As promised, here is the new and I think improved comments policy.
It’s a bit long, but that’s in part because I’ve included sections that are designed to hopefully eliminate some of the contentious and often repetitive debates that have erupted in the past over the issue of ableism — in particular the use of words like “crazy” and “psycho” and the like. In the future, I am hoping that we can simply link new commenters to the policy (in particular, the “notes on ‘crazy'”) section and avoid a lot of the drama.
This policy is stricter towards those who “dig in” and insist on using problematic terms even though they’ve been informed of the rules about them; if they’ve been linked to the comments policy and persist in arguing or behaving badly, they will be banned. I’m also asking regulars to rein in their language in criticizing first-time offenders, and to not argue back with them if they persist. (There’s not much point to it, because offenders who persist will be banned.)
Not all of the changes and additions to the comments policy are in response to the ableism debates; I’ve also taken into consideration other controversies here, as well as comments policies on other blogs and broader discussions online about the best ways to moderate sites.
One other change: I will also put regular reminders in posts that all new commenters should read the comments policy before posting.
I am very much cognizant that many people who regularly read this blog — some of them who comment here regularly, some of whom are lurkers or only occasional commenters — are frustrated by the flame wars that have erupted here from time to time. I am frustrated as well, and troubled by the personal attacks I’ve seen in these discussions, directed not at trolls but at other commenters here in good faith.
I hope this new comment policy can end some of these flame wars before they start. If it doesn’t, I will (reluctantly) have to resort to shutting threads down and even suspending some commenters.
So here is the new comments policy. Discuss. Suggest improvements. Be civil.
Welcome prospective commenters!
Unmoderated internet forums quickly become shitheaps, so we have a few rules here. One thing to remember right off the bat: this is a feminist blog, designed (mostly) for a feminist audience. You don’t have to be a particular kind of feminist to post here, or even a feminist at all, but you do need to keep this in mind.
First comments from new commenters – or old commenters changing their name – automatically go to moderation. Regardless of your politics, if you start off here with a jerky or tediously argumentative comment, or if you trigger some other red flag for me, your first comment will never see the light of day.
MRAs, MGTOWs, PUAs, Red Pillers, “Equalists,” #GamerGaters and the like: you will be allowed to post here, if your first comment is amusing and/or not especially egregious, and if you more-or-less behave.
But I reserve the right to revoke your posting privileges at any time for any reason. You have a right to your opinions, but you don’t have a right to our attention. I am especially not interested in hearing your thoughts on Anita Sarkeesian (or some other target of angry dude harassment online).
Oh, and I sometimes set aside threads here as “no troll, no MRA” threads. If you post in one of them, even politely, you will be banned.
If you’re NOT an MRA or a troll, welcome!
You’re who this blog is really meant for. The comments too, provided you can participate in a generally constructive manner and can treat those you disagree with here with a certain degree of respect. Snark is fine; attacks and accusations and namecalling, not so much.
If someone – whether a troll or a regular commenter — is acting badly enough to possibly warrant a suspension or ban, EMAIL ME OR THE MODS. That’s the fastest and most effective way to get it taken care of.
Some slightly more specific guidelines.
No bigotry (misogyny, racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, body shaming, and so forth). No slurs. I’ve put the worst ones in the mod filter, so comments containing them won’t appear. If you want to discuss someone else’s use of a slur, disguise the word so your comment won’t get caught by the filter – though if you do this as a “clever” way to use a slur yourself, you may well find yourself banned.
No threats or violent comments. That includes telling someone to “die in a fire” or remarking that so-and-so would probably be better off dead. This rule is in effect even when you are talking about vile misogynistic shitbags.
No gratuitously nasty personal attacks. Yes, discussions can sometimes get a bit contentious. You’re not required to be perfectly nice all the time. Just don’t be a total asshole. And don’t drag your disagreements with someone into every thread.
No doxxing or posting of personal identifying information. Don’t spread rumors or speculate without evidence on the possible criminal activity of anyone else, whether this is another commenter or a misogynistic shitbag.
No rape apologism, pedo apologism, victim blaming, and so forth.
Don’t misgender anyone. If you do it accidentally, apologize and get it right the next time. If you do it deliberately, you’re out.
Don’t attack anyone for their sexual preferences or kinks, so long as they involve consenting adults. Refrain from weird or creepy sexual oversharing. Whatever your opinion of sex work, don’t disparage sex workers, or use words like “whore” as a pejorative. (Feel free to talk about MRAs who are using the word pejoratively.)
Don’t attack people for their religion or their lack of religion.
Don’t be a mansplainer or indeed any kind of ‘splainer. That is, don’t lecture anyone on something they know better than you, particularly if that thing is their lived experience.
Don’t post too much or try to make threads all about you. Try to avoid drama.
If you have personal issues you want to bring up, that’s fine! Use the troll-free open threads set aside for personal stuff. I’ll post a new one every couple of weeks. (I also start threads regularly to discuss big events in the news that people here are concerned about; feel free to email if you think something has happened that warrants one.)
No sockpuppeting. No lying. No misrepresentation of yourself or other people. No posting in bad faith – e.g. posting friendly comments here while trashing the site and/or the people on it elsewhere.
No pile-ons. If a number of people have already offered the same criticism of another commenter, don’t add more comments to the pile.
All this said, you don’t have to be perfect to comment here. As sociologist Katherine Cross (@Quinnae_Moon) has noted, very few people arrive “fully formed to the world of activism, the perfect agents of change, somehow entirely cognizant of the ever shifting morass of rules and prescribed or proscribed words, phrases, argot, and thought.”
I want this blog to be open to all those who genuinely oppose misogyny and bigotry more generally, even those who may slip up from time to time.
Still, if you’re new here, or new to feminism, and the regulars here are telling you to avoid certain words, or pointing out something that you’re doing that’s problematic, don’t take it as a personal attack (unless it is couched as a personal attack, in which case email me). If they tell you to avoid particular language, uh, avoid using that language, and don’t explain that in your country calling a person a something-or-other is perfectly fine.
You don’t have to agree with all the rules and/or cultural norms here; but while you’re commenting here you are expected to respect them. If you think a rule is really, really wrong or ridiculous, don’t argue about it in the comments; send me an email about it.
And this brings us to the issue of ableism, which has been a contentious one here.
NOTES ON “CRAZY”
Avoid “crazy” talk. That is, using words like “crazy,” “psycho” and the like to describe the terrible ideas and actions of people you don’t like. It’s stigmatizing to those dealing with mental illness, who really don’t need the extra indignity of being compared to MRAs. Try using words like “ridiculous” or “absurd” or “terrible” instead. Call someone an “asshole” instead of a “psycho.” Try to avoid internet diagnoses of mental illness, and don’t use autism or Aspergers as an excuse for someone’s shitty behavior.
Saying someone is “paranoid,” “delusional,” or “narcissistic” is fine, if you don’t mean it as a diagnosis; these are useful descriptive terms.
If there is evidence that someone you are discussing does indeed have a mental illness, and this is relevant to the discussion, it can be appropriate to bring this up, though you should keep in mind that a hunch is not evidence.
All this said, words like “crazy,” “psycho,” and the like are extremely common, and plenty of people (including feminists, progressives, and people dealing with mental illness themselves) use them casually without intending to stigmatize those with mental illnesses. There’s a difference between saying “crazy people should all be locked up” and “boy, Eraserhead sure was a crazy movie!”
If you’re someone who uses these terms casually, and doesn’t actually want all “crazy” people locked up, it doesn’t make you an evil person, but you need to refrain from doing it here. (Again, if you disagree with this policy, and feel a need to make this disagreement known, DO NOT ARGUE ABOUT IT IN THE COMMENTS, send me an email instead.)
If you are a regular commenter here, and someone uses a problematic term like “crazy” or “psycho,” remind them gently that this is not how we do things here, and send them a link to this comment policy (and possibly the Welcome Package as well). Unless what they have said is particularly egregious, do not insult them or question their motives.
If they argue, remind them that arguing about this rule is also not allowed. If they continue, do not argue back; send me or the mods a note and they will be banned. (This may take a little while, so be patient and please do not give in to the impulse to argue with them.)
If others have already reminded them of the rules, move on.
Again, if someone is acting really shitty in the comments, whether a troll or a regular, SEND THE MODS (or me) AN EMAIL.
One other thing to keep in mind:
MRAs read this blog. So I would strongly urge you to comment here using an anonymous handle that cannot be traced to your real identity. And to be very careful about revealing any sort of personal information on this blog. If you inadvertently post something using the wrong account, or that otherwise reveals personal information, let the mods know so we can remove those comments.
Oh, wait, one other other thought:
Enjoy yourself!
@Falconer
Did you not get the memo that it is impossible to care about more than one thing at a time? If you care about sexism in the workplace, that means you don’t give a damn about women being stoned to death for adultery etc etc /sarcasm
But, yes. Personally I don’t mind if a thread goes off topic. Nobody owes me their time and this blog is not here solely for my entertainment. If I’m not interested in what’s being discussed then I will skim past it or leave the thread. If I wish for people to get back on topic then I can post a comment engaging with those commenters still discussing the original post, post a comment back on topic, or I can leave the thread.
Or, if someone was so inclined, they could gently ask commenters to get back on topic; I wouldn’t do this myself because I don’t think it’s my place to direct the conversation, but I’m relatively new to the internet and pretty much never comment anywhere, so I’m not sure what the etiquette is in this situation.
Also, some posts don’t lend themselves to long, in-depth discussions. And sometimes it all gets too much, and the only thing left is to talk about ordinary things and post cat gifs. Because everything is better with cats.
@Had To Be Said earlier this thread:
New Comments Policy! 100% Organic! Gluten Free! Now with 25% Less Abuse!
winter_sky. Here’s a barrel of freeze-dried hugs to keep in the corner and activate any time you need one … or lots.
Having read over the 96 preceding comments, my thoughts are very neatly summarized by Winter_Sky’s latest post.
Placing undue restrictions on anti-ableist (and other anti-oppressive) commenting, while relying exclusively on moderation to deal with trouble cases, seems like a recipe for eventual disaster.
I… uh… don’t know how to quote Winter_Sky’s post for greater clarity here. Or how to upload a picture of a dragon, which I would also be keen on doing.Though a long time lurker, I don’t know much (anything) about reply formatting >.<
O NOEZ! All that time I’ve spent thinking about Steven Universe — wasted! I could have been thinking about all kinds of things I can’t do anything about instead! /also sarcasm
I used to post here, briefly, a few years ago and then occasionally thereafter. At first I seemed to be very welcomed to the community–I’m a fairly responsible, snarky, feminist. But last time I posted on a discussion with (or about, can’t remember whether he was posting here or the subject of the discussion) a very unhappy MRA/PUA young guy. He was saying various objectionable things–horrible things–but he also said some things which were,well, how can I say this without getting into trouble again? Indicative that he was not going to be able to handle any kind of normal or rational discussion. I pointed out that someone who thinks that his personal problems with women will be solved with “the heat death of the universe” is suffering from disordered thinking of some kind. I didn’t excuse what he was saying, I didn’t argue that all people with some kind of MH diagnosis are terrible people. I just pointed out that this was a person who was incapable,for whatever reason, of logical and coherent thought. Arguing with him,making fun of him, attacking him was not going to educate him or change him. Its ok to do pointless things, of course, but it was starting to feel like kicking a dog because it isn’t some other animal.
I was roundly attacked for this, accused of trolling, accused of being ableist because I disagreed about the implication of my comments and whether they fell under the heading of abelism in spirit, and then the dogpiling and insulting began and I left the comment section.
I love the new commenting rules because they are both clear and attempt to be generous–generous with posters who make a mistake as to nomenclature or vernacular and generous to posters who have a different opinion about some of the local shibboleths.
But commenting rules are only as good as the community lets them be. Look at the extreme pushback from commenters against the accusation that they gang up on disfavored commenters? Its obvious that this happens. Its not always because of being ninja’d in comments. Its the style here. At its not reserved for real trolls by any means. Its directed at people who are not part of the in group.
I’d politely (though perhaps uselessly) like to point out that a number of people who identify as having Mental Health issues have complained about the treatment of themselves or other people by a coterie of commenters who can be funny, can be insightful, but who can also be extremely territorial. I know a number of people who (in my opinion) would love to comment here who don’t because it can be a hostile place, it can be a very insider-y place,it can be a place where one false move gets you labled an MRA or a troll. David’s attempt to get people to report what they see as bad behavior directly to a mod rather than to self police the comments is a great idea. But it will only work if the regular commenters allow it to work and allow more people to comment here without being attacked.
@andiexist that’s a horrible story. 🙁 But thank you for sharing it. I really wasn’t asking for sympathy (I feel I have to say that after marinerachel’s long diatribe about commenters with mental illness wallowing and making threads all about themselves) but I appreciate your response.
One of the things I really appreciate about this blog is the sharing of personal experiences. I live a really isolated life, and to read about other people who feel the same way I do, or have similar experiences to me, or completely different lives that are not ‘the norm’, is, well ‘comforting’ and ‘reassuring’ are not quite the right words, but it makes me feel less alone and less of a freak (I would never think of any other person, with or without a mental illness, as a freak, but it is how I think of myself, so I hope it’s okay to use that word here).
(Of course, I wish no one in this world had mental illness, or physical illness or disability, or any other issue that made their life difficult.)
It’s not easy, even in an anonymous setting, to out yourself as someone with a mental illness, and that’s another reason I appreciate all the commenters here who have shared their experiences, I know what it costs, and I value their openness, whether their experiences are offered in the spirit of educating someone about their ablesim, or simply shared during conversation.
And all the commenters who push back against ableism, I really appreciate the time, effort, and energy you put in. I don’t have the mental or psychological wherewithal to engage in that way, so I really appreciate those who do. It is incredibly heartening to know that not everyone subscribes to the prevailing views about mental illness, and to see people stand up for the marginalised of our society goes some way to counter all the shitty experiences I have had.
And I do enjoy seeing a troll taken down with citations and rational debate!
I think abuse has become such a common thing here that many residents don’t even notice it — in the way that a fish doesn’t notice water. For a great many people here, “abuse” is just “how I deal with people who disagree.”
It has become so rampant that the new policy calls it out in several different places. Here is one:
“Attacks and accusations and namecalling.” All of those are in the category called “abuse.”
It’s not hyperbole. It’s obvious that “abuse” doesn’t mean “physical abuse” in a virtual space. It means the verbal equivalents. In any conversation (not just a formal debate), the “abusive ad hominem” is otherwise known as “abuse.”
You may not like the sound of it, but if you engage in attacks, accusations and namecalling, you are engaging in abuse. Even when your target deserves it.
ATTACKS
An attack is whenever you make it personal. If someone expresses an opinion about a subject, then in response someone who disagrees makes any kind of “you” statement about that person, that is an attack.
When you focus on the person instead of the idea, it’s almost always an attack.
Lots of forums have a blanket ban on this. Especially if you are disagreeing with someone, you never make a “you” statement about them. And they are prohibited from making a “you” statement about you. Both parties must keep the discussion in the realm of ideas, and resist the urge to engage in abuse of the other person.
ACCUSATIONS
Imagine you were in an informal discussion in a college classroom with your fellow college students. The topic is government spending. One student talks about helping the poor, and then another student says, “Well, you probably just want free welfare for yourself.”
That would be abuse. It wouldn’t matter that the student didn’t bleed. It wouldn’t matter if the student actually got their feelings hurt. A personal accusation like that is abuse.
That’s the actual term for it. If you are talking about ideas and suddenly you make a personal accusation, that’s an abusive ad hominem. It’s abuse. And it is out of bounds in many many places for good reason.
NAMECALLING
Imagine if you lived with someone and you refused to call them by their name, but instead constantly referred to them by a changing series of sneering nicknames.
That would be abuse. It wouldn’t matter that you think they deserved it. It wouldn’t matter that you didn’t care about their feelings. It wouldn’t matter if everyone else in the house did the same thing. It wouldn’t matter that you didn’t physically strike them.
It would still be abuse. That’s the actual term for it.
SO STOP
If you have been engaging in the above behaviors, you have been engaging in abuse.
And that goes for me, too. A while back, I attacked David in a way that I should not have. And, honestly, I did it that way because I thought that was the only way to get my point through in an environment where abuse is the most commonly used form of communication with opponents. I was wrong to do it, and I regret it, but I sincerely thought that my criticism would never be noticed in this place unless I was abusive.
But guess what? We’re not supposed to do that anymore.
So stop.
@winter_sky
I… know you mean well, but I’m a little uncomfortable with you talking about wishing I wasn’t autistic. That’s my brain, and it’s a jerk sometimes, but I wouldn’t be who I am if I wasn’t autistic.
That said, depression can go hang.
I think this was before my time and Google’s turning up nowt, so I can’t comment on the original argument and can only speculate, but I do want to point out that if you used the exact phrase “Disordered thinking,” then they were at least right on calling that out as being ableist. “Disordered thinking” is a very specific medical term that refers mostly to schizophrenia.
(Not looking to get into the argument again! Just, if anybody on this site knows about schizophrenia, it’s me. =P)
No one has yet addressed the (I assume) man who mentioned sex worker client shaming. I am sorry, I cannot face the block quote mammoth, and now that I am here I cannot be arsed to go back and copy and paste….
But…. whoever you are, and any others peeps to whom this may be an issue: this is a feminist space, I am sure you know that feminists have many and varied views on sex work, those who do sex work, and those who pay for sex. I have read A LOT here, but I have not seen ANYTHING that could be described as shaming to someone who pays for sex. There may be some here who do not think that you should do that, that the nature of the relationship does by definition contain exploitative elements (esp young woman sex worker and much older male client), but this is NOT the same as shaming!
I was a sex worker half a lifetime ago. I am only saying this to demonstrate the ‘insider’ knowledge that I have. But my view is again only one of many of previous sex workers who are also feminists. Some of us have analysed that period of our lives and found it to be at the very least regrettable (remembering that addiction is a very common reason that someone enters sex work), reflect on it as part of an ‘acting out’ in relation to sexual abuse in childhood or later. Some simply see it as part of what they did to make money. I am not going to state my situation as it is not relevant here.
I hope this is helpful to the original poster, I’d be interested to see this develop a bit of a debate if that is not seen as a derail.
I’m wondering if some of the confusion over edge-cases of ableism is realted to dialect and/or geographic distribution. I’m specifically referring to people being called “crazy” or “insane” and not to internet diagnoses and things like that.
Partially because, in some of my meatspace circles, there’s a tendency to self-describe as “crazy” in an attempt to reclaim the word. PoM has mentioned this with use of “mad” in the UK. (e.g. crazyboards, where I occasionally posted before I started posting here). Granted, that’s very different than using “crazy” as a pejorative but it seems like the general consensus among regulars here is that “crazy” is a slur eo ipso and I think it’s important to abide by the rules as the community specifies them and not as you’d like them to be.
The other thing is that I frequently see the word “crazy” (et al.) contrasted with mental illness – as in, mentally ill people aren’t insane but people who behave in exotoxic behaviors due to hate or malice or prejudice are. I don’t think that’s a very common construction (although I think it is what is going on unconcsciously – “crazy” becomes shorthand for “behavior that violates community standards of acceptable conduct”). But I don’t think that this justifies using language that is frowned on by community standards.
As for dogpiling… I generally don’t participate in discussions where my views are opposed to community consensus as this isn’t a forum for debate and I’m generally conflict-averse as it is. There are only two times where I felt like I was being jumped on (although I wouldn’t describe either as a dogpile). Both times involved a comment where I mentioned religion (one that was interpreted as bashing atheism, one that was interpreted as bashing Christianity) and while the reaction didn’t make me happy I figured it was best to drop the issue and lo and behold … the other commenters did too. I wasn’t trying to bash anyone’s views but on reflecting I could definitely see how my comments were interpreted the way they were. I’d agree that there is a tendency towards jumping to conclusions but given the nature of the board and the rather constant influx of trolls I think those kinds of misunderstandings are more or less inevitable.
Apologies for the wall-o-text. Feel free to ignore and/or delete if this isn’t seen as sufficiently constructive.
—
Heeeeey I’m able to log in normally from my computer now! Also, all Luzbelitx showing up lately were actually me. I’ll probably keep posting from my phone with my workaround ID.
—
Ok, I’d like to use 2aimai’s example here.
Please note I’m not judging you or scolding you and I promise to keep it nice, at least for this topic.
I’m not answering this particular post because I’m bothered by ableism, but because I think it can be useful in order to show how ableism is often invisible.
The thing is, you don’t need to openly excuse hate or say all mentally ill people are horrible in order to do ableist stuff.
Just like you don’t need to hurt or insult women to act in sexist ways (Feminism 101).
So, on to what you did say:
” this was a person who was incapable,for whatever reason, of logical and coherent thought”
The thing is, you don’t really know that. Or me. Or anyone.
This person might be “incapable”, but also may be “unwilling” to. They may just feel comfortable in their unquestioned bigotry.
We don’t know how this person behaves, how they treat their family and friends, what they write in other sites, what they do for a living.
So, based on a hateful rant, if we decide he “can’t” think logically, we’re letting the guy off the hook for free.
They’re not responsible for their lack of logic and humanity if they are “unable” to use them in the first place.
It may not be an outright excuse, like saying using short skirts may not look like victim blaming. But essentially, it is.
Bottom line: In order to understand ableism, we need to let go of the idea that things will be crystal clear.
I believe we need to accept the responsibility of not only making “nice” phrasing, but also making sure the content of our arguments is not excusing hateful people while throwing the mentally ill under the bus.
Can someone turn up the gaslamps, please? It’s too dark in here to read what Had to Be Said.
I’ve been reading this site daily for roughly two years, and am so pleased to see these new posting rules. Frankly, I’ve relegated myself to lurking for two reasons:
1) Signing up to comment is kind of a pain (I can’t ever get wordpress to remember who I am, and it’s tied to an 86’d email).
2) The level of dogpiling and vitriol — specifically the assumption of trolling — directed at posters both new and established, who differ in any way from a somewhat opaque orthodoxy or ask a naive question, is just brutal.
I hope the new, thoughtfully refined rules will encourage a wider range of participants. Not an influx of jerks or sealions, just people who enjoy the site and want to laugh at skulls as much as the next person.
Y’know what, I think this is it for me. The content of this site can be extremely distressing at times, and I tend to worry and ruminate over some of the things I read. Paul Elam and Vox Day and Roosh V. cause me panic attacks.
I have a lot of issues where I feel like I should never speak up and my contributions are unwelcome. The rather epic tone policing over the past couple of days has played into that a lot. Probability reassures me that other people will say what I would have anyway.
Thanks for the hard work you do, David. You have a much stronger stomach than I. Don’t let all the internet hate get you down.
Take care, enjoy the summer, and have some kittens.
http://i.giphy.com/142Y941q45XPdm.gif
@Falconer, thanks for the sympathy, and the internet hug (in RL I would be a bit ‘Personal bubble!’ but internet hugs are welcome 🙂 ).
@mildlymagnificent, freeze-dried internet hugs also welcome and appreciated. 🙂
I don’t comment on blogs, usually, because I know I’m not really mentally or psychologically equipped to engage with people (cats, yes; people, no), but I was compelled to comment here because I have been very upset at the accusations and attacks made recently against the general tone of the commentariat here, and, in particular, against the commenters who have been countering ableism.
I said this in my first post here, on the JudgyBitch thread, that I feel like I have been reading a completely different blog to the one those who are making the accusations have been.
I don’t see the abuse, or personal attacks, or ‘meanness’, or dog-piling, or ego-driven self-absorbed commenters making everything about them, or a clique, or any of the other things that the accusers have claimed – if anything, all of those things are coming from the accusers and being directed very specifically, it seems to me, at those commenters here who have a mental illness. It really seems like people don’t like to be told they are being ‘-ist’ in any way, because it clashes with their self-image as being a fair-minded person with social justice beliefs, and they are pushing back against being made to feel like a bad person.
I hope the new comments policy will be effective, but, well, I don’t have a lot of hope, as the old Comments Policy and Welcome Package was quite clear and people felt free to ignore it. Having a standard, impersonal reply to ableist comments is probably a good idea, and would probably take the heat out of things (and some of the heat off the commenters who take the time and effort to counter ableism).
It really saddens me to see this happening, because this is a great blog and I always thought of the comments here as being thoughtful, reasonable, whatever the opposite of aggressive is (I’m getting tired).
I have seen heated discussions, yes, but not unreasonably so for the most part (the recent one about circumcision got rather bad). I have seen other commenters politely ask for people to lay off another commenter, or interject that they know this commenter’s posting history and they are debating in good faith, I have seen commenters get upset after a heated debate and say they are leaving the blog, and other commenters who were vehemently arguing with them right up until that moment, apologise for upsetting them, tell them their contributions are valued and beg them not to leave.
Oh dear, I really didn’t mean to make another monster post. 🙁
I’m tired now, not least because I see we have accumulated another ‘You’re all so mean here, especially those yucky mentally ill people’ post, so I’m going to get a cup of tea. Everything is better with tea. Tea, and cats. Tea, cats, and chocolate. Tea, cats, chocolate, and the Spanish Inquisition –
– no, wait…
…Yes, tired. So if anyone replies to this monster post, I won’t see it until tomorrow, or whenever. 🙂
Cheerio!
I like. Thank you, David.
I didn’t expect that.
I have relatively little patience with calls for us to be artificially civil with people who have come to the site for the express purpose of disagreeing.
If someone posts in order to play devil’s advocate, or to “present an opposing viewpoint”, or simply to try to blast those ornery feminists with truth-bombs, then they are here to be contrary. In that case, that person has no recourse to claim that other people were dogpiling them or attacking them; what did they expect, a patient queue? They came to forment conflict, which means that when it occurs they cannot claim either innocence or victimisation.
Having said that, I’m sympathetic to anyone who comes here to mock misogynists in a feminist way, and who accidentally finds themselves on the wrong side of popular opinion. In such situations there must be an ability to back down, deescalate, and accept that one’s opinion is in the minority here.
I also have relatively little patience for anyone who posts something political and then protests when responses veer into the personal or ad hominem. What is political is personal: if you express an opinion on a contentious topic then you are in all likelihood directly commenting on someone else’s lived experience. In such circumstances, it is unreasonable to ask that person to keep the conversation in an abstract and hypothetical space.
This is not a neutral space. This is David’s space, and he can choose the style of discourse he prefers here. I will abide by whatever rules David makes, and expect others to do so. Since he has asked me not to post personal attacks on people I shall refrain from doing so. But I am not going to have a high opinion of anyone who takes advantage of that policy to sow discord merely because they enjoy arguing on the internet.
Also, @winter_sky, enormous hugs. You deserve them because you are awesomesauce squared, and need to be reminded of that even on the bleakest days.
@EJ
I think the personal attack rules came about more from me yelling at Cyberwulf than from us yelling at the MRA trolls (yeah, my bad). ^^; At least, I hope so. Yelling at MRA trolls is the best thing about this site. =P
And yes, all the Interblog hugs to Winter Sky.
So uhh a comment of mine was removed, why’s that?
I think it’s possible, even likely, that the dispute could have been avoided simply by not taking the leap out of the realm of ideas and into the realm of personal attack.
Even if you were right, and even if you tried to word things delicately, talking about the person at all was still a personal attack. If the ideas stated were illogical, then you should have been able to address the ideas themselves without ever speculating about the person who wrote them.
Even if the same patterns of illogical thinking are on display over and over and over, it is still not useful to jump into the realm of personal attack. What good could come out of it?
Many of the disputes about ableism (definitely not all) could be avoided just by never getting personal at all, especially with someone you are disagreeing with. It’s a leap that is really hard to walk back from.
Falconer,
I assume you are accusing me of “gaslighting.” This has become a common way of attacking opponents on this site. It really should stop.
First off, it’s an accusation. An accusation by sneering implication is still an accusation. Have you read the new rules? Search for the word “accusation.”
Second, it’s a really lazy way of arguing with someone. Like calling someone an MRA, it’s just a way to undermine an argument by implying there is a bad motive in the person making the argument. The only way this doesn’t lead to a flame war is if the person you are personally attacking shows restraint and does not return fire with a personal attack of their own. Which means that the abuse only runs one way, over and over and over.
Third, it doesn’t really support your apparent contention that abusive ad hominem is not a common feature of this site when your only response to me is a personal accusation about secret motives.
If you think I am “gaslighting” people here by saying that there has been an essentially abusive environment for a long time, then don’t listen to me, listen to all of the other people who are saying the same thing.
These are all just from yesterday:
…
To be clear, dogpiling doesn’t only occur when ableist comments are made. For example, I saw it happen when someone with a quirky way of communicating raised suspicion even though he said nothing objectionable. It still bothers me that he slunk away wounded. (IIRC, his name was Jared.) I was dogpiled, it wasn’t about ableism, and it was very hurtful. There are lots of situations where dogpiling occurs (obvious trolls excluded) yet every time someone complains about it, the resulting invective is too defensive and too aggressive. It’s been like that for years.
…
That being said, as a human being who makes mistakes, I sometimes find the overly harsh treatment of people who slip up to be…well, not really helping. Chasing someone off isn’t spreading a message. It’s missing an opportunity to change a person’s worldview.
…
Thank you so much for putting into words why it makes me so angry when people argue about how they should be allowed to hurt other people’s feelings because it’s just words. That attitude seems to have only gotten worse with the internet, as now the interaction is not face-to-face, but for people like me who live very much in their heads and don’t do as well in the physical space, the internet is the best means we have to reach out to others, and the toxicity has just been growing. Grown damn adults play bully because they think it’s funny and they don’t give a shit what it does to anyone until it affects them somehow.
…
Attacks get very personal and nasty the longer these threads go on. I’ve read some stuff here that has personally made me feel very unsafe and unwelcome in this space (as a woman, as a rape survivor, as a sufferer of mental illness), which is a shame because I really love this site.
…
My frustration is SO not with the blog or most of the commentors on it! I just don’t like some of the trends taken by the comments section with respect to some regular posters to the extent I think it’s significantly hindered discussion and many people’s enjoyment of the place. These trends haven taken over enough discussions to push away great people who would make great contributions to discussion but won’t because they’ve been treated so disproportionately badly and received support for it.