There’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. :-(
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.
#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.
What’s the difference between “anti-racist” and “progressive anti-racist”, and why would you need to make the distinction?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
“The two long-running still-vital blogs I can think of are both by writers, one a book writer”
Scalzi?
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).
Oh, so that means they get banned quickly. They just can’t skirt so easily on the edges of acceptibility.
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.
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.
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.)
Robert
Or Charles, musn’t forget Charles.
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.
I rather like #6, and suspect that it would result in a higher quality of comment in both spaces.
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.
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.
Pingback: theriomorph
“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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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. :-) ]
[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]
*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.”)
Making Light has been talking about moderation lately, quite fruitfully:
http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/008856.html#008856
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?
[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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
True, but are we addressing them or are we endlessly chasing our tails?
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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?
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.)
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
” 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. :-)
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.)
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).
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well…damn. Both of you? Does this mean that I’m going to grow up to be a lefty?
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?
fwiw
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.
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.
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.
Pingback: Ponderings and Wanderings » Blog Archive » Blog Comment Moderation
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.
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.
Damn it, did my jokes use up all the electrons again? I hate it when that happens.
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.
Hmm.
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”?
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.
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.
Good point, Bean.
Lu in 77, I agree – well said.
I just truly don’t get the frequency, intensity, and acceptability of personal attacks.
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.
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.
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).
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.
“arguing ideas, NOT personalities”. Argh.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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 could be read as insinuating that we silly women can’t tell the difference between an emotional response and a rational argument.
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 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.
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.
“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.
“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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.