that’s not well worded but I HAVE to get some work done.
This comment was written by Kate L..Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 11:36 am
aren’t you giving preferential treatment to YOUR subset, forcing the discussion in a direction you want to go?
Well, contributing, rather than forcing, but sure. So? When you talk emotions, you’re taking it in the direction you want to go. When I talk rationality, I’m doing the same. Neither is objectionable.
Scenario A:
Frank: “God, it tears me up to see what happened at VT this week. I can’t stop thinking about those kids, and how it’d be if our son had been there.”
Mary: “Yeah, it’s powerful stuff. It really speaks to how gun bans can have unintended consequences. I read an interesting paper that said…”
Scenario B:
Frank: “God, it tears me up to see what happened at VT this week. I can’t stop thinking about those kids, and how it’d be if our son had been there.”
Mary: “Well, he doesn’t go there so your emotional reaction is irrelevant and stupid. Now, let’s get back to talking about the policy implications of…”
Scenario A is two people talking about it in two different ways. Scenario B is one person trying to control the type of conversation that’s being held. In Scenario A, Frank’s next line could be “wow, those statistics are a surprise to me” or a continuation of his discussion of his feelings. In Scenario B, Frank is shut down and wouldn’t dream of sharing anything further.
If I’ve been Scenario B Mary, then I suck and I’m sorry about that. If I’ve been Scenario A Mary, then I haven’t done anything out of bounds.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Kate:
But the problem with this—and this is something I’ve noticed before—is that the effect (not the intention) is to render certain claims unassailable, because disputing them is inherently offensive. This takes issues that aren’t settled in the broader world (i.e., outside feminist circles) and settles them simply by unilaterally redefining the boundaries of acceptable discourse so as to exclude one side of the argument. I suspect that this is what Robert was talking about when he alluded to the use of emotion as argument. Or not. Anyway, it’s what it made me think of.
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 11:41 am
In the case of Bean’s post, what I objected to wasn’t the use of the word “misogynist”; it’s that the post was purely a personal attack, with no argumentative content. It wasn’t even addressed to Brandon; it was telling other people to ignore Brandon. Calling Brandon out for misogyny in his arguments, rather than talking about him in the third person (as, ironically, we are now talking about Bean in the third person), would have been much better.
In other words, if Bean (or someone else) responded to a post by saying “this is a really misogynistic view, and here’s why: A is misogynist, B is misogynist, C is misogynist,” I wouldn’t object. The word “misogynist” is not a personal attack, and many essential arguments that I believe in and agree with cannot be said without using the concept.
But a post that says “Ignore everything Denzel says, because he’s a misogynist,” but basically has no other content, is in my view unsubstantive and tends to bring the conversation in bad directions.
That said, if I could do it over, I either would let it pass without a comment, or I would comment on it but make it clear that I have absolutely no objection to the word “misogynist.”
I should add, however, that I really appreciated Bean’s response to being moderated on that thread. She didn’t respond by posting multiple attacks on me on her own blog, or by sending me a half-dozen nasty emails (as a handful of other folks, both feminist and anti-feminist, have done). She wrote a follow-up comment letting everyone know in strong terms that she thought I was wrong, and then she let it drop. Maybe it’s because she’s been a moderator herself, but I really think she handled that well.
UPDATE: That last paragraph may sound like I’m saying “shut up if you disagree with me.” I didn’t mean it that way at all; I’m glad that Bean registered her disagreement with me, and if the same situation comes up again maybe now I’ll know to either let it pass or to do a better job explaining what I’m objecting to.
I guess I feel like it’s a bit of a catch-22, for me. People want me to moderate more. But sometimes it feels like every moderation decision I make has to be followed with a dozen emails and posts defending my decision. I don’t have that kind of time or energy.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Thanks, bean for your post. That’s pretty damn close. Oh, and what crys t, q grrl, Jake Squid and what some other feminists said….hmm.
Thank you Amp, for your posts and your concerns about my feelings here. I guess we just disagree on certain issues but my intent was never to attack you. But I do think the other feminists here have raised good points. I read their posts and I see things that I recognize and I find myself nodding as I often do. Why that is, is maybe another discussion, maybe not. Maybe it’s the world that we all live in that men don’t experience.
Robert? I usually ignore him, if I’ve had a long day. Some days you’re up to reading what anti-feminists write here and some days you’re not. I’m not advocating the banning of anyone, certainly not on this thread. The topic was raised by Mandolin because of concerns from another thread and I responded.
My intent is really not to “attack” anyone here. I was just trying to offer my insights. But I’ve seen elements of what I described on this thread and I’m not the only one. Yeah, the concerns by feminists here are obviously a joke to some of the anti-feminist men here. Their privilege in society as White men allows them to make these jokes. It’s kind of disappointing that they are making them here, but that’s life and jokes like that are made and made again in environments conducive to them. I’ve had this discussion many, many times including last night with the police department in my city. Eh, some day they’ll get it. But I think that people do tailor their humor to the environment that they are in and it’s through jokes, be they racist, sexist, sexual, homophobic and so forth or none of these things, that reveal a lot about a culture that’s present in a group of people.
On the racism 101 vs the racism in a progressive way discussions.
I’m not sure most of us here who are White are above the racism 101 level of discussion no matter how much we think we are. I’m saying this because one of the biggest issues on blogs, not just this one, but many feminist blogs is White feminists believing they are “progressive” on race exerting their racial privilege(whether consciously or not) and then when checked on that by women of color, they go off the handle, before burying themselves deeper and deeper in that hole with their defensive and often offensive responses. And a lot of the time, it’s White feminists who believe they are “progressive” on racial issues(and thus would qualify for a race thread for progressives only. I’m actually wondering if that’s most of the time.
So I’m not sure how this tag on a thread would work out. I think what will happen is that “racism 101″ as it’s called will work its way into those threads as well.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Susan, re my “personal issues” with Robert: my problem with him has always been how he treats the feminists here. That’s what’s caused our clashes. And while I know how much people on his side want to paint that I just don’t like the guy for some unkown, entirely capricious reason (you know how us women are so irrational–and especially how us feminists can’t handle jokes), I know the real problem is that he has no respect for us, he knows he has no respect for him, and his pals here all know it, too.
Yet whenever I–or any other feminist woman here–point this out, we have to go through the comedy situation of Robert protesting, “I just come here to hang out and talk to folks!” and we feminists get accused of personal vendettas and/or “uncivil” behaviour.
I don’t necessarily want him banned, but I do want him called out by the moderators here when he uses his trademark hostile-snark-or-ridicule-disguised as “charm” (as Bean point out–though not necessarily in reference to Robert). And I would also like some recognition that “civility” isn’t measured strictly by how many swear words you say, or whatever yardstick is currently being used. The anti-feminist men who’ve made Alas their home are as good as any romance novel Southern Belle at constructing the nastiest insults while superficially observing the rules of good manners. And I’m sick to death of all the bullshit denials that they don’t do it.
Amp said: “I really feel that you and other posters are attacking me for hypothetical moderation decisions that I haven’t actually made.”
Fair enough, I can understand why you feel that way. But I wish you would try to understand why Jake Squid and I feel the way we do? Okay, I agree that we don’t *have* to say “fuck you” to those guys, but I do feel like any fuck you coming from us is seen as somehow worse than the fundamental lack of respect coming from them in the first place.
This reminds me of an episode I had in junior high school where a girl who regularly bullied me was harrassing me nonstop in class one day. Finally, she made some comment that made me snap, “You’re nothing” to her. She promptly put up her hand and informed the teacher who then proceeded to give ME hell about it all. THAT is the Alas Anti-Feminist Man Technique.
Robert said: “My approach and tone are generally cerebral, abstract, and analytical. ”
You know, there’s been enough said about the value of removing ones emotions from these issues already–and probably said much better than I could say it. I’ll just reiterate that the reason you can be so “cerebral, etc” about all this is becuase of the massive privilege you have in society that allows you to treat it all as an intellectual exercise. But you have been told that many, many times before, I’m sure. So if you know this is how we feel, try to take it on board and stop using your “detachment” as a weapon to beat us over the head with.
“But when men with the same approach and beliefs get into it with me, my treatment of them is the same as if they were women.”
You may sincerely believe that, but I (and apparently at least one other woman) equally sincerely believe that you don’t.
This comment was written by crys t.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Damn: yet another error slipped past my lengthy examination in “Preview Comment”: in the last sentence of my first paragraph, “…he knows he has no respect for US”
This comment was written by crys t.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
I’ll just reiterate that the reason you can be so “cerebral, etc” about all this is becuase of the massive privilege you have in society that allows you to treat it all as an intellectual exercise.
I certainly have a great deal of privilege in society; no argument there. Yet I see people who do not have this privilege who are nonetheless capable of being cerebral and detached about these questions. That tells me that the privilege narrative is incomplete, at best.
What I have noticed in life is that there are people who can, with relative ease, “turn off” or at least defer their emotional reaction to something, in order to do something else. (Whether deal with a crisis, have a conversation, or whatever.) Other people are much more heart-on-the-sleeve, and either can’t or can only with great difficulty, put their emotional reaction to something aside temporarily. Privilege, or other forms of power/security, make it easier for people to defer/discount emotional state, but doesn’t change the person’s underlying emotional handling technique.
(It seems like a tradeoff: people in the former group have advantages in dealing with life; people in the latter group seem to be more emotionally healthy.)
You may sincerely believe that, but I (and apparently at least one other woman) equally sincerely believe that you don’t.
I am open to any evidence of that. Is there, in your view, a man whose belief set and discursive style are similar to yours, with whom my interactions have been grossly different than they have been with you?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
I think it’s also worth looking at issues on which there has been a lot of intra-feminist disagreement (issues surrounding porn, sex work, and transgender issues spring to mind) and how they’re discussed.
Do non-trans folk try to push the discussion into a more academic, theoretical direction? Are they wrong to do so?
I bring it up not to argue one way or another, but to try to look at the general style-of-discussion framework as divorced from pro- or anti- feminist feelings. That is, if pushing the discussion into a logical, divorced-from-emotion place seems to be something that happens only (or overwhelmingly) in an anti-feminist framework, I think that’s worth talking about.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
I know the real problem is that he has no respect for us, he knows he has no respect for [us], and his pals here all know it, too.
I think you’re wrong about a lot of things. (”You” = feminists as a class, not Crys T in specific.) I think a lot of your rhetorical, political, and ideological behavior is objectionable, on a variety of grounds. And I think that most of the leftist worldview which has gotten snarled around feminism is intellectually ludicrous, morally bankrupt, or both. And I have no shyness about expressing any of these disagreements.
If that is lack of respect, then I suppose it’s lack of respect. I tend to think the converse; if I didn’t respect you, I wouldn’t engage and talk with you. I don’t hang out at white supremacist forums, Holocaust denial forums, Marxist forums, etc. - although I disagree with those people more than I would disagree with feminists.
Your ideas have something to them; you’ve hosed the analysis and missed half the facts, but the underlying idea is something with merit and meat. This is a patriarchal society. This causes problems. Women and men ought to be peers and partners, not property or lust objects. And so forth.
Respect, to me, means to take someone seriously and to assume their basic humanity, agency, and responsibility. If I didn’t take you seriously, I wouldn’t bother to be here even to make fun; if I didn’t assume you had humanity, agency and responsibility, I wouldn’t address you as an adult.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
…and I’ve pretty much said everything I have to say about moderation and my own participation, so unless directly questioned again, I’ll bow out for a while to avoid monopolizing the discussion.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Ah yes, the “worthy opponent” excuse.
Robert, if you respected us, you’d take your cerebral exercises elsewhere. Your analytical, rational, cerebral, whatever don’t give you an excuse to continually derail conversations after it has been pointed out to you that this is what you’re doing. You might live in your head, but you post with your ego.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Robert, if you respected us, you’d take your cerebral exercises elsewhere.
Respect is not the same thing as doing what you want me to do. If the person who owns this forum asks me to take myself elsewhere, I’ll do so. That person isn’t you. You and I are peers here. You are attempting to use “respect” as a tool to make a claim of power-over, power which you are not entitled to. That won’t work.
NOW I’m bowing out. ;)
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Reversal anyone? You, Robert, are enamored with the power-over that Amp has (all nicely coined as “private property” by you).
I have no power here, as you exhibit. I ask you, in all civility, to respect our requests.
Your reply: nah! don’t have to if I don’t want to.
And then you try to make me look like I’m on a power trip.
And *that* Amp is how civility plays out around here.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Myca asked whether non-trans people try to be academic in trans discussions.
I do. I’m really bad about it, even though I know I do it. I resolve to be better about that.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Hi, I’m a lurker. I usually am too afraid of Google to post, but I’d like to enjoy the comment sections again. I still like the posts, but a year or two ago I mostly stopped reading the comments. Have you seen Teresa Nielsen Hayden’s guidelines for moderation? She also wrote another post on the subject recently.
From the first post:
I think that this, from the second post, is also relevant:
She also makes a point about why it is the blogger’s responsibility to monitor their comments.
Anyway, I hope this helps you think through your moderation policies. Many of the commentators I looked forward to hearing from have left because they didn’t like how lax the comment moderation had gotten. I know that part of the purpose of the blog is outreach, but giving the non-feminist commentators so much space in the threads has just resulted in the trolls’ reinforcing each other’s beliefs, not in their changing into pro-feminists. A freer hand with disemvowelling and banning would improve the atmosphere immensely, so that everyone else would have more energy to spend on the civil and the convincible.
Incidentally, if you’re having some trouble bringing yourself to moderate, you can get your own official “Certificate of Moderation”.
This comment was written by JAB.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Theriomorph said:
y’know what I’m reminded of here? (not by any person in particular, just the discussion)
when my last emo-abusivefuckwit boyfriend and i got to the point in our arguments over what was-and-was-not mean where even my sarcasm was considered “mean” and a personal attack.
[Once it got to where there was just no way to point out wtf was up without resorting to 'ironically' pointing out the latent absurdity, that was also my last-straw clue to leave, since w/out my sarcasm, who the fuck am i?]
I think to some extent that’s what might be going on here. from the angry feminist pov, there’s just no logical argument to a lot of mra/niceguy™ non-logic statements. “That’s founded in hatred and misunderstanding” is, after a while, all that’s left to say. To me, at least, that’s how bean’s original comment read.
Of course, “You’re hateful and lacking understanding” sounds terribly insulting to the MRA in question, since nobody likes to get called on their own absurdity.
[now, return to your regularly scheduled in-fighting] :D
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
oh yeah:
“That’s founded in hatred and misunderstanding” = ‘misogyny’
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
oh one more clarification: I’m not calling Amp an MRA for moderating. I’m just pointing out that the “person”al in the insult was an MRA, a group whom Amp has taken great pains to open the discussion up to in a peaceful and productive way.
So, I see his reasoning, just, not the reasoning behind the feelings that might’ve been provoked by bean’s “misogyny” comment.
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Defenestrated, I’m very sorry, but I didn’t follow that. Can you try to restate?
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Bean wrote:
That works for me! Ignorance is bliss.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
And this is exactly how it always plays out. When anti-feminist men get called out on their underhanded behaviour, they try to dress it up as mere “disagreement” which we are unreasonably not allowing. It’s that “you all want to be in an echo chamber” bullshit again. As if our arguments just can’t hold up to the massive male intellect.
Please, get a clue: I know NO ONE in real life who has the same feminist beliefs as me, yet I do manage to relate very well in most disagreements that may come up. And that’s because to my face most people don’t usually engage in the sort of silly-ass mindgames that some of the men on this board do. Plus, in real life there is no moderator for them to hide behind if they do pull shit with me.
And I have to repeat: hanging around for extended periods of time at blogs where you know that all your presence really does is annoy the hell of those who actually believe in the ideals the blog is discussing, especially when it’s been repeatedly pointed out to you that your behaviour is considered insulting to a substantial number of people there, is just plain weird. Part of it is that women-hating men have been made very comfortable at Alas. They know that if they fuck with us and we snap at them, all they have to is smile angelically and proclaim they just rilly rilly wanna, like, communicate with folks and stuff, and the women will be the ones to get our wrists slapped. Then they can all high-five each other and do the internet version of “nyah, nyah, na-nyah, nyah” as they watch us fume, much as they were doing earlier in this thread–including, of course, wide-eyed protestations of “but we were just trying to lighten the mood” (with the subtext of “crazy bitches, just got no sense of humour,” of course).
But part of it is a disturbing sadistic streak of enjoying needling women and watching us jump.
This comment was written by crys t.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Bradnon / Amp, Amp said previously that flagging/rating comments is more work than he wants to take on, but something like that might work. Brandon has said that
1. He’s a libertarian (and thus believes in paying for things)
2. He’s really likes reading what you write.
3. He wants more leftist commentors on his blog.
4. He’s a computer programmer.
Think you could work out a swap? He sets up the flag/whatever tech solution you/bean/racheal/whoever agree to comment on his blog for some defined timeframe?
I’ll admit that it’s odd.
fwiw, I think your blog is good, I have learned a lot, and hope it keeps going.
This comment was written by Joe.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Mandolin writes:
It’s not so much the being academic that drives me crazy in trans discussions, it’s the truly out to sea emotional appeals. The “ZOMG! She used to be a man! Men rape women! She’s going to rape me!” appeals.
Academic, rational, emotionless, I can deal with. It’s when I start getting around the “ZOMG! She used to be a man! Men rape women! She’s going to rape me!” (or “He raped me by having a sex change!” — that’s my fave) that I think feminism of that line of reasoning is about as valid as the “Tin Foil Hat! I need my tin foil hat!” crowd of paranoiacs.
This comment was written by Julie, Herder of Cats.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
“Academic, rational, emotionless, I can deal with. It’s when I start getting around the “ZOMG! She used to be a man! Men rape women! She’s going to rape me!” (or “He raped me by having a sex change!” — that’s my fave) that I think feminism of that line of reasoning is about as valid as the “Tin Foil Hat! I need my tin foil hat!” crowd of paranoiacs. ”
Oh, totally, that’s just unacceptable.
I like to think I’m merely annoying. :)
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Joe:
I haven’t really done much web programming, though I guess I could give it a try. It never hurts to learn new things.
That said, blog comments are kind of like sex, in that they’re not as much fun when they’re paid for (well, I assume sex has that property). Also, I was never too keen on the flagging system to begin with, and this thread has pretty much sealed the deal.
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Talk about innuendo. I’m hoping (and expecting) that our host Ampersand has a thick skin.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
The “request” in question is your request that Robert go away (”take it elsewhere”).
And because Robert doesn’t obey your request, that proves that the moderation policies here suck.
Uh-huh.
Please tell me that you’re kidding.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
In my opinion, FWIW, the recent discussions on the Imus and Duke rape controversies and the deplorable treatment of two participants (asking a rape survivor to describe in graphic detail what the rapist did was especially loathsome) were the result of a situation where two highly publicized controversies with both racist and sexist implications occured within a very short time period of time. This blogger’s equivalent of a perfect storm doesn’t happen every day.
While the system obviously didn’t work perfectly (if it had either the comments would never have been published or the offenders would have been banished immediately) , I think it worked relatively well. So, while minor adjustments may be desireable, I personally don’t think a major change is required. But that’s just my opinion, and I would be surprised (and even a little disappointed) if nobody disagreed with it.
This comment was written by Paul1552.Report this comment to the moderators
April 21st, 2007 at 2:05 am
Thanks for the discussion so far. I’d like to try and bring some focus to it, however.
From now on, I’d like people to direct their comments to practical suggestions about how the moderation here could be improved while maintaining enough of a polite tone so I can stand reading the comments.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 21st, 2007 at 5:10 am
Ideally, more interventions like this would help keep the comments on topic. As you have said, though, you and the other moderators have lives outside this blog, so you’re not able to monitor it 24/7. The best idea I can see (which has already been suggested in one form or another) would be a “report abuse” option that would let you (as well as Rachel, Maia, Charles and whomever else you choose) know that there’s a problem so that one of you can intervene to correct it.
The only thing is that everyone would have to realize that your all’s schedules and other commitments would probably prevent you from intervening immediately.
Something else that might help (and that I’ve seen Maia do from time to time) would be for the “topic-starter” to set some ground rules at the beginning about what will and will not be tolerated.
This comment was written by Paul1552.Report this comment to the moderators
April 21st, 2007 at 6:04 am
I’ve been meaning to post on this thread. But I’m unsure what to say. Mostly because I’m not that committed to comment threads. While I really enjoy good comment threads with an interesting discussion, I don’t have much interest in comment threads that repeat discussions I’ve already had (this isn’t supposed to in anyway be a dismissal of people who do - obviously I think comment threads, like most things can serve heaps of different functions). The problem is that I don’t know how to create a comment thread that I’m interested in, or even if it can be done.
As Charles noted in the previous thread, unlike Rachel and Amp, I don’t have a strong belief that people’s minds can be changed through rational argument. So I do have a problem with the effect people like Robert can have on a thread. One problem is how easy it is for the person who is furthest from the concensus can drive the direction of the discussion. One person who says “But what about the baby” can make every discussion about abortion the same.
For myself, I’ve found the solution to that is to be really specific about the limits of the discussion. So as well as labelling threads ‘feminist only’, I also sometimes say what ways I don’t want the discussion to go. I’m fine with having a discussion about the morality of abortion occasionally, but there are many other things I want to talk about as well.
Obviously people who aren’t a moderator don’t have that option. But I do think the idea of ignoring the squeaky wheel has a lot to be said for it. If you’re in the middle of an interesting discussion about access to abortion and someone comes along and say ‘but what about the baby’ then just ignore that comment. Or direct them to another thread which is already knee deep in the morality of abortion (I don’t know if Amp and Rachel would find this sort of back-seat moderating OK, but I certainly would).
The other problem, and I do think it’s a big problem, is the tone of some of some of the comments. Personally I think the problem isn’t necessarily the civility rules themselves, but how easy it to write something that sounds civil but is in fact denying other people’s personhood. I think it’s possible to rely on form too much, and not see that some content is uncivil/hateful, not matter how it is expressed (the example I feel most passionately about is that there is no way that you could say that Louise Nicholas was lying that I would be prepared to host). I have a pretty low tolerance for those sorts of comments by about comment ten because I couldn’t handle the hate I saw radiating from every comment.
One solution is more moderation, but that’s not something I can commit to myself. I’m almost always sleeping during the American work day. But I will moderate my threads more to reflect the sort of comment threads I find interesting (which is basically discussion among allies). I’m also going to be more free with moderating/banning from my threads posters who I think deny the personhood of people I write about, because I don’t think that’s civil or acceptable.
This comment was written by Maia.Report this comment to the moderators
April 21st, 2007 at 6:45 am
A lot of my job involves applying extremely logical solutions (as required by the court system) to extremely emotional problems. It’s one of the most difficult, and most interesting, parts of my work.
I have found that my clients are vastly helped by explaining this inherent contradiction up front instead of realizing it as we go along. I think it would be much easier for the mods if they got specific initially–this would reduce the necessity to moderate later on..
Ask the authors of EACH POST to be specific about what they want to discuss, and the framework in which they want to discuss it.
because there are a gazillion valid frameworks, right? There’s a validity to discussing rape law from a practical (legal) perspective, which pretty much requires being emotionally detached and logical. AND there’s a validity in discussing rape from a purely emotional perspective, which might well require putting aside the strictures of what is/isn’t practical, legal, etc etc.
The whole set of arguments with Robert, ad IMO the main disagreement with the “anti feminist men” really revolves around frameworks. Is logical relevant? Of course; I tend towards that perspective myself though I generally disagree with Robert. But I certainly accept that it’s not EVERYTHING.
So:
1) Want to post and talk logically about, say, rape? Go ahead. But first, put on the “emotional hat”. Acknowledge that there are probably going to be some bad emotional components to what you are typing, and that you are deliberately not talking about them. In your statement of what is/isn’t allowed on that thread, be up front about it. Then stick to your guns in moderation: if the thread starts getting into “women are lying sluts” or “men are all raping idiots” or “your discussion of the law makes me feel violated” cut the posters out: it’s not part of the thread.
2) Want to post and talk emotionally about, say, rape? Go ahead. But first, put on the logic hat. Acknowledge that there are probably going to be some illogical components to what you are typing, and that you are deliberately not talking about them. In your statement of what is/isn’t allowed on that thread, be up front about it. Then stick to your guns in moderation. If someone starts arguing that a victim perspective is unconstitutional if enforced, cut them out: logical consistency isn’t part of the thread.
3) Want to have an open thread on, say, rape? Go ahead. But make it clear that it’s an open thread. Make it clear that folks aren’t entitled to assume every person who takes a victim-centered perspective is trying to convict every male on the planet of rape. Make it clear that folks aren’t entitled to assume everyone who tries to talk about practical enforcement isn’t a rapist. And so on.
And oh yeah: Have a great earth day tomorrow!
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
April 21st, 2007 at 7:01 am
I’ve already said that I like Maia’s very direct setting of ground rules, and also the way she will come onto a thread and say “[name], you are off topic; I won’t allow any more discussion of xyz, please discuss abc instead.” (In fairness I have to admit that she hasn’t addressed me this way, and if she did I probably wouldn’t like it so much, but I’d sure know where I stood.)
A very common theme on the topic of moderation seems to be “Amp, can’t you see that so-and-so’s posting of this or joking about that is offensive/why don’t you ban so-and-so for blatant disrespect cloaked in civility?” followed (sometimes) by Amp’s explaining why not, followed (sometimes) by speculation that Amp is a guy/a white guy and that’s why he’s so clueless. (JFTR I don’t agree, to put it mildly, that Amp is clueless.) So I think the “report abuse” option is a really good idea, with the caveats that 1) there’s a space to explain why the conduct complained of is abuse 2) anyone complaining of abuse has to use that space 3) the moderators decide if the conduct is in fact abuse 4) we all understand that Amp, Rachel, Maia and Charles (and any additional moderators Amp may designate) can’t moderate 24/7 5) we all understand that it’s Amp’s blog and he’s free to yata yata 5a) Amp reserves the right to rescind the “report abuse” option if people abuse it or bombard him with emails second-guessing moderation decisions or it otherwise becomes more trouble than it’s worth.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
April 22nd, 2007 at 4:11 pm
I think that a lot of the problems that are considered “abuse” are the result of more kind of people joining the discussion, which I don’t think is a bad thing.
There are subjects where I think there is room for dispassionate discussion, as well as emotionally charged discussion. Some of the topics overlap, and some of the topics have conflicting interests from different sides, and some of the topics have conflicting approaches based on perspective and personal experience.
As an observation, my experience of feminist discussion spaces on the ‘net over the last 21 years is that there has always been a tension between “analytical” and “emotional” discussions. And while there is definitely some amount of gender difference, it’s not uniquely a men-are-analytical / women-are-emotional thing.
That said, even if men really are analytical and women really are emotional (not saying it’s not the result of socialization, and FTR, I believe it’s far more socialization and anything else), feminist discussion needs to be able to deal with both kinds of discourse. There are topics where I really do want to be able to make emotional arguments (rape and sexual abuse and its affects on people, being a good example) that I also want to be able to make very analytical arguments. I don’t think I’m alone in this desire, nor do I think either approach has all the answers.
This comment was written by Julie, Herder of Cats.Report this comment to the moderators
April 22nd, 2007 at 4:32 pm
I don’t think it has anything to do with analytical versus emotional. I think Sailorman’s dead wrong, for instance.
I’m going to try to say this with respect, Sailorman, but what it seems to me that you saw as a bunch of women saying “no, no, let’s talk emotionally about rape” and you saying “ah, but logic” is not how I saw it.
Whether or not this is a fair characterization, this is what I saw:
Maia: OK, let’s talk about what rape is. I think it’s this.
Sailorman: That’s not a legally workable definition.
Feminists: We don’t think we should define the concept of rape by law.
Sailorman: What about lots more stuff about the law?
Feminists: Law is not relavent here. We are discussing morality. Law later. Law elsewhere.
Sailorman: Law, law, law?
Feminists: ARGH! and various expletives.
Again, I don’t know if that’s a fair characterization. It was what I saw. It may be very wrong. But I want to bring it up to make my point, because it was an example of how I think you (Sailorman, Julie, possibly others) are perceiving problems centered around a dichotomy (analytical v. emotional) which is unrelated to the dichotomy I (and possibly other posters) wanted to bring up (implicated v. intellectualized).
The difference in the points of view presented in the scenario above (fair or not) are not emotional vs. analytical. It’s … I dunno… legalistic versus holistic, or something. But both sides were able to make emotional arguments, and both sides were able to make emotional arguments.
I have no problem with anyone making analytical arguments. Yay analytical arguments. Woohoo.
It’s not about emotion v. analytical; it’s about inherent investment. We can all discuss - say - the definition of a planet, and no one’s life is on the line. We can all make analytical arguments. Maybe someone can make an emotional argument (Pluto was a planet when I was a kid!), but we can all be analytical. Too, we are all _distanced_ and _intellectualized_.
Now let’s talk about rape. I can make analytical arguments up and down about rape. I can make emotional arguments up and down about rape. So can everyone else. As a woman, I am personally implicated in discussions of rape. The discussion has a greater effect on me than it will on someone who is unlikely to be raped; I do not have the privelege of vieweing it from a “disconnected” angle. However, having a personal investment does not make me incapable of logic, or creating analytical theories!
This has nothing to do with gender. To take this into a slightly different context, in an argument about transsexuality:
Transperson = implicated, but has potential to be analytical or emotional
Cisgendered person = probably not implicated, thus able to intellectualize; has potential to be analytical or emotional
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 22nd, 2007 at 4:33 pm
“But both sides were able to make emotional arguments, and both sides were able to make emotional arguments.”
Yeah, that should read “But both sides were able to make emotional arguments, and both sides were able to make *analytical* arguments.”
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 22nd, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Mandolin,
I get “invested” and I think that’s why a lot of men don’t get “rape” — the average man has never been raped and never will be raped. For that matter, I think that’s the same reason a lot of men don’t get a lot of feminist topics. Not to say that “privilege”, as opposed to “investment” isn’t also an issue (being affluent and living in a gated community offers privilege against rape, but being a woman, even in a gated community, makes a woman invested.)
My personal, raw, emotional response to rape is that I’d like to take rapists out, sever their genitals, then shoot them. There, I got it out.
Maybe it’s 3 decades of male socialization, I dunno, but it’s definitely not being uninvested, because I’ve been raped, and I live in fear of it today, same as I lived in fear of it at some times during those 3 decades of male socialization. For me, it’s wanting to DO something about it, and if I have to be all analytical and legalistic and “degrees of rape”, I’m fine with that. Two decades of being “emotional” haven’t accomplished anything for me, and by all indications, for any other women. So perhaps, pleading guilty as charged, it the other 2 1/2 decades of male socialization taking over.
Emotional versus analytical doesn’t have to be either-or, and that’s what I was trying to say in my earlier post.
This comment was written by Julie, Herder of Cats.Report this comment to the moderators
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:25 am
mandolin,
I have a polite response that’s not really relevant to the thread; email me, willya? I don’t know how to send you one from here.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:53 am
I’m not actually going off-the-new-topic by clarifying my previous, mandolin-certified unclear comment: I think part of the problem (from my pov, and using the nice guy thread as an example) is that after a while teh MRA arguments are just straight out insulting to women, no matter how delicately they’re stated. When bean cut through the bullshit and called “misogyny,” I really didn’t get why that would’ve been where the line is, rather than really long lawyerly defenses of the notion that men treating women badly and like objects is somehow women’s fault. Yeah, that was sort of the topic of the thread a little, but it wasn’t the topic of the post or the conversation it came out of - but what I saw as calling bullshit and trying to get back on track read to you, Amp, as a personal insult. Personal to whom? to the whole idea the dudes from Fem.Critics were defending? ’cause it didn’t seem like anyone was particularly singled out as misogynistic so much as their “team’s” idea. - which also might have a little to do with why I didn’t feel ok asking that same question on that thread, since this blog is, uh, your “court.”
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:54 am
I didn’t say that Amp.
I said that I, and others, have at various times civily asked Robert to back off with his comments because they are derailing (including right here in this thread). Instead of respecting our requests, Robert escalates his posting and continually turns threads into Robert-fests.
This doesn’t mean the moderation policy “sucks” - something that I have *never* claimed, despite your histrionics. It means that an adult man (read: Robert) is incapable of respecting those people, usually women, usually feminists, that he disagrees with. He is incapable of policing himself. And because of that, our civility means shit around here.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 23rd, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Mandolin:
Feminists take a variety of positions I find morally repugnant. I don’t “poke” feminists for the fun of it. I criticise what to me is objectionable.
That’s a pretty abstract criticism. The system we have hurts people. I’m just not prepared to disregard half the world’s population when it comes to advocating a new one.
About puppies?
I don’t recall you talking to me at all. Why don’t you try it, see what happens.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
April 23rd, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Daran,
Did you read anything about the context of the post? I was suggesting an open thread for social interaction.
Seems to me much of that post was attempting to poke me with a stick, since it appears to involve deliberate misreading.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 23rd, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Amp, I think the problem might have something to do with you knowing “where Robert’s coming from” since you’ve known him personally and know he’s not A Bad Guy, whereas all of us stating (at various levels of anger) the opinions you agree with (y’know, that women are people too and stuff) get a little, well, closer policing.
That you know bean also might have something to do with why it was her use of the word misogynistic that stuck out to you against the whole sea of defenses of woman-bashing/hating-on that that (not-so)NiceGuy thread became. To go back to my “blog as (let’s say basketball) court” analogy, assuming that we’re all on the same team here and that you’re the coach - it’s kinda like you picking on your favorite player bc she’s tall and should be able to shoot better than that, but ignoring the 5′2″ player who can literally run laps around the team all-practice-long but who doesn’t always make the lay-up due to, y’know, being 5′2″.
God I hope that made sense. Post-surgery/fogginess me seems to be a little “manic,” apparently.
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
April 23rd, 2007 at 2:49 pm
a little clarification: run laps around = express in a lawyerly, delicate fashion until comment five million and five if need be
make the layup = make a halfway decent point about Why womenandstuff should be treated like people-as-such.
bean = really tall; Men who feel the need to start a blog called “Feminist Critics”….uh….very short indeed.
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
April 23rd, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Oh, and on the idea of not having commenters at all: Obviously it’s your blog and you should do whatcha want, but I do think that there’s a lot of value in having a forum where feminists and anti-feminists can discuss stuff and yet have the conversation as a whole directed by a “benevolent coach.” Just, maybe, put equal time into watching how “personal” the feminists get and how ‘frankly just really mean and dehumanizing after a while’ the MRAs (or, “anti-Womenz” commenters) can be.
It’s your blog, it’s your conversation, and we’re kinda all in your living room. Would you throw bean out of the house for yelling “SCOOOOOORE” at the tv, or would you let Daran rip bean a new one just ’cause he showed up to the door with a bouquet of flowers?
[my guess is neither; but bean and the feminists are welcome any ol time and Daran (and his MRA buddies) are allowed in until one of them crosses an arbitrary line of offensiveness that the particular anti-fem hasn't yet learned how not to cross while in this particular living room.]
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:42 pm
[...] This was in a comments thread at Alas, comment 108 by Radfem. [...]
This comment was written by Silencing with “attack”, the misuses of logic, and reclaiming emotion at Hoyden About Town.Report this comment to the moderators
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Mandolin:
Yes, I saw that. I’m not sure how that would work. In any case, I don’t think you need to wait for one to be started before talking to me.
I’m sorry you feel poked. Remember it was you who referred to me by name. Did it ever occur to you that I might feel poked?
The only “deliberate misreading” was my “About puppies” remark, which was intended as a joke, albeit a risky one, given the history of this thread.
I don’t see how I’m misreading you. You said that I “take a variety of positions I find morally repugnant”, but you didn’t say what those positions were. I’m used to having all kinds of opinions attributed to me that I do not hold and have never expressed, so it’s very difficult for me to respond to that.
I replied with “Feminists take a variety of positions I find morally repugnant”. I offered that as an alternative explanation of my behaviour than “poking with sticks”.
You then said “they seem to put a higher premium on creating a system that addresses abstractions, even when that system hurts people.” - “They” meaning RonF and me. Again, that’s hard to respond to without knowing what kind of systems your talking about. So again I responded with a generality.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:35 pm
Meaning recurring anti-feminist guest stars more generally. I thought there was an implied e.g.; perhaps there wasn’t.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:38 pm
This “feminism = women are people” stuff is something that’s been bothering me for a while. If you want to define feminism as the belief that women are people, that’s fine. But then you can’t call people like us antifeminists, because I know I agree with the proposition that women are people, and I’ve seen no indication that Robert, Ron, or Daran believe otherwise.
If you want to define feminism more narrowly, such that it includes stuff like blaming the Patriarchy, endorsing shiny new government programs, and other things that don’t follow incontrovertibly from the premise that women are people, then I can live with that, too, and you can call me an antifeminist all you want. I certainly do oppose that particular brand of “feminism.”
I’m okay with either of these options. But I do object to equivocation. You can’t call us antifeminists because we oppose feminism defined narrowly, and then switch to the broad definition and say that since we’re antifeminists we must not believe that women are people. So I’d appreciate it if you’d pick a definition and stick with it.
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Mandolin:
I’m not a member of any such “they”. If you want to criticise me, then do so, but do so because of what I say and do, not because of what other people say and do, who you’ve chosen to lump me together with.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Here we go again. Who exactly are you talking about, and in what way are they my “buddies”?
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Mandolin:
Actually, I enjoy poking all kinds of people with sticks. In this post I poke other libertarians with a stick. As a non-libertarian, you might have no idea what I’m talking about, but I assure you that you’d be feeling the poke right about now if you were a libertarian.
As I said earlier, I think disagreement is more interesting than agreement. It’s also more intellectually stimulating—most of what I see as my best insights on politics and economics have come from debate, here and elsewhere. Basically, I read and comment on Alas for more or less the same reasons Ampersand tolerates me (comment 43 above).
Also, I think your system hurts people more than mine. Reasonable people can disagree.
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:51 pm
defenestrated wrote:
Here’s what Bean wrote in the “nice guys” thread, and my response to Bean on that thread:
Do you really find it surprising that I viewed this as a personal attack on Brandon? If this isn’t a personal attack on Brandon, in your view, then what would be?
(Despite what some folks have incorrectly claimed on this thread, by the way, I never objected to anyone using the word “misogynist.” I was wrong to trust people’s memories for that, rather than checking the source myself.)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 24th, 2007 at 12:10 am
Regarding Teresa Nielsen Hayden’s much linked post about moderation, I think the central message is that good moderation requires two things: 1. A moderator (or team) whose word is law, who can delete comments and ban persistent offenders and not feel embarrassed about it. Endless debates about moderation decisions are almost worse than the trolling and flaming that moderation is supposed to deal with. This leads me on to 2. Cooperation between the commenting community and the moderator. Making Light has a community of regulars who have all the opinions under the sun, but are in broad agreement about what sort of behaviour is acceptable at ML. They do such a good job of freezing out unwanted elements that the direct moderation tools are little needed, it’s just not an attractive place for trolls to be. Alas doesn’t have that.
Amp himself wants civil discourse and the ability to debate people with opposing views, as long as it doesn’t get personally nasty. Most of the regular commenters here are either feminists, who want to improve the situation of women and promote feminism, and very much don’t want to have endless academic debates about matters they consider settled; or they are explicit anti-feminists who want to stop feminists from doing their thing. Neither group really supports Amp’s moderation goals, I think.
This comment was written by Individ-ewe-al.Report this comment to the moderators
April 24th, 2007 at 12:12 am
Following on from that, my advice to Amp is: under no circumstances defend your individual moderation decisions. Don’t do it here on the blog, and don’t get into it by email. If someone emails you to complain about being banned, or to complain that some creepy troll wasn’t banned fast enough, you are not obliged to reply. That way you can make your own decisions about what sort of atmosphere you want here. It will be much harder to derail good discussion into boring meta-discussion about whether so-and-so should be banned. And you will establish a clear consensus about the sort of blog that Alas is; people who aren’t interested in that will eventually drift away.
To feminists, my advice is: ignore the trolls. Suppress the instinct that says if you leave them unopposed people may believe their odious nonsense. Of course, the more you feed them, the more successful they are in derailing productive discussions. If you want to have high-level feminist discussion here, go ahead and have it. Reply only to the people you think have a clue. Easier said than done, I know, but I think it would be more productive than complaining to Amp that he’s a bad moderator.
This comment was written by Individ-ewe-al.Report this comment to the moderators
April 24th, 2007 at 3:47 am
I’d like to second what Bean said above.
I’d also like to add that I’d be a lot less angry about getting called out for being “personally nasty” if the anti-feminist men here were also getting called out for their personal nastiness. Why is it so “irrational” to expect some consistency?
I really don’t expect Amp, or any of the other moderators, to live at this blog 24/7. Frankly, I’d worry about them if they did. So it’s not that I get pissed off if one of the men makes an outrageous comment without immediate response. And I can understand that sometimes things don’t get caught due to high volumes of comments to wade through.
But there is a longtime pattern of letting the men get off scot-free and slapping feminists’ wrists and that’s just bullshit.
This comment was written by crys t.Report this comment to the moderators
April 24th, 2007 at 6:20 am
Following up on Individ-ewe-al’s comments 160 and 161, what if we (I mean the regular and semi-regular commenters who are at least sympathetic to feminism) tried a cooperative approach? It could be similar to what Maia does: “I don’t think xyz is relevant (or, I think reasonable people agree that xyz is a settled question); here is my take on abc.” The difference of course would be that we wouldn’t have the power of the ban to back it up; but if enough of us persisted it might work. Any off-topic jokes could just be ignored.
A possible objection to this idea is that it puts the burden on feminists and pro-feminists to deal with the problem. It might be the best option at this point, though.
From my own experience on this blog and others, it’s very hard to keep harping on a subject if I’m the only one interested in it and everyone else is onto other things. (I don’t think of myself as harping — but if I throw something out there and no one picks it up, I really don’t have much choice but to move on.)
As for Amp’s not participating in discussions, without trying to speak for Amp I’m going to a hazard a guess, again going on my own experience, that if the discussion stays civil (sorry, can’t think of another word) and focused and covers the ground well, Amp may not see any need to rehash points that have already been dealt with.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
April 24th, 2007 at 7:58 am
Why would amp mind if you told Robert/Brandon/whoever that you’d like to discuss X and not Y? Or tell some random person that a specific thread is to discuss access to abortion and not when the fetus becomes a person? I thought his main requirement was that the conversation remains civil, free from personal attacks, profanity and vitriol. There’s no way to force anyone to honor that request without mod privileges but it might improve things.
This comment was written by joe.Report this comment to the moderators
April 24th, 2007 at 8:03 am
Amp, I see your point re: my comment. I think, though (again, the young lil feminazi in the room waves her hand wildly), that where I missed seeing that as a personal insult is exactly where the “feminist critics” dudes call their ‘criticism’ “Taking issue with the ‘narrowly-defined term’ Feminism.”
If you and I and every shade of gender in between can by now be considered Feminists just because we consider Women to be equal to Men and don’t consider FEMinism as a whole to have been bad for huMANkind (that would be my issue with all the terminology, by the way, as a secular pan/non-theist er whatever “humanitarian”)
- and a bunch of MRAs can call their blog “(not-anti)-Feminist Critics”…then, yeah, that kinda does leave lil ol me as the Nazi in the room. That’s not necessarily actually a bad thing, by the way, seeing as I’ve learned a hell of a lot from watching the arguments and discussions on here. In any event, it’s not meant to be educational for me and my team so much, is it now?
All that said, I like the new commenting dealio. I imagine that since all of the apparently most-interested parties have had a part in this thread, it’s pretty much gonna serve its purpose of giving you freedom to have, y’know, a non-Alas life.
This comment was written by defenestrated.(but who’d want that?)
Report this comment to the moderators
April 24th, 2007 at 8:06 am
Julie,
I meant to respond to you earlier. I don’t remember ever thinking you were intellectualized about things like rape, but if you feel you are, then that’s fair. I don’t know exactly how to comment on it, or how male socialization comes in, but I thought your post was very interesting.
As to the other discussion here, in re: Daran and BrandonBerg — but not *to* Daran and BrandonBerg:
They’re doing. It. Again.
As the feminists discuss what to do about their cooption of the discussion, these two antifeminist men are ignoring the context of that discussion and attempting coopt *it* into a discussion about the very basic level of feminist principles. Whether they see it or not, they’re trying to convert this disucssioninto a defense of basic feminist principles. I call bullshit.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 24th, 2007 at 8:21 am
Mandolin: thank goodness someone said it. It is bullshit. Isn’t pretty much everyone here sick of watching every damn thread here turn into more beating of the Strawfeminist by our very own resident He-Man Woman Haters’ Club?
This comment was written by crys t.Report this comment to the moderators
April 24th, 2007 at 9:50 am
Crys T:
Bean:
Both of these claims are so far from the truth that I don’t even know what blog you’re reading, but it’s not this one.
Crys T, I think you may not realize that you’re not seeing most of the moderation that goes on, which consists of not letting posters have permission to post on “Alas” at all. 19 times out of 20, people who are banned based on their first posts are anti-feminists and/or racists and/or pro-life. Even after people are allowed to post, the vast majority of banned posters are not feminists.
Even if you look at nothing but warnings I give, it’s simply not true that I give warnings exclusively to feminists. In this thread, for instance, the only person I’ve moderated is Robert. (Plus, in comment #135, I guess I moderated everyone - but everyone ignored that, feminists and non-feminists both).
Bean, it’s true I don’t debate as much as I should — but it’s not at all true that the majority of my comments are moderating comments, let alone anywhere close to 99%.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 24th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Mandolin, I disagree with comment #167. First of all, what you see as an on-topic discussion by feminists, I see as a co-option of a thread that I had intended to be used for practical discussion of what can be done, into a discussion involving very little discussion of practical approaches to moderation.
(Which isn’t a big deal to me, because I figure that most threads drift. I wouldn’t even want them not to drift, after the first 20 or 40 comments; some degree of thread drift is a normal part of conversation, in my view, and it’s not productive to try and stop it after a thread is old enough. I’m really not interested in being so controlling that I forbid all thread drift on comment threads over 100 comments long.)
So to agree with you, I’d have to embrace a double-standard; that it’s okay for feminists to digress into something tangential to the topic, but if non-feminists digress from the digression that’s objectionable. There are a bunch of double-standards I embrace (virtually all of them in favor of feminists) in my approach to moderation, but that’s not one of them.
Also, I don’t think that Brandon and Daran’s contributions were all off-topic, if we ignore the actual topic and instead assume the topic is “what is going wrong here?” This is a board in which both feminists and non-feminists participate; in any discussion of what’s going wrong in which feminists say “Daran does X,” or whatever, it’s relevant to have Daran (or whomever) give their own perspective on what’s happening.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 24th, 2007 at 10:24 am
Point taken, although I think I may have been unclear. What I’d meant to express was:
It seems to me that Daran & BrandonBerg’s comments are turning to questions about what feminism is about, at base.
I also didn’t mean to call for moderation of their comments, for what it’s worth.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 24th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Mandolin:
This simply isn’t true. We’re both objecting to what we perceive as gross mischaracterizations of our views and/or motives. I specifically said that I don’t care how you define feminism, as long as you stick to a consistent definition rather than equivocating.
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
April 24th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Amp, I do like the addition of the “Report this comment to the moderators” button. I’ll be interested if you care to share how it works.
They’re enjoying the fact that they’ve managed to stir up such bad feeling amongst us.
Actually, crys t, no, we weren’t. Robert and I were having a bit of a joke about the mutual revelation that we seem to share a bit of history as far as our political pasts - the kind of joke that frequent posters on here have often shared. It wasn’t about you or anyone else at all.
I certainly do not take pleasure out of ever having caused bad feelings among any group of people.
I would say that I’ve learned a few things on this blog that I would not have been exposed to otherwise. The main thing would be the idea of “privilege” - which I understand as being the idea that people who are in a favorable position in a society can live without any consciousness of how living without such favor affects those without it. It’s not something I thought about before.
The civil discourse on here that some people seem to decry enables me to hear and consider ideas such as the above seriously, which I cannot do if I encounter them wrapped in scatological rhetoric. If some form of moderation is necessary to maintain this, I’m all for it. But does that mean that any challenge or even question about the basis for feminist ideas will be subject to removal because it might offend a feminist?
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
April 24th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Oh, and I am under no illusion that the primary purpose of this blog either is or should be to give me a forum. If Amp decides to moderate me off of this blog because it will suit his purposes or satisfy the majority of the other posters here, I’d regret it but I do believe that life would go on for us all.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
April 24th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
I tried the report this comment feature. It wouldn’t accept my screen name, so I tried my real name. Still no dice.
And FWIW, I personally think that except in egregious situations like those that were seen a few days ago in the Imus and Duke lacrosse threads, banning someone from a particular thread (or even a particular topic) is better than banning them from the blog altogether.
This comment was written by Paul1552.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2007 at 9:31 am
“Crys T, I think you may not realize that you’re not seeing most of the moderation that goes on, which consists of not letting posters have permission to post on “Alas” at all. 19 times out of 20, people who are banned based on their first posts are anti-feminists and/or racists and/or pro-life. Even after people are allowed to post, the vast majority of banned posters are not feminists.”
OK, then I can qualify what I said before by saying that of the comments/commenters that are allowed here, it’s a lot easier to get by with jabs/insults/etc. if you’re an anti-feminist man than it is if you’re a feminist woman. More anti-feminists may ultimately get banned, because it’s more likely going to be one of them who says something so outrageously beyond the pale that there’s no way it could be tolerated. But when you’re talking about low-level hostility, baiting other commenters, intentionally derailing topics, etc., women–especially if they’re feminist–are much more likely to get called on it by you than the permanent gang of anti-feminist men who’ve settled here.
” In this thread, for instance, the only person I’ve moderated is Robert.”
Yeah, because he’d been named specifically as someone a lot of feminist and pro-feminist commenters see as a huge obstacle to real debate here. You were very conscious of him at that moment and aware that we were all watching your responses very closely. On a day-to-day basis, the guys get away with pulling nasty shit regularly. To be honest, I don’t know if it’s that you somehow miss those particular comments of theirs, or if you do see them but what they’re doing just isn’t registering, or what. But it’s not like it’s only me who’s seeing it: this argument flares up every few months and there are always a number of women AND men who tell you the same thing: that these guys are getting away with murder on a regular basis.
Plus, didn’t you jump on a reply Qgrrl made t0 Robert on this thread? And the hilarious thing was, she was 100% right: Robert WAS lording it over her that she was such a powerless piece of shit here that he didn’t have to give a damn about her (or any of us, really)–which you then proved by smacking her down and giving him a pat on the head. No wonder he treats us all with such open contempt: you not only let him get away with it, you reprimand the person who points it out.
I know you think I’m harsh with you. And you’re right, but it’s borne out of frustration. I meant what I said in the other thread: I DO feel a lot of affection towards you, but when it comes to this particular issue it’s like all your ability to reason, or even really listen, flies out the window.
RonF: I’m sorry, but I can only repeat my feeling that having people camp out for months or years on a blog that exists explicitly to propound views radically contrary to their own is an indication that something is wrong. It’s wrong because normally such places are not comfortable because having to deal with voices saying what you don’t like tends to be upsetting. Evidently, there are a number of anti-feminist men who feel very, very comfortable at Alas. More comfortable, in fact, than most (if not all) of the feminist women.
And why is that? Why are so many discussions here dominated by conservative voices while feminists have been diminishing steadily for some time? Because conservatives are made to feel more welcome. It’s as simple as that. Daran, Brandon, Robert and yourself would never voluntarily last for months on end at a feminist blog (even assuming you didn’t get banned) simply because the moderators wouldn’t be so accomodating in restraining other commenters. You (a general “you” to the MRA types here, since I don’t recall RonF specifically ever engaging in the baiting/insults-disguised-as-civility games) wouldn’t be able to get away with the games-playing and pissing contests, and therefore wouldn’t have the pleasure of hiding behind Teacher sticking out your tongues and laughing while the victims of your bullying were unable to touch you.
In short, you’d have to deal with us pretty much the way you would if this were real life and when you said something, I had the freedom to answer not just what you’re saying, but also what you’re doing. And that just wouldn’t be fun.
This comment was written by crys t.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2007 at 10:05 am
Two quick things though I don’t know if it matters.
As much as I agree with a lot of the sentiments that crys t is articulating I’m not comfortable with the harshness being directed solely at Amp. I HAVE seen him moderate Robert, Daran and Brandon etc quite a lot. And I think the sheer fact that he’s willing to take so much criticism and heat and open this thread up to find solutions says a lot. I’ve not seen a single other blog where the author allows people to bash him so openly and frequently. If I were Amp I’d have put the squash on a lot of this a long time ago - he takes a lot of heat from a lot of people and I often don’t think it’s deserved. While I agree there is a general problem with uncivil things said in civil terms and that it usually flys under the radar until someone is so ticked off that they are uncivil in response, I can’t honestly see that there is any way around that other than the report comment button. There are comment threads that get to 100s of comments - if you take a break for ONE DAY from reading comments it could take HOURS to read through them all - that’s probably not a terribly fun thing to do and if you have to read through a ton of comments you might be more likely to skim and less likely to catch the subtle crap that some people are so talented at. I say we give the report comment button a chance to work and see what happens.
And I have to tell you that for the most part the best thing to do is ignore the baiting. It’s hard, I find myself getting sucked in, but if I take a step back I realize I’m not getting anywhere but giving people pleasure in getting me riled up so I just roll my eyes and move on. Which does contribute to me stopping commenting on threads or not commenting at all, which I suppose is the problem, but maybe with the report comment button I’d be less likely to do this… we shall see.
Second, I have to say I have never seen RonF be a jackass. He may not always agree with everything on here, but I get the sense he is here to learn and he is here with an open mind and I thoroughly appreciate his perspective and ability to have a discussion in order to truly further civil discourse. He is an excellent example to follow I think. I think this blog is a fairly good mix of having the mainstream conservative/liberal arguments as well as furthering left/liberal/feminist discourse - while I’d like to see a greater empahsis on the latter (and I get the feeling Amp does too) I see the value in the former and wouldn’t want to get rid of it entirely. I think the thing to do is those of us who are “feminist” commenters need to step up our game, ignore the baiting and continue to have the conversations we want - it requires extra energy from us, but most things worth doing are usually hard work.
My problem is I don’t have as much free time as some people appear too. I’m slacking off at my job as we speak and I can only do that so much. I have a small child at home so when I’m not working I’m not interested in being in front of a computer. How do you all find so much time to be here reading and responding all the time????
This comment was written by Kate L..Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
We do ignore it.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
“I’m wondering…since it’s so easy to toss off the advice to “just ignore it,” why don’t the same advice givers give that advice to those who are so offended by the “offensive and hostile” posts that the feminists so often make? Why is it always a one-way street?”
Bean, I’m not certain exactly who you are responding to, but I don’t think it’s easy to just ignore it - I have a great deal of trouble with it myself, but I also think it’s possibly the best strategy of being able to get what I want out of the discussion. I’m not thrilled with how many comment threads go, but if I actively ignored the crap rather than engaging with it then I could potentially have a discussion with the people I’m INTERESTED in talking with instead. I don’t know if I’m capable, but I’m willing to try.
This comment was written by Kate L..Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
I wonder if the “just ignore it” people get that feminists arent just merely dicsussing ideas or theories, we’re discussing our actual lives. We’re not defending ideas, we’re defending things that keep us unraped, able to pay bills and breathing (just to name a few). So maybe, just maybe, that “hositility” is a result of having our lives at stake in these “discussions” and not just ideas or beliefs.
For instance
I believe actions A and B will put my life in danger. Immediate, potentially lethal danger. Someone else wants to argue that actions A and B wont really put my life in danger and seems mean or unfair . Im not going to nicely brush that off, when I feel Im actually having to save my own life. I dont know *anyone* who wouldnt become increasingly hostile in defense of their own lives. Nor do I know of anyone who would sit and calmly discuss real dangers to their lives as if it was merely a discussion or hypothetical situation.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Thank you bean!
And I do try hard to ignore it, and I think I’m getting better at it, but unfortunately by doing that I feel like I’m ignoring more and more posts on some of the threads. But bean does raise a question I had when that advice was first given.
I was thinking, well why don’t these MRAs or anti-feminists ignore feminists. And the reality is, they can’t. We live in a world and a country that favors men(and SCOTUS just reminded us of that!) and consequently men have a sense of entitlement to space and discussions that take place in space including discussions of issues that largely impact women in space where women are discussing these issues and it’s always a battle to keep it from descending to a, “what about men?” or they derail, ridicule, tell their brand of jokes and so forth. It’s funny because in a sense the same men who decry feminism and claims that sexism and the patriarchy exist are the same ones who then proceed to show us that these things do still exist.
Also, I do find it interesting how the feminist women seem to be on a similar page and agree with each other and have expressed many of the same concerns but the men say, it’s not happening. Which is why I’ve been reading because life gives feminists and women plenty of opportunities whether we like it or not to address or be faced with the same dynamic and it gets a bit tiring at the end of the day when you’re on the internet.
The same thing happens on issues dealing with racism, usually written by Rachel S. and she handles it pretty well. But watching how Ann was treated and others on these threads, it’s discouraging. There are some great discussions here but some well, certain dynamics repeat themselves.
If you’re looking for quick solutions to implement, there really aren’t any. It’s a societal issue that is coming onto an internet space. Some of us see parallels because it’s our experiences. Some of us don’t because it’s harder to see privilege than oppression let alone confront it in yourself, whether you have racial and/or gender privilege or other privileges.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Kate, thanks very much for post #178.
It’s interesting that almost no one here who is calling for heavier moderation of non-feminists ever bothers to participate in the feminist-only threads.
I’m going to post later today (or maybe tomorrow) describing the changes to the moderation policies. I’d appreciate it if people could dial back on the criticisms for awhile while we set up and try out the new approach and work the kinks out.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Thanks, Amp! I’d like to add my voice to the chorus of appreciation for your willingness to hear us all and try to make changes.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
My question (and please, I’m asking not telling) is how far this applies across the board?
I ask because there have been a lot of intellectual, theoretical discussions of BDSM and polyamory in my time here, and these are things that are part of my actual life, that I have an actual investment in, and that decisions about affect my life in important ways. I’ve been called an abuser, my wife has been called crazy, and I’ve tried to be ‘civil’ through it.
I’m not saying that applying theoretical analysis to things like BDSM and polyamory is wrong or anything, but . . . it really is treating an important emotional component of many people’s lives as an intellectual exercise. When someone does that, is it then okay for me to call them names?
Please realize I’m not trying to either dominate the conversation with this or make it ‘all about me’ or start a fight or anything. I’m asking how folks envision this working.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Myca,
You didn’t ask me, but I’m gonna hop in with my two cents anyway. One, flat out not ok in my book to ‘call someone names’ when what they’re discussing is a culture that keeps women’s fear of rape alive and very, very justified (when a chick feels bad for making her boyfriend a little guiltyish over anally raping her while she was tied up, bdsm is I think undeniably a part of the excuses that go into making it so ok to rape women in America. Bruises or no, she probably could’ve asked for it, right (see: rape apologists on Pandagon making cracks like “uh, safeword?” re that woman’s rape).
There are plenty of people who are frankly mature enough to handle the power-playing-with that bdsm entails. There are also a whole lot of ‘em who use the scene (and now especially with the internet and all its porniferous glory, its fiction-creation) as an instruction manual for how to rape and get away with it. Not cool.
I think feminists are well within their bounds to criticise the fact that our culture has so eroticised power that hurting each other for pleasure has become a “game.” I think that bdsm-ers are well within their rights to defend their pastime and the mindset that allows them to get something out of it [for example, Myca, after having read so many of your comments I'd be hard pressed to jump to the he's-a-wannabe-rapist conclusion in your case; that's not necessarily so with everybody i for one have met irl or online]. At the same time, it seems only respectful to bear in mind that the idea of so many much-bigger-than-us men out there getting off on fantasies of abduction and force is an incredibly frightening knowledge to walk around with (even to a generally unfrightened goes-out-wandering-at-night chick like me).
And to be totally honest, if I ever found myself getting called names for having that fear, then I wouldn’t be able to help but switch my mental idea of the speaker’s ‘category’ as far as safe/sane and pro-non-consent. Making fun of the fear of rape? Not cool.
Two, I started out with “One,” and never really moved onto another point per se. Here’s Two. :)
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Amp, I think your moderation is fine as-is, and I like that there is not the pile-on mentality (that would result in Robert/RonF etc not posting) that exists on many of the other feminist blogs.
An ignore feature might help things though. Maybe someone could cobble together a greasemonkey ignore script if the blog software wouldn’t easily support it.
This comment was written by plunky.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Well, sometimes the topics that interest people are not listed as feminist-only because to designate a thread that, is a decision made by the writer/moderator not the reader. I read them and sometimes participate, but tend to participate more on the topics that I find more interesting which a) might not be considered “feminist” topics by whomever starts them and thus defines them as such(and we’re all different in how we look at it) or 2) may not be given the “feminist only” designation.
Just a thought as to one way of looking at an observation made.
I do appreciate this thread.
Yes, I agree. For men, even feminist ones it’s about theory and its statistics and it’s all the type of evidence that is empirical and coincedently or not, this is the type of evidence and discussion which is upheld by men as being the most important thing and they place a higher value on what they bring including methods to the table. They can’t have these experiences and either want to participate in a meaningful way, or they are hostile to feminists and just want to derail. Or they see discussions about feminism as a contest, a comparison of caliber size so to speak.
For women, these things matter, but most often it’s about experiences and ancedotes(which are the genesis of most studies that are done and most statistics that are gathered) and about how these issus impact our lives and those lives of other women. But men tend to poo-pooh these things and uphold their methods of accessing feminism, whether they are pro or con, as being superior to what those who do live with experiences as women in a society that favors men most especially White men have to contribute.
This dynamic is frustrating as is the constant demand to prove tenets to men who aren’t interested in anything we have to say just in saying, “see, I’m right. Nanner nanner,” when feminists have already had those discussions and want to move on to something else, which most often is the actual topic of a thread addressing women’s issues.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Oh, I’m certainly not talking about making fun of the fear of rape, I’m talking about people who say oh so civilly that there must be something wrong with me and the people I love because of what we like to do in bed.
That’s false civility, and that’s intellectualizing from outside a situation.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
For what it’s worth, here’s one person’s thoughts on passion and dispassion.
This is a bona fide problem. I wrestle with this problem in various forms myself – usually from the other side, and usually unsuccessfully.
I neither profess nor deny the existence of a supreme being. This fact can provoke both theists and atheists into near fits. The director of our church choir who clings to her faiths for solace demand to know “How can you reject Christ’s sacrifice?” An ex-Catholic friend who finds satisfaction in condemning his religious upbringing incredulously ask “How can you believe that crap?” Neither really wants my thoughts; rather, they want my solidarity. Their views are passionate, an integral part of their identities; mine are academic. Lacking a way to express love for the person while speaking candidly to the subject, I’ve become adept at changing the topic.
I’m concerned about many practices of the US government. The idea that we would incarcerate people, hold them incommunicado indefinitely, subject them to “coercive interrogation methods” emulating pain just short of organ failure, and not even acknowledge that we’re holding them, strikes me as barbaric if not illegal. But, as others have suggested, people do not seem to be receptive to dispassionate discussions on the topic. “They might be al Queida! They might be trying to KILL US!” That’s generally as far as the discussion gets. I try to reassure people of my concern for everyone’s safety, but once I expand the discussion to address the safety of people in US custody the discussion falls apart.
The same impulses that led me to feel concerned for those imprisoned at Abu Grabe and Gitmo also led me to feel concern for – at the risk of raising hackles – the Duke lacrosse players. I did not see the need to rush to making a personal judgment, content that people closer to the scene could do that adequately without my assistance. But when I expressed this thought to friends, I heard a familiar refrain. “They could be RAPISTS!” I must acknowledge that people on this web site were able to thoughtfully distinguish between supporting the accuser and condemning the accused. The discussion I found here was by far the exception; concern for due process – or humble acknowledgment that we did not know all the facts – was often equated with indifference to rape victims.
“A very popular error — having the courage of your convictions. Rather, it is a matter of having the courage for an attack upon one’s convictions.” Nietzsche said that; of course, he was a white male. As am I. I’ve led a privileged life – at least in the sense that I’m not aware of having been traumatized. Perhaps that makes my perspective a minority experience. Nevertheless, it’s the only perspective I’ve got.
I do what I can to avoid attacking people’s identities while expressing differences of opinions about their convictions. Where identities and convictions are closely entwined, it’s a delicate project and I’d be astonished if I’d never struck a nerve. For what it’s worth, I try to consider what I know of each poster’s personal story before I respond – but, admittedly, I evaluate them from my own, privileged perspective. For what it’s worth, I’m sorry for the nerves I’ve struck. And, for what it’s worth, I’m likely to continue striking nerves in the future … at least until I can expand my perspective, or I get banned.
If you have the courage for an attack upon your convictions, I look forward to the discussion. Otherwise, moderators should feel free to ban me. I defer to their perspectives; my identity is not at stake here.
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
“My question (and please, I’m asking not telling) is how far this applies across the board?
I ask because there have been a lot of intellectual, theoretical discussions of BDSM and polyamory in my time here, and these are things that are part of my actual life, that I have an actual investment in, and that decisions about affect my life in important ways. I’ve been called an abuser, my wife has been called crazy, and I’ve tried to be ‘civil’ through it.”
Basically, since we live in a world that caters to men, is mostly run by men and everything is geared towards men and male fantasy ect, someone disagreeing with your personal sexual choices isnt posing a real threat to your life or ability to lead that life as you see fit. It’s not like fundies trying to outlaw homosexuality, which impacts the lives of homosexuals in ways that get them killed.
Disagreeing with women who are trying to change social beliefs and treatment is essentially aiding a society that *kills* women.
Personally, I *like* BDSM and me and the spouse thingy engage in it quite often. Its not a 24/7 thing by any stretch of the imagination, but someone disagreeing or even being hostile about it doesnt have the potencial to get me killed.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
“But, as others have suggested, people do not seem to be receptive to dispassionate discussions on the topic. “They might be al Queida! They might be trying to KILL US!” That’s generally as far as the discussion gets. I try to reassure people of my concern for everyone’s safety, but once I expand the discussion to address the safety of people in US custody the discussion falls apart.”
The difference (and its rather important) is this
We arent discussing things that *might* kill women. We’re discussing things that do kill women on a daily basis. There is no might about it. One is a fanatical exception, the other is the rule. People who use the al queda scare are trying to spin the exception into the rule to justify illegal activity. Feminists are not.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
No, obviously, that’s absolutely true, and it’s part of why (though I’m straight) issues around homophobia are a real hot-button issue for me.
On the other hand, people* (some people I know, actually) really do lose their children and jobs because of this, so it’s not like it’s just a harmless opinion either.
—Myca
* And, since we live in a patriarchal society that’s terrified of female sexuality, of course women bear the brunt of this. So when someone says ‘only the mentally ill enjoy BDSM’, what they’re really doing is attacking women and enabling attacks on women.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
crys t:
RonF: I’m sorry, but I can only repeat my feeling that having people camp out for months or years on a blog that exists explicitly to propound views radically contrary to their own is an indication that something is wrong. It’s wrong because normally such places are not comfortable because having to deal with voices saying what you don’t like tends to be upsetting.
You don’t seem to consider an alternative to comfort. I’m not looking for comfort here - I’m looking to see if I can learn (and maybe even teach a bit, if anyone’s listening). Learning is useful. It’s often not comfortable. In fact, it’s worth considering that it shouldn’t be comfortable. If it is, perhaps you’re being told what you want to hear, vs. the truth.
bean
I’m wondering…since it’s so easy to toss off the advice to “just ignore it,” why don’t the same advice givers give that advice to those who are so offended by the “offensive and hostile” posts that the feminists so often make?
Actually, I have. Repeatedly. “Offensive” and “hostile” are to a certain extent subjective; what one person finds so, others don’t. I have said things that I have not meant to be offensive or hostile that other people have taken as such. Other people have said things to me that I have found offensive and hostile. I figure eating the latter pays for the former. And where I figure that it’s deliberate, I try not to raise to the bait.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2007 at 12:03 am
Crys T wrote (quoting me):
Wow, are you quick to accuse me of dishonest behavior. And you’re wrong. I moderated him because I thought the comment deserved moderation - period.
You claim that “there is a longtime pattern of letting the men get off scot-free and slapping feminists’ wrists.” I think you’re mistaken, both to implicitly assume that “men” and “feminists” are mutually exclusive categories, and in your accusation.
Starting from just before this discussion of moderation began, and going backwards in time to March first, here are all the moderating comments I’ve made that I could find with a search of the comments database:
1) One on a Schiavo thread, telling someone to please not attack the Schindlers.
2) One on Duke Lacrosse, banning Steven.
3) One on Nappy Headed Hos, banning Michael.
4) One on Duke Lacrosse, telling Jo not to attack Amanda.
5) One on Baby Blogging, attempting to put the “misquote” issue to rest by editing Myca’s comment to change the word “misquote” to “paraphrase.”
5) One on Baby Blogging, asking Q Grrl and Bean to stop more-feminist-than-thou-ing Myca.
6) One on Baby Blogging, telling both Q Grrl and Myca to avoid attacking other posters.
7) One on nappy headed hoes, banning David, Stop The Foolishness, GETOVERIT, and Pickedaname.
8) One on baby blogging, asking that people watch their tones and avoid piling on Q Grrl.
9) One on nappy headed hoes, deleting a super-long plagerized comment.
10) One on “nice guys,” telling Bean not to make a personal attack on Brandon. (I quoted this one earlier in our discussion).
11) One on “oppression is a system of domination and control,” telling Mandrea not to make personal insults, and editing a post in which she had called someone a stupid asshole or something along those lines (it’s been edited, and I don’t remember what her exact words were).
12) One on “oppression is a system of domination and control,” giving Daran a once-more-and-you’re-banned-from-this-thread warning.
12) One on “oppression is a system of domination and control,” telling everyone to drop the Paris Hilton versus nameless homeless man discussion. (This particular attempt at moderation sunk like a stone.)
14) One on “oppression is a system of domination and control,” asking Q Grrl not to say “Damn but ya’ll are dense,” which I thought was a personal attack.
15) One on “oppression is a system of domination and control,” asking people not to digress the thread.
16) One on “are men oppressed as men,” banning Lee.
17) One on “empty spaces waiting for white people” telling Julie that she should stop behaving like a jerk.
18) One on “workplace deaths,” telling Nemo to tone down his snarky tone and anti-feminism.
19) One on “Court Issues Unbelievably Stupid…,” telling off Chris for “sneering at feminists.”
20) One on Link Farm #46, banning CJ for a week and telling him that he can only return if he apologizes for his behavior.
21) One on “Court Issues Unbelievably Stupid…,” telling Chris to stop being obnoxious.
Of 21 moderating comments I made, ten were directed at anti-feminsts and racist-apologists of one sort or another.
Seven of my moderating comments were directed at feminists (the plurality at Q Grrl).
Seven people were banned, and all seven were anti-feminist and/or racist-apologist. (Probably this total would be twenty or more if you counted the people who were banned before their first post appeared in public.)
Three anti-feminists were given extra-strong warnings that fell short of bannings; no feminists were given such warnings.
And several of the warnings at anti-feminists were directed at people who were being polite on the surface, but in my view were still acting in an unacceptable manner. (For instance, I gave Daran a “stop or you’re banned from this thread” warning based not on him making any personal attacks, but on him using a hypothetical question to imply that feminists are man-haters.)
So I think you’re mistaken, Crys. I moderate the “antis” more often than I do the feminists, and I moderate them more harshly.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2007 at 1:51 am
Bean:
Where are you getting the idea that we don’t?
Crys T:
Maybe if you compile a collection of the most egregious examples of that nasty shit we regularly get away with pulling, the management will see what jerks we really are and ban us. Heck, if you show me something I’ve said here that could legitimately be classified as “nasty shit,” I’ll apologize for it.
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2007 at 1:53 am
Bean:
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Sorry. Stupid question. Somehow I read that as asking why we don’t ignore “offensive and hostile” comments from feminist commenters.
Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2007 at 2:13 am
As one of the people who advised ignoring the trolls, I was careful not to say “just ignore them”. I know it isn’t a matter of just, I know that ignoring people who are attacking beliefs you hold very strongly is extremely hard to do.
Since I mostly lurk anyway, the fact that I don’t reply to offensive comments isn’t a big deal. But when I conclude that someone is a troll I skim over their comments and the threads they dominate. That means I didn’t see the really appalling racist and sexist comments from people like Michael and Chris, because I had long since concluded that they weren’t worth reading. So it took me a while to realize why people were so upset.
Absolutely, Bean, it does go both ways. On the rare occasions where feminist commenters are being gratuitously offensive, I skim over their posts too, without reading. I cut feminists a lot more slack because I have much more sympathy for someone who is incoherently angry about rape than someone who is incoherently angry about affirmative action! And generally, I find the feminists at Alas to be a highly reasonable bunch, even if sometimes people resort to strong language. The sites where the brand of feminism is nastier than I can stomach I just don’t read, agreeing with crys’ view about not continuing hang out somewhere expressing views massively in conflict with mine.
When I do get into arguments with feminists, it’s because I start from the assumption that feminists are basically the good guys. Most feminists I have met want to know if their views are potentially damaging to other minority groups. Whereas someone who is sexist is quite likely not to care if you complain that they are also racist! A long time ago I got involved in some of the civility debates, but I have given up on that. I certainly don’t go around criticizing individual feminists on their manners; if they are too rude for me then it’s up to me to ignore them, I don’t have the right to try to pressure people to conform to my ideas of civility, when I know many feminists are against that in principle.
This comment was written by Individ-ewe-al.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2007 at 2:35 am
Amp, I was NOT accusing you of being dishonest, only of being aware to a level you normally are not of exactly what was going on and what reactions your responses would elicit.
And re your list: I’m sorry, but you’re not actually responding to what I (and btw, most of the other feminist women here) are saying. This is what my problem is: a number of men who comment here, for example, Robert or Daran or Brandon, are experts in using the male-invented, male-defined rules of “civil,” “logical” argument. Those rules allow them to be incredibly hostile and hateful towards women, particularly feminists, without crossing any lines. Yet we know they are rubbing our faces in it and so do they. They sit here and bait and bait and bait, and if one of us snaps and finally cuts through the bullshit of “polite” discourse and tells them to fuck off, you can and have told us off while ignoring the events that led up to the “offense”. Just like you did to Q.
Most of us learned not to even bother long, long before March 1. If you had come up with a list of examples where feminists said things such as “quit wasting time with your misogynist drivel, fuckhead” and got away with it, you’d have had a point–NOT, I must stress, that I want or expect you to waste your time making lists to prove things to me. I leave that sort of manipulative, controlling behaviour to others. For example:
Just look at Brandon’s comment in 198–it’s a classic. Brandon is here because he hates feminist women and he gets great pleasure in slapping us bitches down when we get uppity. We all know that, he knows that we know it, it’s no secret to anyone. He is not interested in interacting with us or listening to us or even debating us, because even when faced with evidence, he merely brushes it aside as irrelevant. To engage in debate with him as if he were acting in good faith is not only a collossal waste of time, it’s plain stupid.
I have called him out on this. So what’s his response? “Prove it.” And why? Because my sitting around, scrabbling through posts, wasting my time & energy compiling old quotes just so he can glance at them and say, “That proves nothing,” is exactly where he wants me: jumping to do his bidding. He’s rubbing my face in the fact that he can get away with treating me like a subhuman piece of shit and there’s nothing I can do about it, because if I say, “Fuck off, you misogynist prick,” who’s going to be reprimanded or even banned here? Sure as fuck not Brandon.
You are not looking at the crux of the issue: Sexist men at Alas? Numbers increasing (if slowly) and they’re staying put. Feminists women and pro-feminist men at Alas? Numbers dwindling, and even those of us who do come back are commenting less and less. If I’m so wrong in my impression of why that’s happening, what explanation do you have?
This comment was written by crys t.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2007 at 6:22 am
Brandon is here because he hates feminist women and he gets great pleasure in slapping us bitches down when we get uppity. We all know that, he knows that we know it, it’s no secret to anyone.
Similarly, it’s no secret that you’re only here because you hate Jews and derive joy from slapping a kike online.
Hey, this “impute the evil motive of my choice to my adversary” game is FUN! I especially like the part where I get to invent insults, and put them in the mouth of the targeted adversary!
Next time there’s a thread relating to kids, I’ll be sure to impute a motive of wanting sexual access to children to whatever you write on the topic. Sure, that will make having a real discussion absolutely impossible, and will permanently poison the well for 5 or 10 percent of “Alas” readers who wander in that day and, lacking all context, see only my unsupported allegations and not knowing either of us, assume there must be something to such a heinous charge.
But hey, I can’t be bothered with those concerns. Those are the kinds of things that men would use to justify a policy of civil discourse. And that’s just an excuse for THE MAN and his PENIS LOGIC.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2007 at 7:08 am
“Those are the kinds of things that men would use to justify a policy of civil discourse. And that’s just an excuse for THE MAN and his PENIS LOGIC.”
Translation
You just hate me because I have a penis.
(as if its that important.)
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2007 at 7:16 am
I was responding to part of what you’re saying; specifically, your false claim that “there is a longtime pattern of letting the men get off scot-free and slapping feminists’ wrists.” There is no such pattern. That you’re now pretending you didn’t say it, doesn’t mean you never said it. (I guess saying “I’m sorry, I was mistaken to claim that about you, but I still stand by my larger point” would be too hard a thing for you to say?)
It’s true that I haven’t responded to everything you’ve said, because what’s the point? The bottom line is, you want me to make changes in the moderation of “Alas” which will make me feel unwelcome and unable to post. I’m not going to do that. Some changes are being made, but they won’t go as far as you want, because if I went that far I’d have to quit.
So what are you going to do about it? I hope you’ll stay and contribute comments to the threads, because I enjoy reading your comments. But if you don’t like it, then you should go. There are plenty of other feminist blogs in which people like Robert and Brandon (let alone Daran) aren’t tolerated. There’s no lack of the kind of space you want.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2007 at 7:19 am
Just for the record, the last 15 comments or so in this thread are the point where I roll my eyes throw my hands up and say - “So not worth my time” and then stop posting.
This is getting ridiculous.
This comment was written by Kate L..Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2007 at 7:21 am
I agree with Kate.
Comments are now closed.
(And by the way, it’s a bit moot now that comments are closed, but Crys T, your attack on Brandon was completely against the rules of this blog. And Robert, your response to Crys T’s attack on Brandon was also completely against the rules of this blog.)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators