Categories
announcements comments policy

New Comment Policy

Cutest mod ever!
Cutest mod ever!

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!

458 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
kylagb
kylagb
9 years ago

I think if you spend a lot of time arguing on the internet with total strangers and getting into personal attacks, you to re-evaluate how you spend your free time, or the time your spending at work on this stuff.

Luzbelitx
9 years ago

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.

Had to Be Kidding, this is not the first response to you (guess what, lurkers can read you even if you can’t read them!) and Falconer was not the first one.

I called you Had To Be Gaslighting a page ago and you didn’t even notice!!

You are not getting personal attacks: you’re spewing random shit and being called out on it.

I already called for your banning because I think you’re boring, obnoxious and it’s only a matter of time till you cross a really clear line (because you’ve overstepped quite a few by now).

All your quotes have already been denounced (I believe it was wwth) because they are vague and make no reference to any real events.

Is that your army of socks/buddies there you’re using to gaslight further?

Hobbesian Academic
Hobbesian Academic
9 years ago

@Ellesar

Hi, I’m the guy who referenced being a client of a sex worker. I have not seen anything on this blog that I feels demeans being a client. I have been reading this blog for a few years and I only started to do commercial sex in the last year or so because of reasons that are not currently relevant. However, I specifically stay out of the comments if sex work or anything remotely connected to sex work comes up because I don’t want to get into a place where that could happen. I have noticed here and everywhere a tendency to gender sex work in ways it shouldn’t be. To wit, it is always assumed the client is male and the sex worker is female.

I am well aware that feminism has many many perspectives on sex work. I have read extensively on the topic over the last year because of my practice. I don’t have a problem if someone wants to say something a long the lines of “I don’t think people should pay for sex because I think it is inherently exploitative.” (I think this is wrong, FWIW) I do have a problem if someone says something like “people who pay for sex are inherently misogynistic (or only ever objectify women).” Or even worse “you pay for sex because he can’t get laid otherwise” I also wish people would realize that different clients do commercial sex differently and at least for me I worry that I am treating the sex worker ethically. And I totally get that sex workers, past and present, will approach the work differently and have different reactions/reasons.

I should also point out that I did not say my gender nor for that matter the gender of the sex worker(s) I employ. You are correct, I am male, but I also happen to be gay and only hire male sex workers.

I did find your comment helpful.

Falconer
9 years ago

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.”

Oh my glob, I can’t believe you’re sitting there and accusing me of accusing you of gaslighting us!

Drezden
Drezden
9 years ago

“Don’t you understand, I only acted the way I did because you made me do it. You’re so committed to abuse that I thought the only way to get through to you was abuse.”

is pretty straightforward fucking gaslighting.

And an accusation.

Also, congratulations to whomever had “in the very post announcing the new policy” as the point where a troll would try to use the new policy to justify their behaviour.

Falconer
9 years ago

I mean, haven’t you read the new comments policy?!

Luzbelitx
9 years ago

Also, I believe many comments which reading “people jumped for no reason” should actually be read as “I never understood the reason”.

I mean, people saying there was no reason to be offended, is not actually proof that there was, in fact, nothing to be offended about.

Misha
Misha
9 years ago

Seriously, Had To Be Said, unless you’re going to start citing specific examples of anything you’re trying to allege, YOU just stop. Because right now it makes your accusations seem baseless, and flinging accusations around is – let me check your teal deer – oh yes, abusive.

And LOL that you seem to think nobody’s read the previous thread where all this “abuse” happened, the one where you claimed that JB’s threats to shoot feminists in the face with a crossbow was just someone flexing their right to “protect their home from intruders”. You know the pushback you got from everybody? Not abusive. Nice try, Had To Be Gaslighting.

@Everybody else, really glad to see this conversation being had. I agree with others who have noted that the lack of clarity around ‘dog-piling” could be an issue, especially when it could lead to situations where community members feel unable to challenge problematic posts (sevenonmine and WWTH pretty much nailed it) for fear of going against community standards. I think context is a big thing that needs to be taken into consideration here.

@winter-sky,

Also, I am quite tired of hearing that the old Comments Policy is ‘hard to find’ or ‘not obvious’ enough. It’s right at the top of blog, and the Welcome Package is just to the right, under a giant candle. At some point people have to take responsibility for their own behaviour and either actively look for a blog’s comment policy, read it before commenting, and follow it, or apologise when it is pointed out they have violated the rules, ask about the comments policy if they have genuinely not realised such things exist, and then read it and follow it.

I guess my point is that some people are not going to read or follow the Comments policy unless it is downloaded directly into their brain, and even then they’d still act like it doesn’t apply to them.

Really valuing your posts right now :), and a barrel of kitties for you. And for everyone expect Gaslight McGaslighty.

sevenofmine
9 years ago

@ Had To Be Said

What exactly are you not understanding about people’s requests for specific examples of abuse and attacks? So far you’ve defined the words for us, and now you’ve given us multiple examples of people claiming to have been treated harshly or abusively. Yet nobody has managed to produce an example of the actual abuse, despite claims that it’s nigh on ubiquitous around here.

Luzbelitx
9 years ago

I have noticed here and everywhere a tendency to gender sex work in ways it shouldn’t be. To wit, it is always assumed the client is male and the sex worker is female.

I liked your comment overall, despite disagreeing in many points, but this really sounds like a misrepresentation of stating the fact that most prostitutes are female and most consumers, male.

It’s not a stereotype: it’s a fact.

It doesn’t mean male sex workers don’t exist, it’s just about acknowledging the context in which it happens.

Misha
Misha
9 years ago

Damn, ninja’d by Had To Be Said.

*reads brand new teal deer*

… nope, my post still stands. Cool.

Oh my glob, I can’t believe you’re sitting there and accusing me of accusing you of gaslighting us!

Oh god I think I’m crying.

Falconer
9 years ago

Oh god I think I’m crying.

My work here is done.

Hobbesian Academic
Hobbesian Academic
9 years ago

@Luzbelitx

While yes it is the case that most sex workers are female and most clients are male it doesn’t follow that it is always the case. That is what I meant. I’m not sure if I expressed that correctly, if not my bad sorry. I’m perfectly fine if sex work is discussed as if most clients are male and most sex workers are female. it’s the presumption of all that bothers me.

Most people (overwhelming so) are heterosexual. We shouldn’t predicate ethical discussions on family structure by assuming heteronormative families.

If an argument against sex work, say that it is inherently exploitative because women are systematically disadvantaged because of sexism/patriarchy, is predicated on on the sex work being female, it’s a bad argument.

My experience in this area is atypical and not representative, I don’t think it should be erased in the discussion.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
9 years ago

*dances on Has To Be A Sock’s head until he stops threadshitting*

kylagb
kylagb
9 years ago

I have to agree with 2aimai that this comments section is a cliquey (my word) insider kind of place but I love this blog so much I don’t care about that are being part of the group. Reading David’s blogs make the rest of the stuff irrelevant in the end and I’ve never been a joiner.

GrumpyOldSocialJusticeMangina

My only criticism of the commentariat here is that people are a BIT too quick to decide that a newbie’s transgressions are deliberate trolling. On the other hand I roll my eyes whenever I hear someone call the commentariat abusive. What does sometimes happen, though, is that someone’s remarks are interpreted as meaning something that the commenter did not mean to say, and then we are off to the races with people talking past each other. This is a group that is opinionated and snarky, but if it becomes something of a circular firing squad it is going to scare away some sensitive people who might be constructive members of the community. Reading between the lines, I think the complaint some people are making is that they are reluctant to comment because they are afraid of being attacked if they express themselves poorly. As an outsider here, I think the group would do better if people were a BIT less willing to read poorly expressed thoughts as deliberate malice. The thing is, there may well be potential commenters with mental illness who are scared away, not by ableism but by the fear that they will express something poorly and be attacked for being a bad person. I think people need to cut each other a bit more slack.

That being said, I will willingly admit having deliberately abused Had to Be Dead in the Head, who richly deserved it, having come here merely to attack the commentariat for not expressing itself in a manner that s/he approves. If you don’t like the way WHTM works, don’t come here. This is not Miss Walker’s School of Deportment for Proper Young Women.

Luzbelitx
9 years ago

If an argument against sex work, say that it is inherently exploitative because women are systematically disadvantaged because of sexism/patriarchy, is predicated on on the sex work being female, it’s a bad argument.

I don’t think anyone is making that argument, that’s why I think this is a misrepresentation.

The arguments are never against sex work per se, as an abstract activity we imagine. It’s an argument againt prostitution as it has been practiced for the last three thousand year (aprox).

And the fact that male prostitution is indeed a minority, and does not intersect with sexism, makes it an extremely rare exception to the rule.

Not bringing it up every time the main problem (which actually is not sex work, but sex trafficking, which means the vast majority of prostitution) doesn’t sound like it’s being erased.

I do get the fact that you probably don’t like the idea of sex work being entirely dropped from society, but people calling for this are not doing so because of a stereotyped idea of prostitution, but because they question whether prostitution would have existed at all if it wasn’t because of patriarchy and the system of violence against women.

I do question myself whether there would be people freely choosing sex work if millions of women hadn’t been forced to be raped in exchange for money in the first place.

So, if you don’t belong to the population mostly affected by sex trafficking, nor the population mostly affected by sexism, then you fall out of the groups who endure the most violence.

People thinking prostitution shouldn’t be tolerated because of its history, and because of the social dynamic it promotes in the context of a patriarchal society, is not the same as erasure of male sex workers, in my opinion.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
9 years ago

@Habbesian Academic:

I’m an outsider in these discussions, so I apologize in advance if I get something horribly wrong…

But there is a bit of a difference between the conversation on the exploitative nature of sex work and the ethics of a family structure.

With families, the discussions are “positive:” as in “this is how a family should be, this is how the family unit should work.” In that case, dismissing family structures that don’t fit the hetero-normative model is bad because it’s trying to make a general rule from specific cases.

However, with sex work, the conversation of exploitation is rooted in describing how a particular type of interaction works. People would be arguing that the nature of the interaction between male consumers and female sex workers, in our society and gender context, is inherently exploitative. If there’s a type of interaction that doesn’t fit in that model ,then the argument just doesn’t apply.

Does that make any sense? The first is trying to make a general rule from a limited case, while the second is just describing a limited case.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
9 years ago

@GOSJM

I’m a big fan of the “Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence” approach; certainly in the first instance anyway.

We probably should bear in mind that not everyone will be brilliant at expressing themselves; especially as this is an international flavoured group. Not everyone’s first language will be English, and even with the English speakers there’s the old “divided by a common language” thing. What may be a “dog whistle” in some societies may be perfectly innocent in others.

Luzbelitx
9 years ago

Also, what kirbywarp said. It’s much better than what I said.

maistrechat
9 years ago
Reply to  Luzbelitx

What may be a “dog whistle” in some societies may be perfectly innocent in others.

I think that this is at the root of quite a few of the more contentious discussions between regulars.

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 1:41 PM, we hunted the mammoth wrote:

> Luzbelitx commented: “Also, what kirbywarp said. It’s much better than > what I said.”

katz
katz
9 years ago

My thoughts on a couple of things:

First, a request: Can we get a word or two more about transphobia, in particular, since it’s historically been the other contentious topic? For instance, that TERFs are not welcome here and that we do not tolerate people who deny cis privilege?

WRT dumb, stupid, lame: AFAIK these are not against the official policy, mainly because we have enough trouble with “crazy” and we don’t want even more discussions about what words are and aren’t okay, and so we’ve drawn a somewhat arbitrary line.

I would personally also avoid “dumb” and “lame” but not “stupid,” because stupid isn’t a mental illness and I do think it describes people and things that can’t really be described any other way (eg, Sarah Palin, George W. Bush). I mean, yes, asshole covers a lot, but there are smart assholes and there are stupid assholes. Not to mention stupid ideas, stupid plans, stupid inventions, etc. (Maybe in the future I will end up being obviously in the wrong on this, but that’s my take right now.)

WRT off-topic: There are virtues to blogs with policies against going off-topic, but I think going off-topic is one of the main draws of this blog for many of the participants. I’d strongly resist any policy about off-topic discussion. (If you feel someone is being too flip in a thread about something serious, just say so.)

WRT dogpiling: I’m also concerned that this policy will cause trouble; specifically, that it will further encourage people-who-will-not-be-named to pop into mildly contentious threads to lecture people about their behavior, which is the best way to guarantee that the topic turns into a giant fight instead of dying down.

Additionally, does this mean that if there’s a troll, only the first couple of people are allowed to chew him up? If the person keeps replying and it turns into a discussion, is it still only open to those first few people? What if people want to make different points or share unique personal experiences, or if it turns into a side discussion? This is a really hard thing to police, and it encourages people who just want to shut down the conversation to use the comment policy to do so.

I’d suggest only a mild policy, eg, “Avoid dogpiling. If a number of people have already offered the same criticism of another commenter, consider whether your comment will add anything new to the conversation.”

Luzbelitx
9 years ago

Also, FWIW, I personally think there can be no such thing as “independent sex work” until humanity experiences a period of existence without human trafficking, especially at a global scale as it happens now.

Our vision of the world is indeed twisted by living in a world where we’re used to witness violence without seeing it.

I think a world where women are free to choose, is the only starting point acceptable to discuss or indeed regulate sex work “as any other job”.

katz
katz
9 years ago

I have to agree with 2aimai that this comments section is a cliquey (my word) insider kind of place

…We literally have a welcome package we give to new people.

Luzbelitx
9 years ago

Yeah, I haven’t seen welcome packages in any other blog.

I stole (I mean, shared) one from another user while still lurking, and I remember when the bit about “Shut up, Woody” was added.

And I remember thinking how awesome it was that people got out of their way to give new commenters a warm welcome.

I guess I got used to it since then, but yeah, some accusations sound bizarre, like I’m reading some other blog or something…

1 4 5 6 7 8 19