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!
Or to think about it another way: What would we have to do to not come across as cliquish? For a lot of these people, the answer seems to be “if someone shows up disagreeing with everyone, we all have to immediately change our minds and agree with them, or at least never mention that we disagree.”
@EJ:
That’s a big part of the issue here. How are we supposed to address an issue if by definition we can’t see it? I disagree that we would be incapable of recognizing that we form a clique; it may be the case that people generally don’t see the cliques they are a part of, but people also don’t generally try to introspect on the subject.
If that’s not true, and we truly are incapable of seeing a problem that actually exists, how are we supposed to do anything about it? Blind belief in anything negative someone says about the community just isn’t an option. That’s not ignoring “outsiders” who bring up the issue, it’s just not agreeing with them.
Plus, I’ve seen plenty of lurkers popping up to say both that we’re terribly cliquey and that we aren’t. So that doesn’t really narrow things down…
Rare commenter here:
I think the whole “clique” thing comes from the fact that a lot of the regular posters seem to know each other pretty well? (I don’t know if that’s true or not, maybe some of you barely know each other.) And there are a lot of inside jokes and stuff, that can take a bit of time to pick up on.
I wonder what our reputation is on other sites. Do they say, Oh the Mammoth, they’re so cliquey over there! Do people wander over here and come looking for evidence of cliquishness? On the other hand, how can a newcomer prove that they’re objective?
I should stop thinking about all that before I blow my mind.
Hm. I’m not commenting for the first time. I considered myself a regular here a few years ago under the same nym (Aimai or 2aimai when I had to rejoin wordpress). I’m not posting and quibbling or posting to fight with people. The idea that lots of people are coming here to troll, or to start arguments, or are generally inimical tothe blog is itself a kind of data about the cliqueishness.
Like everyone here I had the experience of being given a “welcome package” and being enthusiastically welcomed. But I also had the experience of being really viciously attacked over word choice. As soon as I had been determined to be abelist I was shifted to the other side of the board and nothing, absolutely nothing, I could say was interpreted charitably or even just politely ignored. Nothing supportive or friendly that I’d said previously was remembered in my favor. I was accused of being a troll.
Speaking qua anthropologist its really impossible for people to know, from inside a clique, that they are in a clique when the entire social field is coterminous with the clique. Theoretically the blog is open to new commenters and David enjoys their contributions and their membership but in practice some people are saying that the fights, the arguments,the attacks on the integrity, identity, veracity, or goals of perfectly ordinary posters can come across as hostile and, yes, cliquish. Are we all trolling? Are we all hostile to the goals and style of the blog? That’s a very hostile thing to assert. It could be true, but its probably not.
At any rate if the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t wear it. I’m not accusing any person, even the specific people who drove me off the blog before, of doing anything wrong or needing to do anything different. I’m just observing that if the blog commenters get a little less quick on the trigger and a little less into circling the wagons against people they perceive as new or unknown a lot of former regulars and new people might feel free to join.
Hello Katz, I’d like a clarification. You specifically worded your comment about TERFs and deniers of cis privilege to say those people don’t belong here and won’t be tolerated here.
I was thinking it should be those subjects should not be brought up. When you say the people will not be tolerated- and this is what I need clarification on- do you mean that you know who these people are elsewhere on the internet and the people themselves can not contribute for any reason?
I think banning the TERFs apologist comments and cis privilege denial makes more sense than claiming to know who people are and trying to keep them away. That sounds like a foray in to personal vendetta, and could become problematic. It comes to mind based on a very limited one or two time example I’ve seen of someone being wrongfully smeared as a Terf, so I thought I would ask for a clarification. It might not be a huge problem, but maybe a distinction worth making. I’m not a radical feminist, but I would assume someone that’s a radical feminist can comment here as long as we don’t get in to banned topics, like the aforementioned.
@Falconer
Weird how our dreamworlds never include lots of violence and/or the apocalypse, right?
And by weird I mean obvious, duh.
I know you brought cloudiah as an example, and it reminded me of that time she mentioned she had visited Argentina when I shared the story of the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo.
And that one time a troll talked to someone as if they were their avatar, and we all started claiming we actually were?
EJ,
Well, thanks for being honest about that.
This notion that anyone who disagrees loses their right to be treated with civility is exactly the problem that so many people are complaining about.
It’s not a principle that stands up to reason, and it is not a principle that leads to productive conversation.
A community governed by the rule “all who disagree can be personally attacked” will become a community where people who enjoy hurling abuse at others will dominate.
Luzbelitx,
When I said that some people don’t seem to notice the abusive environment in the way that a fish does not notice water, I did not expect to get a response that so perfectly encapsulates what I meant. Your abusive post is practically a catalog.
It includes name-calling:
This is name-calling. It is not particularly vicious or hurtful, and I’m guessing you think I deserve it, but it is still name-calling. And it is done to me all the time. It’s a regular habit of many commenters here. I am called by a sneering nickname more often than I am called by Had To Be Said. Treating me like this is a completely accepted habit by many. (See my response to Misha below for more examples.)
And it’s an abusive tactic that only gets applied one way. I have never responded in kind because I think this kind of thing is just bad argumentation. It is petty and abusive. I don’t want to respond in kind. So I just take it.
If I am reading the new rules correctly, this is the kind of thing that has to stop. I am relieved to be able to admit now that the relentless name-calling did, in fact, bother me. The last thing you want to do when you are being habitually abused is admit to your abusers that the abuse worked as intended.
After gleefully engaging in name-calling, a form of personal attack, you then make a statement that makes my point about so many commenters here not even noticing what they are doing:
Changing someone’s screen name to a series of sneering nicknames is, in fact, in the realm of personal attack. You apparently don’t see this, but it’s true. And doing it with a gang of others is a dog-piling personal attack.
One good test to see if your behavior is abusive: Are you doing it because you imagine it will hurt the person’s feelings? If so, your behavior is abusive. It doesn’t have to be the worst behavior ever committed to deserve the description “abusive.” Calling someone a name just to get under their skin is abusive. Even if in your mind they deserve the abuse.
This is nothing but a personal attack. It even includes an accusation in the form of a precognition.
It does not challenge any of my ideas. It does not engage with anything I actually wrote. This isn’t conversation. It’s just abuse.
This is exactly what I and what you baselessly call my “army of socks/buddies” have been attempting to describe. Those who engage in abuse here are so used to it that they don’t even notice that they’re doing it. You wrote a post denying the prevalence of personal attacks that is about 75% personal attacks.
SFHC,
Quoting this for those who need yet another example of a personal attack.
Falconer,
Well, yeah, it is pretty impossible to point out an accusation without calling it an accusation. I think it is beyond dispute that you were accusing me of gaslighting. It’s right there on the page. It’s a fact.
Pointing out that an accusation has been made is not the same thing as accusing someone of having secret MRA motives or any of the other secret motives that people get accused of here (almost always without evidence). I didn’t accuse you of having any personal motives at all.
These distinctions matter. The new rules prohibit “personal attacks,” not “quoting what someone actually said.”
Drezden,
This is a valid point. Citing the abusive environment as an excuse for my behavior would be wrong. It is not an excuse. My behavior was wrong. I engaged in abuse, and there really is no excuse for that. It was wrong. I was wrong.
However, I do believe the underlying point is correct: An abusive environment encourages people to be abusive. And the abusive environment in the comments section at this blog has encouraged the deployment of abuse as a preferred form of argument. I fell into that trap, and I was wrong to do so. It is no excuse — not for me, or anyone else who does it. I was wrong.
I am glad that an effort is being made to change the environment. I intend to fully comply with the new rules and not engage in personal attacks or any other form of abuse.
A comments section without personal attacks is going to be better for everyone.
Misha,
I don’t really need to cite specific examples from the past, because plenty of examples are showing up right here in this thread. See what I quoted from Luzbelitx above. And SFHC.
I don’t believe that I have been abusive to anyone in this thread. Please quote me if you disagree, because I would want to know if I did and apologize for it. Describing an environment that I perceive as essentially abusive is not a personal attack. I hope it’s clear that when I describe this environment I don’t mean “everyone.” Obviously there are plenty of people who don’t engage in personal attack as a preferred form of argument — they’re the ones complaining about it and asking for it to stop.
You mis-state my position on that issue. My position is identical to David’s: Calling the police on Janet Bloomfield was not justified by the available facts. My reasoning was also identical to David’s: In the actual video (not false summaries of it) she didn’t threaten to kill anyone except a violent intruder in her home. I also described her creepy video in even stronger terms than David did. (“Yes, unsettling. Disturbing. And I wouldn’t say she was ‘almost’ relishing the fantasy, she was relishing it. I got the creeps. I can’t even. All that shit. Yes.”) Plenty of people falsely assumed I was “on her side,” but I never was. I was just against doxxing her or reporting her to the cops (which might require doxxing her) or using the authorities in any way against her.
While there was plenty of civil discussion, you are incorrect that there was no abuse directed at me in that thread. Here are eight examples:
This isn’t the worst abuse in the world, but this blog will be a better place without this stuff. Not one of these examples improved the quality of argument in that thread. It’s no loss to get rid of personal attacks. You can win an argument without name-calling, troll accusations or saying “go fuck yourself.” It happens all the time.
As someone who’s a relatively new commenter, I think there is a very tight-knit community here with a core of dominant regulars… which is by no means a bad thing. The village dynamic sets the tone and keeps the assholes out whilst being rather welcoming to those who align with its core values. I don’t think this place is any more “cliquey” than a Girl Guide division (I was bullied a lot more in Guides than I have ever seen outright bullying here).
Maybe there isn’t the biggest range of opinions here, but I put that down to a) everyone here has graduated Feminism 101; b) Blatant advocacy for the devil is swiftly identified and rightly shot down; c) We all have the good sense not to bring up really inflammatory or controversial issues if we can avoid it, because nobody really wants an argument.
The notion that in order to have a good quality of discussion, we all need to be in a constant state of dispute is really tiresome.
I think whether or not this comment section feels welcoming depends a lot on individual personality, one’s intention (anyone just looking to start a fight won’t last long), how willing one is to listen, and how well one deals with the possibility of being called out if one slips up.
People here are snarky and brusque, but also warm and witty, knowledgeable and kind-hearted. Like a pack of dogs, the commentariat is only truly vicious when severely provoked.
Anyway. Maybe we could have a special Welcome thread for people to de-lurk and have a chance to get to know each other better without letting political discussions get in the way. It can be campfire themed. I’ll bring marshmallows.
@2aimai:
Honestly, I’d personally rather if you or others were actually accusing particular people, or pointing to particular comments that fit the model. If only as an example of what sort of thing to watch out for and try to call out and to ground the discussion a bit better than “hey cliquey people, stop being cliquey, even though you can’t actually tell when or if you’re being cliquey.”
That’s a great idea.
@Had to be Said:
Here’s one more for your list of attacks:
Fuck you and the horse you rode in on. You have exhausted both my patience and my reserve of fellow feeling. Your whole sealioning, passive-aggressive schtick is really getting dull. While we both know you’re going to get banned sooner or later, I’d be grateful if you just take the hint and leave.
Everyone else: you are very welcome here. Inasmuch as I, a relative newbie, can welcome you, please be welcomed. As long as you are not this person, you are my friend.
I denounce a text-wall spiced with sealioning and more gaslighting by Had to Be Splained
Should I wait to see wahapenns or…?
.
.
.
.
Ha! Like they weren’t on their way out!
http://www.gifss.com/dragones/dragon-rasputin.gif
[QUOTE] As soon as I had been determined to be abelist I was shifted to the other side of the board and nothing, absolutely nothing, I could say was interpreted charitably or even just politely ignored. Nothing supportive or friendly that I’d said previously was remembered in my favor. I was accused of being a troll. [/QUOTE]
-2aimai
I would suggest that the proper response to this is, “we will try not to do this in the future, we will look out for this going forward.” instead of trying to deny this person’s experience, and I would just like to also second this. I have seen it over and over again, and no I can not go dig up examples, and should not have to. The attitude should be, “we will avoid this going forward”… not “prove to me I was an asshole!” It’s not necessary if you’re not guilty and it’s not necessary if we can just say, ‘ok, no more’.
Also I’ve never seen a site where people raised there hands and said, “yeah we’re cliquey”.
The perception of a clique comes up when there is a good faith argument going on, and people refuse to be diplomatic depending on who the posters are. If this is too general for you, and/or does not apply to you, just move on! Know that you don’t do that, and won’t be doing it.
The defensive demands for proof aren’t helpful and the other side of that is you can just move on. Try not to take it in as a personal attack that needs defending. Either you do this, or you don’t do it. You should know if you do, and having discussed it, it can be more easily pointed out *going forward*.
*returns from the pit of depression and anxiety oriented Moria*
The whole clique accusation amuses me. When I first began reading comments and deciding whether or not I’d join in, I definitely never perceived a clique-ish attitude – more one of a vanguard of troll busters who typically took on those who wanted to express their problematic attitudes with impunity. As for myself, I’ve never felt anything but welcome here, even when I disagreed with others during discussion. If I squint I can see where some people might get scared off, but I think that’s mostly due to unfamiliarity rather than aggression by those who hold the front lines, as it were. And outside of that I just see a bunch of trolls trying to dismantle the first response defense system of this blog.
WRT dogpiling; I also think this is going to be complicated to manage, though I also see the benefit. I think it’d be best if we stay on top of emailing David/mods when things start to go downhill, and adjust as needed.
Take Had To Be Boring for an example; they’re labeling every single negative thing said to them as “abuse,” saying that any degree of snark directed towards them is forbidden “name-calling,” and generally trying to hijack a helpful discussion by being an overly literal rules lawyer as a way to attack everyone. (Hey Had To Be Said; note that the comment policy also says that you don’t need to be perfectly civil. The intent is to avoid gratuitous nastiness, and yet you are trying to interpret any even-slightly non-civil thing said to you as gratuitous. Stop it.)
Is it cliquish to dismiss them, when they were complaining about being “abused” and an “abusive atmosphere” in a thread that barely had people responding to them? Must we treat what looks to me like a massive sea-lion (another bout of name-calling and labeling, I guess) as legitimate as some of the other commenters here who appear to be commenting in actual good faith?
What do people think?
Still attempted gaslighting. Still an accusation.
That said, I will apologise to Had To Be Said for altering zir username for snide purposes.
You may have some valid points to make, HTBS, but based on your posting history here, you are going to have to try hard to prove that you are willing to engage productively, and not just call out all the problems with how we comment. You started out pretty damn adversarial.
What 2aimai said, to a T.
As to the blog’s reputation (re: Falconer’s inquiry), it is consistent with the friendly critical observations offered here already: that while David’s posts are invaluable, the cliquishness and trigger-happiness of the commenting body with regards to certain issues, most notably mental (un)health and ableism, has driven people away, either from commenting or the blog itself. I heard it from many people with whom I conversed on various feminist-friendly discussion sites over a few years, and it is my experience as well.
You are absolutely right; that’s what I should have said.
Ok here’s a thought experiment. What if I quoted ONE LINE from something I agreed with that Had to be Said said…
Ask yourselves how would I be treated henceforth?
I did go back and see there is a “if the shoe fits” discussion going on. I didn’t see that before my post where I basically said the same thing. If it doesn’t apply to you, then just move on. I saw the response from Kirby that says, no I would prefer you accused specific people.
My opinion is, this is not helpful and I don’t think you have good reasons for wanting specific people named. It has just kept this going round and round instead of acknowledging someone’s experience, you seem hell bent on denying it. It’s not necessary to do that. It’s not helpful to do that. It’s contentious to do that, it’s mean spirited to do that. Don’t you understand? In this case, on this thread when we are talking of a general comments policy, btw. Here at this time.
I would also appreciate if David steps in at this point, on this issue, and give his opinion about naming specific people or being able to give our thoughts generally here, on this thread at this point, in this context where we are generally discussing things *going forward*. When David has a chance I would request that he comment on this when we can. I see the requests as being reasonable at this point, and the responses being hostile for no reason.
This is all I’m going to say on it until David comes in, if he honors my request because I am not going to fall for any fighting bait here. What I have said is reasonable and sincere.
I’ll check back for a response from Katz on my other question.
oh Thanks Katz!!!
Well, I guess what we have to work on now is to be welcoming to newcomers and strive to make them all feel like, e.g., GhostBird felt, while not allowing trolls to exploit our welcoming nature.
So I guess we better work on a clear line past which one is trolling.
I do wish people would stop doubling-down when we ask them to observe the commenting policy, tho.
I will own up to my regularity and explain, patiently. Sort of.
You started getting name-calling after you lied, gaslighted, sealioned, were deliberately obtuse, and a bunch of random etc.
The calling out (with snarky nicknames) came after the shit-spewing. You simply highlighted the wrong part of the sentence.
All the behaviors we called out? That’s trolling and hitting back trolls is not abuse, and it’s fair play in this playground.
You did get me thinking on my definitions of abuse, so I give you that.
But then, you see, abuse is above all a dynamic of power. Violence is the mean, but in order for abuse to take place, there has to be a power difference, and a meaningful one at that.
This means, there’s not necessarily a power difference just because someone said something that hurts. Acts can be abusive or violent on themselves and that’s not always nice or the best choice.
But hitting trolls back is not abuse: it’s self defense.
Calling out behaviors is not personal attacks either.
You’re trying to walltextsealiongaslight this tread, as is probably your SOP and usually works, but here? Not in my watch!
http://www.reactiongifs.us/nuh-uh-conan-obrien/