-
Website
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com -
Original page
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/06/on-safe-spaces-and-high-hoping-fools.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
(Just a note from the other thread- I think that people were using "cult" where they may have meant "clique". I see where we sometimes may appear cliquish and that is something to be wary of in our discourse. It is a part of the fool's path afterall.)
And that's the idea behind the teaspoons, right?
I just can't muster any other words at the moment.
I never knew that I could miss/worry about someone so badly whom I've never met in real life. And to be clear, me missing you and worrying about you is something I own, not an expression of needing or requesting anything from you, and I certainly don't feel manipulated into feeling that way. It's a natural result, to me, of belonging to this community and regularly reading your wonderful prose, and seeing that you are hurting. I'm sorry I didn't say this when you were hurting last week.
I don't care if this sounds sycophantic. It is my truth about Shakesville.
My paycheck bounced this month (ain't that a kick in the pants?) but as soon as it clears I will donate. Not because I've been blackmailed. Because I'm all in, and because I can (unlike others in this community).
Hugs if you want them,
Another idealistic fool.
Also, total commiseration. Paychecks bouncing is Teh Suck.
Thank you for your eloquence. I have learned so much from this space. After two long weeks of bad news, this post is a real pick-me-up and inspiration to keep on doing more, expecting more. I anticipate re-reading it whenever the dark times roll through, because I haven't felt a soul-deep smile like this for quite a while.
Who is more foolish - the fool, or the fool that follows him? Shall we find out? :-)
Thanks for that :)
What you are saying is just so ... radical, so revolutionary, so very beautifully simple. I remember reading once an essay postulating that the opposite of evil is not "good," but "hope." Evil flourishes where there is apathy and despair. I think so much of what Shakesville stands for, teaspooning and safe spaces and all in and the dignity of every human, reflects the same idea.
Thank you, Melissa, for making this place and fighting for it, even though the personal cost to you is so high. Thank you to the contributors and mods, for doing so much dirty work and on top of it, coming up with an answer for the "what can I do?" of the oblivious (guilty. I will apply some work inward, and do better.)
I'm an idealist. I refuse to settle. I believe in the hope-powered teaspoon.
((Liss))
Thank you for this and all that you do. Sometimes I don't feel brave, I feel foolish; a lone force screaming at the darkness to back off, make room, step aside and move over, and then I come here and I realize that I'm not foolish, I'm brave. We're all brave, those of us who reach for more, who expect more.
Teaspoon by teaspoon.
The previous thread from the moderators on this site, particularly the later comments, and the corresponding thread on the Apostate blog have given me something to think about however. So I'll have to retract my earlier "All In" commitment for now, and take some time to think about where I stand.
But I won't do anything to damage your efforts to create a safe space here, I've too much respect for your writing and how it improved my perceptions of others.
Thats all I can think of to say for now.
Welcome back.
Due to the happenings both here and elsewhere, this past week has been a very strong reminder of everything we've accomplished and how far we still have to go. I still think its worth it, and I want to thank you for providing this space in which to do this very important work.
And who knows, maybe a truly safe space only *looks* unattainable. Maybe it is something we can create, and we won't know that until we try, try and try again.
I won't be shocked if this community does it. And that's why I think this community of Shakers is worth working for and with.
It's good to hear from you. Thank you.
To quote Buffy (as I am apt to do at inappropriate times): The hardest thing in this world is to live in it.
You're an inspiration to me, as to many others. Thank you so much for everything that you never owed us, but have given us anyway.
Thank you for everything else.
I admit to some frustartion with the direction of the other thread but mostly because it seemed to be spinning its wheels in terms of what people were saying back and forth to each other. Thank you again for this space, this post, and for what you do.
Be well.
Beautiful post.
Thanks again.
I love you to bits. I love your work. And for your vision, I'll be all in.
Still, after the last couple of days, I have to back off from this blog for a bit.
rrp
All In, my friend. All in.
These other blogs pretended to know what Shakesville was about and to psychoanalyze the supposed faults, failings, hang up, wev, of its "inhabitants." And I found that I not only didn't recognize the place they were talking about, I also didn't recognize myself as one of these imagined citizens of Shakesville: just plain damaged and too deluded to know it.
And so I'm back, because the Shakesville I know -- the place you describe in this post -- is worth the effort (and the donations). Imperfect, but working on something that -- even if it should all eventually go down in flames -- would still have been very much worth the fight.
Thanks, Liss.
There's a great paragraph I read once, saying approximately that Milton hoped to demonstrate to God that the world was ready for the second coming -- he failed, and all we got was "Paradise Lost". That Beethoven hoped to write music so beautiful the deaf could hear it -- he failed, and all we got was... well... I'm not even going to pick my favorite work here.
the point is that if their ideas were crazy grand and couldn't possibly work. But if they hadn't tried so hard to make them work, they might have achieved less grand and precious art.
Thank you Liss, for creating this space and maintaining it. It is an incredibly valuable oasis.
This space and your words have been so many different gifts to so many different people, many (mostly!) more significant than this, but I want to express my appreciation for the most important thing I've gotten here, which is repeated in this post. Your essays on expectations have given me the essential insight, the mental tools, to elude the eternal grey pit of "What did you expect?". For this, most of all, thank you.
I think this is my favourite line you've ever written, Liss.
(natbsat != eloquent)
May you have more good days than bad.
I look forward to participating in that "onward."
Shakesville began as a political blog in the late Bush administration when almost all decent people agreed that the national government running the USA was incompetent and dangerous. We had a common enemy. We'd have been puzzled if anyone had a problem with profanity or fiery metaphors to describe the president, and later on John McCain. "About Shakesville" still asks, "Does Larry King hate my stinking guts and want to kill me? Yes."
Today the national government of Melissa's country and of other countries is much more complicated, from a progressive and feminist perspective. Clearly none of these governments deserves the scorn that Bush 43 demanded. What should a progressive blogger talk about?
Speaking just for myself, I'd like more criticism of what governments and powerful institutions, are doing. Assvertising, for instance, does a great job. Shakes-slogans ("teaspoons," "all in," "I expect more/better," avoid "triggering") aren't to my taste, even though I sometimes feel inspired by them. And I understand that a steady drumbeat of criticism doesn't make as much sense in the Obama administration as it did last year and earlier.
We're in transition. Be interesting to see where we end up.
But one thing I have seen consistently here and in other blogs moved and captivated (even in snark, yes) by what's happening here is recognition of your talent and contribution to others' lives. Even those of us who are on the fence about our role here or who have moved on - with or without bad feelings - acknowledge your influence and your ability. At least that is what I'm seeing in my perusal around the 'sphere.
Your voice is a singular one in the blogosphere, IMO, and I hope it's never lost, even if it moves into new arenas. This is deliberately vague as I'm trying to avoid prescriptive/suggestive language.
You're an impressive, memorable woman - I hope you know!
Leigh/Redstar
I think this is my favourite line you've ever written, Liss."
AGREED!
And even more so .... yes, MORE MORE MORE. There has never been a movement for justice that wasn't born out of demanding MORE and BETTER.
I won't recreate the whole long-winded thing here, but there was laughter and tears and thank yous and reminiscing about edifying experiences had in this place and some waxing philosophical about the nature of feminist activism and rejoinders of "All In" and "More" and quotes of Lissisms and I think William Blake at one point (oh, she was a beaut I tell you, this comment), but here is the gist of it--
Thank you a million times for the brilliant work that you (and all the contributors) do here. I am a better person for having stumbled upon this corner of the internet.
And I am All In; not as always, but better, I hope, this time.
Beautifully said.
What you have created here is priceless. I am honored to have the opportunity to be All In.
it's good to have you back. I completely understand.
do let us know what's going on with you periodically. I was very concerned about you. My first thought was that you might had been in a car accident or something (morbid, I know). I don't want to be in the position to demand anything from you, but like my Mom says, "check in before you check out, so we know you're not dead" :)
Please feel free to throw up a quick post and just let us all know if you decide to go on hiatus. We will be here when you return. And take more breaks, which is my recommendation to you. No reason we have to continue with the same volume of posting as before. :)
Take care.
I put my back out a couple of days ago, which has kept me offline. There may be threads that I will see in a bit in which you deserved my support. I'm sorry that I wasn't there to give it to you, because you always deserve it. Your strength keeps us going - it's important that we offer you some back.
It is good to have you back and it is great to have you wielding teaspoons. Thank you so very much.
I have never in my life felt safe. I'm 50 years old and I've never felt safe. I know what it is to live with that constant nagging uncertainty and anxiety underlying everything, every moment of life. It sucks to live always waiting for the next bit of bad news, the next shoe to drop. And I am sure I am not the only one here of which this is true. Having Shakesville attempt at least to operate as a safe space is a wonderful and remarkable gift. But it is a gift that, as a community, we can only give ourselves. You cannot do it for us, nor can the rest of the regular posters. We, the community have to decide not to allow this small spark of safety blow out like a match in a thunderstorm. WE have to shield it, to cultivate and grow it.
Thank you for being here.
I can only say "yes, this" to everything you've written. If I wasn't at work, I would expand on that, but that might lead to a novella-length comment, and anyway.....it would all boil down to "Yes, this".
I hope you are feeling better, and I look forward to the continuing journey with you.
Again - all in, with love.
BTW, I used to be madly jealous of the "big blogs" for their high-traffic and hoopla, but I have to say, I think you talked me out of it. ;)
I'd really like to take a second and say again that lurking is fine. Really. I know some people may have taken the opposite from the "All In" post, and if we were not clear enough on that, I apologize.
Lurkers are, as always, welcome here.
Point taken, and I'm sure Melissa will look at that upon her return. The rest of us do not have the capability to remove anything from the blog itself. I just did not want you to think this was going unaddressed if you do not see any change for a while.
I saw that, too. I read a couple of those links in the other thread, and while the blogs authors seem to take issue with the format, the commentariat, the expectations, there seemed to be a universal "Liss is a great feminist writer" theme going on.
That you share such personal stuff is brave.
And good.
What you are doing here is a good, and you should be applauded for it. Even if you were to choose to close up shop this second, you can be proud of what you've done for us.
No strings, just thanks.
Thank you;
that was beautiful;
and that the past few days have proven that absence can indeed make the heart grow fonder - I value your work and this community more now than ever.
It's okay because it's not violent language or imagery directed at anyone, but a joke directed at myself. (The Larry King thing took on a bitterly funny symbolism when CNN, among others, was feverishly discussing my "rabid anti-Catholicism" for days on end, turning a stupid press release from a disgruntled moron into a news story that resulted in my getting death threats and people coming to my house.) It's the same reason that my soberest fuckhole trophy is still one of the most positively commented-upon things ever from other survivors: It's a rape "joke" made at the expense of rapists, not at the expense of victims.
Context is territory which has been well-covered at Shakesville, and was, in fact, the centerpiece of the recent "fuck yourself liberal" issue, when it stopped being a masturbation joke and got turned into a rape threat.
I believe quite firmly that the commentariat of Shakesville are capable of discerning the difference between a prohibition on violent language and imagery directed at other people, and the use of words and imagery I direct at myself to make a point, funny or otherwise (usually funny and otherwise).
ETA: As an aside, that page is being reworked as we speak (I've been working on it for ages -- the "Shaxicon," etc.), and the Larry King thing isn't even included on the revised page, so it's kind of a moot point anyway. But I wanted to mention it because I do want to underline that context is, and will continue to be, important with regard to this type of content.
I feel pretty insane a lot of the time in my day to day life. "Hypersensitive," "no sense of humor" (now THAT'S a good one), "too PC," and a host of other clueless, privilege-laden judgments are tossed at me, oh, every fucking day, it seems like. And I run with a pretty progressive crowd: mostly badass queers committed to inclusion, anti-racist work and pro-trans politics, among a host of other things.
Shakesville is one of the very, VERY few places I don't feel crazy. When I come here, I *know* I'll read things that are anti-racist, pro-queer, anti-ableist, and pro-woman (in all our forms, even Republicans. ::shudder::).
Here is where I learned that no matter how much I dislike someone, I must never stoop to bigoted or prejudiced behavior in condemning them. So valuable! And yes, I tell everyone else in my life that matters, too. Teaspoons.
So here is where I'll stay, as long as you're, well, here.
Thank you, Liss lady!
PSue
mock⋅er⋅y
/ˈmɒkəri/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mok-uh-ree] Show IPA
–noun, plural -er⋅ies.
1. ridicule, contempt, or derision
rid⋅i⋅cule
/ˈrɪdɪˌkyul/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [rid-i-kyool] Show IPA noun, verb, -culed, -cul⋅ing.
–noun
1. speech or action intended to cause contemptuous laughter at a person or thing; derision.
con⋅tempt
/kənˈtɛmpt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kuhn-tempt] Show IPA
–noun
1. the feeling with which a person regards anything considered mean, vile, or worthless; disdain; scorn.
So, in this “safe” place – I can expect to be treated with ridicule, contempt and derision if my thoughts/ideas are deemed “not progressive enough” by the ever omnipotent contributors or commentariat? When you are trying to create a place for 600+ different people you are bound to encounter some who are "moribund" in comparison of education and experience. It's really rather subjective and I think over all counter intuitive to the idea of safe
As mentioned about comment history in the massive thread yesterday - I do not have a comment history for precisely the reasons stated above - fear of ridicule, contempt and derision. Although I have been following this blog for at least 8+ months.
I know the weight of the world shouldn't fall on your shoulders alone Liss, and running a blog like this must feel like a giant boulder sometimes and I totally understand the need for time off. But wow I missed your big, brilliant, eloquent brain.
@ MamaShakes: you've raised one hell of a daughter here.
No. "Not progressive enough" is your construction, not mine. This is an example of a behavior which is deservedly mocked, and I don't feel remotely inclined to apologize for that.
Thank-you.
I was going to write more (including a long speil about the sunrise at the moment, because, damn, it's beautiful) but I won't.
You. Rock.
Thank you. I love this space. It is the safest space I know of online, and one of the safest I know at all. There is love here, and hope, and good energy.
you will not be treated with contempt if you express those thoughts rationally and thoughtfully, as you've done, mostly, here. it's not about level of education. it's about a willingness to learn. as many of the regular commenters and some of the mods have mentioned in the earlier thread, we all make mistakes. some of us have erred egregiously against our fellow community members here. but, when a mistake is pointed out, it's requested that the commenter in question reacts with grace and decency, rather than with defensiveness and insults. unless you come in guns-a-blazing and/or have a history of ignoring the suggestions made to you, i seriously doubt that any regular commenters are going to ridicule you for a question or argument that goes against the general grain here.
You've the most generous heart, and I am honoured to know you.
For these folks: Arkades, Deeky, elle, Erica C. Barnett, Misty, Mustang Bobby, Paul the Spud, Petulant, Portly Dyke, Scott Madin, Shark-fu, SKM, & Space Cowboy
Thank you for your attempts at crowd control. Even more than that, thank you for defending not only my friend, but the things that I believe matter in this world.
BIG love,
LM
Rather, thoughts or ideas that are totally NOT progressive at all, and are in fact quite regressive, are the things met with contempt. There is a vast chasm of difference between those two categories, IMO. And contempt in those cases is the earned response, often enough.
i'd like to second the apology. mine weren't frantic, but i also forgot that stepping away means completely. i was like your "helpful" aunt in the crowded hospital room, i guess. :)
No apologies are necessary at all for emailing me with words of support and encouragement. I appreciate them profoundly.
Thanks, unree, I've been trying to think of how to say this. I'm also not really into Shakes-slogans, but it's because of my personality, I just naturally resist group things like that. I mean, I was an Obama supporter for quite awhile (although for about a week before the convention I did shift between him and Hillary Clinton about as often as I change socks, lol) but I never went around saying "Yes We Can" or anything like that.
I guess my point is, even though I don't really go in for that kind of stuff, I don't want anyone to think it means I care any less or want to be a part of the community any less.
My biggest fear as a blogger/commenter isn't of being mocked, but of the violent creepy stalkers that just about every feminist blogger puts up with. Because Melissa is diligent about policing that kind of behavior, Shakes has always been a much safer place than any other blog out there.
Mellisa, I took this as your construction because you used the word moribund which means "not progressing". And I was wondering by whose standards are my ideas going to be measured as progressing or being progressive?
@ Spryte "Once again, I'm seeing what looks to be purposeful obtuseness by a commenter. "
This is precisely the fear of my comment and why I doubt the effectiveness of mockery in a safe place. I wrote my comment with all sincerity, thoughtfulness and respect I could. In which I was met with a comment meaning I was being purposefully stupid.
@InfamousQBert - thank you for your thoughtful and articulate reply. And I appreciate your clarification as I try to work out whether this truly will be a safe place for me or not.
Slogans that capsulize the issues have been an important part of nearly every human rights movement, and good slogans that concentrate a message into a very succinct statement are rare.
That Shakes has many is a credit to the author, imo.
As long as your ideas, and the way in which you express them, aren't in violation of the well-defined guidelines of the safe space (i.e. don't use slurs, don't treat baseline equality as a subject of debate), and aren't conservative talking points, which will obviously be regarded as shit-stirring in a progressive community, you really don't have anything to worry about.
Oh, I agree, PD. I appreciate all of the Shakes-slogans we have, I just don't really use them. Like I said, it's just me and in no way reflects on them or the community, and I hope the fact that I don't isn't seen as...not participating in the community? Being supportive? I'm not really sure how to put it.
@Red Queen - I did not say that this is "my biggest fear". I expressed this as a concern as I am evaluating my fit within a community which I am interested. And since much of this entire situation of the last few days came from people being triggered, I felt that it was okay to evaluate this community as to whether it would viciously rip into my own wounded areas. I grew up in a household that was full of contempt, violence, mockery and many other things. Voicing an opinion or thought could be a dangerous task. I do not feel it is unfair of me to seek clarification based on the word choices the blogger used. And just because your biggest fear is different than my fears - does not mean I lack reason.
As long as your ideas, and the way in which you express them, aren't in violation of the well-defined guidelines of the safe space (i.e. don't use slurs, don't treat baseline equality as a subject of debate), and aren't conservative talking points, which will obviously be regarded as shit-stirring in a progressive community, you really don't have anything to worry about.
@ Melissa - thank you for taking my question seriously and handling it with respect. I really appreciate your response.
Sloganeering also has a deeply feminist history. Look at any picture of the Suffragettes, and you'll see slogans. Ditto photos of ERA rallies. Etc.
Apart from that, this blog is run by a person with a history as a marketing and concept development manager, lol. Branding ideas is reflexive to, and reflective of, my work. Shrug.
Liss - I am continually amazed by your strength and integrity. You are the reason I started my Gender Studies minor, but I still consider Shakesville to be my best educator on the topic. I recognize that everything you do for this community is a gift -- a gift I value greatly but certainly don't want to demand. My schedule usually does not allow me to participate in active threads, but I'll renew (again) my resolution to comment more. "Thank you" or "great post" never feel like good enough comments, but I understand that silent praise does nothing to combat those random hate-filled voices.
I send you and the Shakesville contributors all my love and admiration.
And you're great at it!
I didn't mean to imply that you were stupid, although I realize that is one of the definitions of "obtuse", so I apologize for not being clear. I meant that you seemed to be purposefully missing the point, which is that people will NOT get ridiculed or piled-onto simply for expressing ideas that are not totally progressive or that are not in line with Melissa's views or the blog's charter, but that they will be met with contempt and sometimes ridicule when they express things that are completely in contrast to a distasteful degree (i.e., rape jokes; gendered slurs; etc).
This is the same thing to me as the people who have claimed - here and elsewhere - that Melissa wants - or even demands - that everyone who comments agrees with her 100%, all the time, forever. It is taking one point and twisting it into another in order to make a complaint seem valid. That is what I felt you were doing. If that wasn't your intent, than I apologize for misconstruing, but that's certainly how it came across to me.
And also, your phrase "the ever omnipotent contributors or commentariat" certainly does NOT seem to be thoughtful or respectful to me. It seems unnecessarily snarky and rude. Saying that you are afraid of being called stupid while implying derision about others' intelligence is not the best way to go about it, in my eyes.
there was a misinterpretation on the previous thread that we were demanding everyone de-lurk which was met with much consternation. so, i think that was what was being responded to.
that said, it's up to everyone to determine what they're comfortable with, whether that's lurking forever or commenting 1600 times a day.
P.S. I didn't email when you disappeared because I recognize the value of silence (not being silenced, of course) -- even if I find it almost impossible to maintain in person. :)
Omnipotent means one who has great power and I used it as a way to express my position of insecurity as a relative newcomer to the already established commenters and the blog owners/contributors. My own apologies if this was unclear.
I don't want it to be safe for people who think that rape might, sometimes, be the fault of someone other than the rapist. Or for people who think that the opinion of someone whose race/sexuality/ethnicity/ability/gender/etc. differs from their own is not worth listening to. I don't want it to be a safe space for someone whose debating style is all about defensiveness, ridicule, and other silencing strategies, rather than listening carefully to criticism, then defending their points in a reasoned manner or acknowledging where they were wrong. I don't want it to be a safe space for people who aren't concerned with how their words and actions affect the people around them.
For those people, I would like this to be an educational space. I would like them to learn that it's possible to disagree and discuss those disagreements in a civil manner. There are so many places, especially online, where ranting and attacking are accepted. I would like the people who think "hey, that's what the internet is like/that's what the world is like" to learn that it doesn't have to be.
Call me a fool. Call me a crazy dreamer.
Yeah, and while I'm at it, I want a pony. I don't expect somebody to drop it off in my driveway. But I did sign up for riding lessons, which is a place to begin.
And there are no words with which I can thank you enough for that.
Also, Melissa, like, hi and stuff. Always good to see your author picture.
It's only strange if you believe that most people are wide open to having demonstrations of their privilege pointed out to them, or their mistaken or deliberate violation of the guidelines of the safe space challenged.
I can tell you from experience this is not the case.
Most people are exceedingly reluctant to be challenged on their privilege, and most people are very resentful of being told that they must adhere to rules with which they disagree--and the majority of the people who violate the rules here do so because they disagree with them, though there are people who do so accidentally and are happy to make adjustments when it's pointed out to them.
I would caution against assuming that people's reluctance to comment in a place with high expectations is a failure of the expectations, particularly given the repeated emphasis on the fact that included among them is not the expectation that people not fuck up, only that they respond with integrity when they do.
When the policy clearly states, and I and the contributors have repeatedly clearly stated, that no one is expected to be perfect, but people are expected to self-reflect when they make a mistake, continued assertions of being scared to post may well be just a way of redirecting responsibility onto us and away from one's own willingness to comment responsibly.
Or it may be the result of people who are genuinely conflict-avoidant, who really can't deal with even the most gentle admonishments to not use, say, ablist language without feeling defensive and upset, so it makes them scared to comment lest they react defensively and escalate a thread unnecessarily. Being aware of your own failings is a good communication skill.
It could also, by the way, be the result of intimidation that has nothing to do whatsoever with the comment policy. Every time I open a de-lurk thread, people say they're scared to comment because they feel like their writing isn't strong enough or they might not express themselves clearly enough or myriad other reasons that makes them feel intimidated and isn't because the space isn't safe for them.
All of which are legitimate feelings (I don't believe there is, nor do I want there to be, a threshold of "good writing" one need to pass to comment here, but I certainly am not going to tell someone they have no right to feel what they do), and I don't think it's "strange" that some people have them.
There are a lot of reasons people get scared to comment. It's not always, or probably even mostly, because of the pursuit of a safe space.
ETA: For the record, I don't think it's some horrendous character flaw to be scared to comment because one is resistant to being called out. It's hard to be held to high expectations, and I know that better than anyone; my every word here is scrutinized, which isn't easy and is sometimes extremely intimidating. I don't think everyone's got the -- what? -- I dunno, whatever it takes to do this. And that's totally okay. I just don't like the pursuit of the safe space being blamed for it, instead of people admitting without contempt that it's just not their cup of tea.
Anyway, this blog has taught me a lot and I thank you Liss and the Contributors for educating me and for putting in so much soul and energy into this blog.
Thank you.
okay, fair enough, what would make you more comfortable?
What I meant, I suppose, was that the sexists and the haters and the bigots have plenty of spaces where they are safe and can spew vitriol to their hearts' delight. Hell, they've got an entire TV network. I want this to be a space where people who have absorbed the attitudes we're immersed in, the world of assvertising and ableism and rape apologism and so forth, don't get to do that here, not without being challenged and have to justify their attitudes every time they post.
I hope this clarifies what I was trying to say.
I know this was waaaay upthread, but Hawise's post about the possibility of being cliquish spoke to me; it is hard to be a new person in any situation, and I am recommitting to be more welcoming whenever possible. On the other hand, one of the things I have very much enjoyed, and enjoyed learning about as a newcomer, is the culture of Shakesville. A culture, as I understand it, can include such things as shared language or shorthand, inside jokes, jargon, shared values and references to past events (or posts). Cultures also can, and do, include criticism (self and other), disagreement, intersections with other cultures (that can be complimentary and/or very difficult), and cultures evolve over time. I don't think a strong culture needs to be conflated with clique or other concepts.
I can't speak for all the lurkers out there why they may not comment. I can and will speak for myself. I have been a longtime lurker of this place and I am not gonna lie to you, but I have seen some downright rude behavior by some of the mods towards anyone new that commented. I'm not talking about the trolls are the random flamers from the other blogs that go out of their way to hostile. But people who leave civil comments, who have read the Fem 101 post before commenting, and who contributed to a topic, only to have half a dozen people come down on the person for what seemed like something relatively minor.
I know I'm generalizing right now, but I really don't feel up to digging up indivudal comments and I'm just telling you the impression I got as someone lurking about the comments. If you find my observations not valid, then well, OK. I don't plan on digging up the threads at the moment and don't have much to back up the impressions I got from reading the comments. But this is why I never bothered to comment and my feelings on the subject.
that's not something i recall ever seeing, but i'll keep it in mind next time someone delurks.
Edit: I think that might be taken wrong. What I mean is, I welcome this new clarification of what "safe space" means, and I think it's eminently reasonable and quite doable. Nothing negative!
The thing is, as I read this -
- what I see is another list where asexuals aren't included. And I know we're sort of in there, both as an 'everyone' and as one of the 'infinite intersectionalities', but still, we don't make the list, even though we're a very separate and distinct part from the spectrum of sexuality sketched out by 'gay, straight, bi'.
I know it probably seems petty, but, considering that getting people to acknowledge our existence has been the main problem I've faced as an asexual, somewhere along the line I started being affected by the lists queer-friendly places draw up of whom they're talking to. When I see us in the header of Queers United, it feels important. Like there's somewhere other than AVEN where we matter. Conversely, not being there on other sites over and over again gets somewhat disheartening.
Obviously not everyone can be included in a list, but I suppose I'm wondering why make a list at all, since it feels like there's an in-built hierarchy there. You've got the majority of people who can point at a word and go, 'Yes, that's what's made me not-normal in the past - but not here', while a small minority are thinking, 'I haven't been mentioned - technically I should still belong, I guess, but what if the writer has never thought about my existence before? Am I in her mind at all?'.
I love the idea of aiming towards a safe space for everyone; part of me wanted to write nothing but praise and agreement as my response to this post. But to do that would have been ignoring the fact that I feel like this safe space is being created somewhere other than where I am. I'm certain there are many, many others with needs more pressing and (I dare say) more important than mine, but it's one thing not to especially need a safe space and another to be told that one is being built for me when I don't really feel it. (After all, RaiseOurPay kind of already broached this upthread, to be met with no reply. That's not something that I want to blame anyone for - there are a lot of comments here - but I see that and can't help but wonder if no one's out there hearing us.)
*shrug*
Melissa I am really glad you came back (even if I seem a bit like a puppy) because this space is so important to me.
theZisSilent, I get what you're saying, but I think you're misunderstanding the nature of the specific safe space here. It's not a safe space for bigots, and should they choose to come here and toss around prejudiced slurs, they will most likely be debated, then dismissed or banned.
Thank you!
Eudaimonia, I understand that you "don't feel up to digging up individual comments" at the moment, but that's a pretty serious charge you've just levied at the mods here, and, I have to be quite frank with you, I feel it's irresponsible to levy such a charge without examples.
I think there is some divergence in how comments can be responded to based on whether someone has an established comment history at Shakesville, but that's only natural and not something I consider unjust. Lurking is absolutely a legitimate preference, and, if you're new, there's gotta be a first-time comment at some point, but, as a new commenter, or even a longtime lurker, one cannot reasonably expect to be afforded the same treatment as people who comment and let us get to know them.
People who have taken the time and made the investment to build a reputation at the blog are going to be more trusted -- and, in the situations approaching something vaguely resembling the "downright rude behavior" you've described, the commenter in question has no history, no reputation, has given mods no basis on which to determine if they're commenting in good faith or not, and their first-ever comment is one that is disagreeable and sounds decidedly trollish.
I've frankly never seen a situation that you describe, in which a first-time commenter made a civil comment and got jumped on. For what reason would mods jump on anyone, longtime commenter or no, who made a civil comment? Does not compute.
My recommendation, quite sincerely, at this blog or any other, is establishing a reputation for yourself before jumping in with a criticism for the first time. (And that doesn't mean you have to leave comments in praise of posts; there is plenty of opportunity for neutral comment that will just show you're around in good faith.)
I added "asexual" to the post after I saw RaiseOurPay's comment.
okay, fair enough, what would make you more comfortable?"
I think most people (myself included) who are feeling unsure about commenting here are not objecting to the idea of education and growth. (Or even the idea of needing to abide by the commenting policy). More feeling insecure at the methods in which said education would be delivered. I was happy with the responses I received from Melissa to my earlier questions and felt that they were in fact educational without being a personal confrontation since I was voicing outside of the general tone of the thread thus far.
However I have seen comments on previous threads where people were told "fuck you" or generally treated with a measure of hostility when comments were not up to par or expressed dissent. At those times I did not see where these were helpful.
I think what some of us are trying to get at is - while it is generally accepted and acknowledged that violent imagery, abelist language and indulging in any of the standard "isms" are unacceptable and hurtful ; potential mockery, ridicule and debasement of individual comments can also have a traumatizing effect on both commenter and reader. Like calling a kid to the front of the class and shaming them as a lesson to the other kids.
While I accept that there are certainly people who will be willfully trollish, and I think a demonstrated pattern of "asshatery" should be dealt with appropriately, within the guidelines established. However, I think others should be given the benefit of the doubt, treated respectfully and given the opportunity to clarify their position, intent and context. That the comments aren't conducted in "a troll unless otherwise proven innocent" fashion.
While I recognize what I'm describing as my concern isn't the "norm" and most of the time people are civil and well behaved, but it does happen on a frequent enough basis that more than one person is expressing their discomfort.
So I guess what I am *wishing* for is that while we are all moderating our own comments, and helping for a safe community, that we also give the benefit of the doubt and treat each other with respect when conversing by refraining from phrases like "fuck you", calling people trolls, speculating on mental aptitude etc.
No need Luv ... :>)
*I'm not sure how familiar you are with Shakesville or how much work the moderators do catching, deleting, and banning the sheer ugliness that people can throw into the comment threads. For a look at what Shakeville would look like without the mods, (warning: the thread may be triggering--lots of hateful bile in it--and it has over 2,000 comments and might crash your browser) the Fat Princess Update is a deliberately unmoderated thread.
@ ScottMadin - Your comment was respectful and validating
I think the over all responses in this thread have been very indicative of the respect and guidance that is being requested. Melissa, I totally see your point about allowing others to get to know you and I am glad I took this opportunity to get clarification and will hopefully be able to establish a thoughtful and articulate reputation for myself within this community.
Not really sure what I'm trying to say there, except that I value everything about Shakesville, and I am unbelievably glad that I found it.
I simply do not understand having rules of respect when these rules are thrown out the window in certain cases. Disrespect, namecalling, mockery, etc. are either right or they're wrong. Why are those who line up to call out commenters for being disrespectful to the blog hosts not lining up to call out others when they say things like STFU, or Shall I Compare Thee to a douche, or what a great flounce, or you are willfully obtuse, etc?
Can we really not admit the hypocrisy here?? It would certainly be heartwarming if some people who continually challenge others could be open to challenge themselves and see the problem here. This problem has been commented upon by about 50 people in the last thread and not one person has seen that as a challenge to look in the mirror at their own actions. They have simply ignored those people or ridiculed them or dismissed them. How about practicing what y'all preach?
I just do not get it.
Flame away.
I agree that asexuality, as a separate and distinct identity is often missed out when discussing alternative sexualities. I don't think, especially here, that it's a deliberate attempt to invisibilise you, but more just completely forgetting that not needing or wanting sex is a valid sexuality as well. Liss is really good at rectifying any mistakes, so I'm sure she'll address your concern personally, but I just wanted to say that I hear and appreciate what you're saying, and if you have any advice on what constitutes a safe space for asexual people, I'd really love to hear it. As a queer femme, I've had a few experiences of being invisibilised myself. I'm starting a queer and trans-friendly space for people who don't feel welcome in the mainstream gay scene, and to my chagrin, I have not included asexuality in that - not through a purposeful attempt at exclusion, but just through ignorance. I'd like to rectify that, so if you could point me in the right direction, I'd be really grateful.
1) The person was making a comment whose answering debunk lies firmly in the Feminism 101 page (and, in fact, is often answered there). As pointed out above, the mod has no idea whether this is a good-faith lurker who's just made a silly statement, or a troll bringing in Bubba O'Reilly's latest screed in talking-point form. I've been a mod: it's not always easy to remember that it's possible to look like a troll while completely clueless. I would guess that's probably the majority of the situation, and I think it's very understandable.
2) There may be a few where the mod did say something a little over-heavy for the situation: to my recall, these have pretty much always been followed up by a response giving an apology or at worst an explanation.
Given the contentiousness of the issues dealt with regularly in these pages, I've got to say that the mods here do an outstanding job of not falling into those two situations very often at all. By far the majority of mod (qua mod, not as themselves) interventions are dealt with fairly and gently.
Melissa - Thank you. (And I didn't mean to imply that you should respond to every comment immediately - sorry if that's what came across at all.)
Flame away.
I'll just point out that this is an unfair and often dishonest argumentation technique, by which one frames all criical replies to what one has written as flames, and therefore unreasonable, mean, and hateful. It also undermines potential responses in a second way; that is, by predicting them and thereby framing those responses as "exactly what I said would happen," "what did I tell you," etc, which allows you to add "I was right; they replied and it's a flame. That is, taking what you were right about (that a controversial or serious charge will garner responses) and twisting that into being right about your framing of the response as well.
It's classic unfair argumentation. The only way to win against it is to identify it, so I am doing so.
(edit to fix tags)
I'm not responding to anything in particular with this comment, but I wanted to highlight this. Us mods have frequently characterized behaving in accordance with the comments policy as easy, and in some senses — and from our perspective, perhaps because we're just accustomed to it — that's true. It's not really all that hard to avoid saying hurtful things.
But in other senses I'm not sure we acknowledge enough that it isn't easy enough. In the other thread, I characterized Shakesville as a "radical social project," and I really do see it that way: it's not something we require (or indeed could require) of commenters, but I understand one of the underlying goals of Shakesville to be encouraging us all to examine our privileges, the hierarchies encoded into our societies, our behaviors in context of those things, and how all three can interact and reinforce each other; and fostering an environment conducive to doing that. I believe that as we do so with respect to progressive principles — which for the purposes of this comment I think can virtually all be derived from "all humans deserve recognition and respect for their inherent humanity, value and dignity" — we constantly run up against things in our environments, our habits, ourselves, that work against, or fail to work in support of, those principles; that build on, participate in, and reinforce bias and hierarchy and oppression. Many are small; some are large; some only seem small against a background of a hierarchical culture. Using "lame" as an insult, or habitually falling back on violent imagery when angry, or habitually thinking of women in terms of sex before anything else, or any number of other examples, come to mind.
Finding these things in ourselves is hard and unpleasant, because everyone prefers to think "I am a good person," and is unsettled to have that perception shaken. And those of us who've grown up in the United States, I think, in particular have very deep-rooted beliefs that we belong to a "good" society — and it's perhaps even more unsettling to have that perception shaken. This is, I think, part of where the vicious, angry reactions can come from, in various places, when someone criticizes US foreign policy, or the flying of the Confederate flag, or Columbus Day, or video games, or pornography. I am a good person. I like this thing. You're saying this thing is bad. But good people don't like bad things. So you're saying I'm a bad person! But I'm not a bad person, so you must be a liar, which makes you a bad person! That's an oversimplistic rendering, but I think that's the reaction process that happens, very quickly and not necessarily consciously, in a lot of people's minds.
So yeah; in one sense, the way we ask people to behave is not all that hard: don't be hurtful, don't use racist, sexist, ableist, or other prejudice/hierarchy-enforcing language, don't use threats of violence or rape, be respectful, etc. It's not terribly hard to follow those rules. But the underlying work they imply if you take them to heart, the work of gradually reshaping oneself into a better person, against all of society's pressures, that is hard. It's an enormous, daunting, painful task, which is why I think it's very important to have a community who all share that goal. The more of us commit to that project, the less impossible it seems. And of course it's not a project that ends: it's another pursuit-of-perfection situation. But the work we do can move the starting line to a slightly better place for the people who pick up the work after us.
Again, this is why we ask that people call stuff out in the thread. Providing this list without specific examples is simply hearsay, imo. I know that for myself, at least, I make a practice of avoiding name-calling in my RL and at Shakesville.
That said, if I'm acting like an asshole, I have no problem with someone saying: "Portly, you're acting like an asshole, and here's how . . . . " I will generally take a look at it.
However, if someone is actually flouncing, I don't think it's out of line to call a flounce what it is. I have no respect for the behavior of flouncing.
If someone comes into a thread and makes a completely ridiculous claim like "this is a cult" -- especially someone with no comment history, or a clear history of hostility toward individuals here or the blog in general -- well, I find nothing to respect in that. I can respect the person's basic humanity, but I do not have to respect their behavior or their communication.
I find it ironic that you are saying that "50 people in the last thread" were ignored or ridiculed or dismissed, when here we are, holding dialogue. I believe that arguments made in earnest are being met here with earnest, open, and curious response. If someone wants to lecture me about how fucked up I am, and obviously -- based on their own actions -- are not really willing to enter a dialogue, then yes, I will usually ignore that. I may ridicule them (but that's unusual for me), and I may dismiss them (because it is clear that they are not really interested in a solution -- they are interested in tearing me down).
I speak for myself here, as a commenter, contributor, and moderator -- not for anyone else.
"there will always be a level of mockery in any discussion"
Will there? Why?
"If someone makes a statement that is deliberately provoking"
You cannot know it is deliberately provoking, that is often assumed and used as an excuse here to indulge in mockery and ridicule, and much of what I have seen here does not fall into this category anyway.
"To mock the poster, commenter or a randomly selected subset of the human race instead of the comment and its contents is wrong and rude ..."
Well, I agree. But that does happen here no matter how much denial there is about it. Consistency in the rules of respect and in the expectation that all (including the mods) should be open to challenge would, in my opinion, make great strides towards Melissa's stated goals. I do not experience that consistency here currently.
I do not monitor every thread, however your 'nom de comment' evokes memory of border-line-trollish behavior, shit-stirring at least ... perhaps you don't, get it.
First of all, I encourage you to re-read my post, which specifically says "mockery of one's (moribund) ideas or (disgraceful) behavior." Mockery of people and mockery of ideas are very different things.
Secondly, construing the "safe space" as a space in which every person is guaranteed to never have hir feelings hurt is a profound misreading of what the safe space is. It is intended to be a place where you are not valued as less than because you are non-privileged in some way, and a place where violent imagery and language is not directed at other people. It is not, as this post makes perfectly clear, intended to be, nor will it ever be, a space in which no one will ever face tough criticism, the tone of which may not be to one's liking.
The tone of every blog is different. This one tends to be a little more rough-and-tumble than some, and a little less rough-and-tumble than others. Not every blog suits every person's preferences.
Finally, the contributors' post re: respect was not asking people to never be rude to me; hell, people are rude to me all the time, and that's part of the job. They were asking people to respect me enough to back me up in the same way I back other people up in accordance with the guidelines of the blog and to respect the guidelines that I have laid out.
ETA: All of which shouldn't be taken to mean I don't care if people's feelings get hurt; of course I do -- and I want, as do all the other contributors, to avoid doing that. My point is only that there will always be diversity among a large group re: what is considered "acceptable" discourse and what isn't, so, even doing our best, there will always be people for whom the overall tone is not appealing, and that's not a safe space issue so much as a legitimate personal preference issue.
I do appreciate all the work the mods do to filter out the nasties.
Jinx! ;)
Thank you for your response. It is difficult for me to believe that specific examples are required of this behavior - they are rife in the last thread and in many threads here and we all know that. (And Shall I Compare Thee and STFU WERE specific examples from the last thread anyway. There are plenty of others.) It is simply not true that this doesn't happen. Again, I think it is inconsistent with the rules of respect here. That is all I am saying.
I do not even understand what a flounce is, other than that it seems to be a way to ridicule someone who is hurt and leaving or something like that. I also, quite honestly, don't understand what a troll is (seems to be in the eye of the beholder) either. What I do see is people sometimes using those terms to justify disrespect, ridicule, and mockery towards commenters. And, again, this is confusing as, to me, these actions are either right or they are wrong - for everybody.
Thank you for considering my thoughts.
Deliberately provoking statements are also a defensive strategy that becomes easier to spot with experience. It is the attack before being attacked angle, in conversation its natural response is either retreat or, in a stronger more experienced group, mockery.
Thank you for your response. See, here is where I get confused -
"They were asking people to respect me enough to back me up in the same way I back other people up in accordance with the guidelines of the blog and to respect the guidelines that I have laid out."
Yes, I saw that. And so it led me to wonder - so why aren't people here respecting *every human being* in this same manner (i.e., not just you or the mods) in cases where the guidelines are being flaunted. In cases where commenters are being called names, told to STFU, or piled upon, etc. It just seems woefully inconsistent to me. I interpret your progressive vision to mean that every human should be treated with that level of respect. I see a bit of a one-way street on this issue here, I am sorry to say that.
Thank you. Nuff said I guess. (Not 'flouncing', whatever that means, just backing off so as not to incite negativity, I've said my piece.)
I want you to do what you need to do to keep yourself whole and sane, is what. Also, if you think it'd be fun, I want you to write a book at some point, because your writing deserves it.
Secondly. I'd like to suggest, very gently and in a constructive spirit and to no one in particular other than the air, that there's a form of privilege that hardly ever gets called out in online discourse. That's ingroup privilege.
It's different from other forms of privilege, in that it cuts across almost all other privilege boundaries: any group of people can form an ingroup. And it's not always a bad thing, as anyone who's been in a long-term support group will tell us.
But it manifests everywhere people congregate for longer than a bus commute, and I think it becomes especially important on the net, which has a wonderful tendency to obscure some of the social bases for other forms of privilege (though not as fully as we might hope.)
Despite the fact that it's not discussed often, I wouldn't be surprised if ingroup privilege was responsible for more online "trigger events" than most other, um, trigger event... triggers. It's a truism that people on the net tend to have had experiences of exclusion from ingroups, as just about any high-school-related thread will demonstrate.
Some of those experiences are laughable in retrospect. Some of them are traumatic. We all react differently when those buttons are pushed.
I've modded tough discussions - and also indulged in destructive in-group politics, online and off. I think that two people can look at a group discussion, here or anywhere else, and one can see a community working to maintain accepted standards of discourse and a safe space for its members, and another seeing wagon-circling and even xenophobia, with neither person being exactly wrong.
This is long and lecturey and I didn't mean it to be. It's just something I find it useful to remind myself of and I think most all of us could stand a reminder now and then. It would certainly seem to explain some of the different takes on what has happened here among people of good will.
I haven't read through the thread, but Homologue, I think you're missing the point, which as I see it is that the threads have been pretty unpleasant lately, and we're hoping to improve them.
I do not monitor every thread, however your 'nom de comment' evokes memory of border-line-trollish behavior, shit-stirring at least ... perhaps you don't, get it.
A classic example, thank you. Is this the respect you all are looking for towards others?
Yes, amish, I am a trollish shit-stirrer. That is exactly what my goal is.
Hoping they'll cover my bounced check fees :)
An example of the why I like to hang at Shakesville, here to observe, listen, and learn ... thanks.
Without specific examples, I can't even know if what you're describing is a violation of the guidelines.
Being "piled on" isn't necessarily a violation of the safe space guidelines. It also isn't, for example, a violation of the guidelines to tell me I'm being an asshole, which happens all the time. While it may be considered rude, it's not a violation of the safe space; I'm not being silenced or diminished by being called an asshole. It is, however, a violation if someone calls me a fat cunt, for what I'm assuming are obvious reasons.
(Not that I'm encouraging people to call each other assholes; I'm just noting that being rude and being in violation of the guidelines are not one and the same.)
Like I said, the safe space guidelines aren't a guarantee that you will be treated in precisely the way you always want to be treated, not because we have no intention of making our best efforts to engage productively, but because everyone has a different tolerance for the rougher-and-more-tumbly stuff, and some people will draw the line in a different place in terms of what's acceptable.
My line, and the guideline for Shakesville is: No marginalizing language on the basis of intrinsic characteristics and no violent speech/imagery directed at others.
That covers a hell of a lot of stuff.
A flounce is when someone makes a huge scene then exits or says something extremely inflammatory on their way out. Very dramatic.
A troll is someone who disguises themselves as a regular reader or commenter, faking a history after having read a few pages or posts, then causes trouble in some way, for trouble's sake. Trolls act the way they do in order to get a rise out of people and to disturb the thread. Getting flames thrown at them (I picture villagers going after the troll in the woods, pitchforks and torches in hand, a la the opening scene of Shrek) is fun for them. Thus, saying, "must not feed the troll" is about not adding fuel to the fire, so to speak.
And I would not ever call you an asshole or any other rude name by the way! And not just because you are an awesome, committed, progressive, feminist. You're a human being worthy of respect, like all others. But you're also those other things.
I also greatly admire your willingness to expose some of your vulnerability to so many others. I'm sure it helps many of those struggling with similar issues and it is quite brave.
Your explanations for those terms confirm what I was feeling about how they can be used.
Appreciate it -- I am not really up on modern blog etiquette or the associated terminology.
Being rude can be easy and kind of cheap, but that's a separate issue from whether a particular bit of rudeness is a violation of the safe space guidelines. Maybe this will clarify:
"You suck at math!" -- That's something that some people will find a rude way of conveying what may be a legitimate criticism, but it isn't a violation of the safe space.
"You suck at math because you're a woman!" -- That's something which is both rude and a violation of the safe space.
Because some people would take offense at the former remark, but some people won't -- which is totally contingent on one's tolerance for its tone -- it's not off-limits.
The second one is, because, aside from being factually wrong, it demeans and marginalizes women.
I think you may be thinking of someone else, FWIW.
But some assholes are GOOD assholes.
Which is, I suppose, an example of "the more rough and tumble" stuff here. But I would certainly not call someone that if I didn't KNOW they knew the history and the reference. Which, I think, goes to the context Liss was talking about. If that example helps.
That's ingroup privilege.
Chris, I do think that I have been a bit guilty of this in the past, which I will try to think harder on in the future.
I wonder if you would consider this point -
I think the generic rudeness thing (including namecalling, mocking, etc.), although not necessarily a violation of 'safe space' as you say, is often used as a hurtful weapon in a somewhat bullying fashion. And, since it doesn't seem to me that your progressive vision includes unnecessarily hurting people, perhaps rudeness and namecalling should not be allowed because they are hurtful? No? Well, anyway, I think this is the point that many of us have tried to make - whether it is useful here in this space or not I don't know.
I feel that I am taking up too much space and attention here now, so I am going to go back to my work. Again, not a 'flounce' - just trying to be respectful so as not to dominate the thread. Bye for now.
To Ethel,
"amish451 said to Homologue "I do not monitor every thread, however your 'nom de comment' evokes memory of border-line-trollish behavior, shit-stirring at least"
I think you may be thinking of someone else, FWIW."
Thanks, but my point is that it doesn't matter whether amish451 is thinking of me or anyone else. In my opinion, that response is rude, disrespectful, attempts to marginalize because they don't like what was said, and is just plain gratuitously nasty and unnecessary. I would feel that way no matter whether it was directed at me or someone else, no matter what. It seems to go against the entire vision and philosophy of the blog. Hence, my original confusion.
And now I really will go back to making dinner. Thanks.
I hope you'll feel up to regular blogging again soon, because I've missed your voice. And I hope that Matilda, Olivia, and Sophie MOON are all doing well -- I've missed the Daily Kitteh!
Thanks again for everything you do.
That makes a great deal of sense. If for most of your life you were the reject, the loser, the pariah, the two legged mobile joke...the idea of being excluded or not belonging (anymore) can take on an undercurrent that has a lot of sharks in it. And since I -was- that person it's kinda ridonk that it didn't occur to me, the inside/outside thing. This isn't a cult, it's not a clique, but it is a community that one can be a part of or not a part of. The 'outside looking in' feeling isn't fun at all, and it can remind one of a lot of past aaaghhhdammit.
If someone feels that are an outsider or have been made to be one, those memories asploed. And it is hard to think of anything but hiding in the gym changeroom until the jerks go away.
All I can to, personally, in those cases, is back up, work off the flaily ire somehow, come back when I'm calmer and try to communicate my stuff then. And sometimes I faul, but next time I'll fail better?
Also: there are not enough spaces for all the brackets I wanna put in the e-hug, Melissa. Do what you need to do, take care of yourself. And if I might be so bold as to suggest - pat the kitties. Smething about cats and their mostly-unconditional love is just soul-elevating. On the worst days in my life, when I was blue and sick and couldn't see ANY POINT anymore, cats made it bearable. I find that this works for most of people people I know who are owned by cats. If you've already done rounds of kitty healing, disregard this nonsense. XD I think they have frickin' magical powers. Possibly transferred when they roll on your clean laundry. It's a kitty ritual.
In closing, another cat (behold my clever transition) who should totally be an unofficial mascot.
MOAR
(I'm not trying to be glib and a jerk. I'm just happy, and a bit giddy, so I type loopier than usual. ...I bet that link's gonna explod. Sigh!)
I was afraid to post for a l-o-n-g time, for the reasons that Homologue listed. I don't want to get called stupid, told to STFU, or dogpiled. And yeah, that happens around here. So I held it in and watched some comment threads; usually some other hapless newbie (and/or concern troll) would say what I was thinking and get the dogpile/explanation.
But after a while, I figured out that I could couch things in terms of "I really don't understand how you're getting y from x, could someone please explain that to me?" and they would do so. If I still didn't understand or thought I had a counter-argument, I could say "but what if z?" and then they would explain that to me too. When I reached the point where I thought I understood their argument but still disagreed with it, I could thank them for explaining and discontinue the discussion.
Because there are some things that I disagree with the Shakesville majority about. I doubt there's anyone here who always agrees with the Shakesville majority (Shakesjority?). If I think there's a logical flaw, or that something is going down really unfairly, I can and will point that out (respectfully), but if it's a fundamental difference of opinion, I just don't bother. Because, ultimately, I view this blog as the contributors' gift to us, and I don't need to convince them of my opinions. I really don't, because of two things: 1) we're all committed to the same thing, and 2) don't look a gift horse in the mouth. If all I want is to convince people that I'm right, I should put in the work and start my own blog. I'm here to learn.
My recollection, my observation, my opinion, and intended as only my opinion.
I adore you. I hope you keep the site and keep blogging forever, though it would be selfish for me to ask that you do so. I'm always happy to lend a teaspoon if you ever need one.
I would also like to thank Caitiecat and Scott Madin for making a lot of wonderful, respectful, educational comments over the past couple days. You're doing it right.
A flounce is when someone makes a huge scene then exits or says something extremely inflammatory on their way out. Very dramatic.
From what I can gather given the past week's events, the difference between flouncing and expressing a concern and then leaving is whether or not the concern you're expressing is considered legitimate by the larger group.
This is a very useful idea, so I'm repeating it for emphasis.
@ Liryn: Thank you! What an unexpected compliment. :)
I have been considering as I engage with you, and have considered it before this discussion ever happened. Which, btw, is not the first time this issue has even been discussed here -- something I point out not to sound exasperated (because I'm quite genuinely not), but only to underline that, with a 5-year history, there are very few things about the culture of this blog that I have not considered. Frequently publicly.
Because of that, it could be seen as rude to ask me to consider something in a way that (unintentionally, I'm sure) implicitly suggests I've never previously considered it. That's just how easy it is to do something easily perceived as rude that is not in violation of the safe space, and how rudeness can frequently be an issue of perception. Your perception is that I've not considered your point. My perception is that I've addressed this issue multiple times already. Others reading along, depending on whether they've seen me address this before, and how many times, will have a different perception, too.
Please understand I'm not accusing you of being deliberately rude, or even unintentionally rude. I am willing to have this discussion again, particularly in this thread. I just really think that as much as we are (rightfully) being asked to take into consideration the perspective of newbie commenters, that's a two-way street, and there must be some acknowledgment of the long history of this space, too.
(How is that accomplished? Consider the difference in implications between "I wonder if you would consider this point" and "Have you ever considered this point?" or even "You may have considered this point before, but...")
since it doesn't seem to me that your progressive vision includes unnecessarily hurting people, perhaps rudeness and namecalling should not be allowed because they are hurtful?
For the reasons laid out above, it's impossible to say I'm going to prohibit any kind of rudeness. I have always been, and will always be, open to discussions about inappropriate behavior that is not in strict violation of the safe space (which is why I don't have a hard-and-fast comment policy; case-by-case moderation has been wildly successful here, because some people deserve multiple chances and some people don't, and some always push the bounds of decency without doing anything technically ban-worthy). But I can't say "rudeness" is off-limits. That's just not reasonable, and it would be a wildly irresponsible promise for me to make.
I can't, and won't, make promises I can't keep to this community.
What I can promise is that if someone feels they are being bullied, they can come to me directly with it and I will take their concerns seriously.
If one has a legitimate criticism, why does an intent to depart (Forever!) need to be announced? What's the point?
Criticisms should stand or fall based on their internal coherence, not on whether the author has decided to leave the group or not.
I will not apologize for returning an insult with an insult. Or for calling a douchebag a douchebag.
But after these past few days, I have come to realize that I cannot stomach the atmosphere here. It's awesome that so many people obviously get a lot from this blog, but no blog is for everyone and this one is not for me. I hope that the people who dissent and see something here worth fighting for can find it (here or elsewhere) and I hope that y'all can find solutions to the issues you are experiencing now.
Peace.
Even if the bully resides firmly in the inner-circle (a.k.a. contributors and mods)?
I will assume you were referencing no commenter in particular?
I simply say: adieu
There is a difference between:
Because of that, it could be seen as rude to ask me to consider something in a way that (unintentionally, I'm sure) implicitly suggests I've never previously considered it.
and
"You suck at math because you're a woman!" or even "You suck at math"
I think the issue is being overly simplified to the point of possible absurdity. I don't think it is being implied that all rudeness shall cease now and forever with no deviation period. I think being possibly "offended" because someone implied you hadn't thought of something is different than being offended by being told you suck, you're a douche, you're obtuse, STFU, Fuck You etc. . .
While trying to navigate the extreme complexities of rudeness (ie: did I imply something I didn't intend? eeek! cultural misunderstanding? etc) one could generally acknowledge the idea that "you suck" (regardless of whether it specifies a gender subgroup) would be hurtful and offensive. The difference is the personal nature of the statement.
If violent imagery, rape jokes, etc are triggering and we are being asked to check our privilege on these, why is there a difference in attitude toward other hurtful language? Especially since usually the point can be made in just as articulate/snarky manner without berating the person.
Your response to her promise (a word she obviously doesn't use lightly) to take bullying concerns seriously: "Even if the bully resides firmly in the inner-circle (a.k.a. contributors and mods)?" seems to me an example of not giving her the benefit of the doubt, that she is speaking in good faith.
After all that Melissa has built here, can't we assume she acts in good faith for the feminist and progressive cause(s)?
Sheesh!
Why is it limited to intrinsic characteristics?
If you were walking in a store and saw a person berating another individual who looks scared or is crying:
"You idiot! you can't do anything right! You fucking suck."
Would you stop them? Or because they aren't commenting on skin color/able bodied/body size etc it's okay and open for interpretation as to the level of rudeness.
I'm not positing this as a concern troll or a shit stirrer - I am really interested in the discussion, especially since Melissa said this has been brought up before (meaning it is an ongoing issue for some) and that she is willing to discuss it in this forum.
"You idiot! you can't do anything right! You fucking suck."
Would you stop them? Or because they aren't commenting on skin color/able bodied/body size etc it's okay and open for interpretation as to the level of rudeness.
I probably wouldn't intervene in a store, because I am crunchy and good with ketchup. IRL interactions always run the risk of someone deciding to punch one's lights out.
But on the Internet? Where I'm risking similar harsh words, but nobody can reach through the screen and paste me one? I'm more likely to call out that sort of rudeness.
This is not to say "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." Words CAN hurt, and DO hurt. But if I see someone being rude and decide to intervene, that's a risk I'm taking and I know it up front. And I'm more willing to risk rude words than a sock in the jaw.
You raise a good point. I tend to fall back on snark that can cross the line into personally-aimed scorn, and although it's great for self-defense and venting frustration, it can be hurtful. Is meant to be hurtful, honestly. I'll curb it.
"You idiot! you can't do anything right! You fucking suck."
Would you stop them? Or because they aren't commenting on skin color/able bodied/body size etc it's okay and open for interpretation as to the level of rudeness.
Wouldn't calling them an idiot be insulting their intelligence, and thus be an intrinsic quality?
If someone was screaming racial epithets, sexually harassing someone, etc, I would without a doubt call them a scum-sucking pig, ignorant asshole or any other thing that sprang to mind based on their behavior and my reaction to it rather than their body type, skin color, gender, etc. I might even tell them that they suck for being such a bigot. And I wouldn't feel bad about that.
Perhaps - but I don't think that ruins the over all question I was asking.
Contributors and moderators get called out here frequently, in my experience. Some have departed the blog after a confrontation of this type, others have stayed.
I'm glad I'm not the only one that gets this feeling.
For me, it would completely depend on the context and my sense about the situation -- which is precisely what 'Liss is referring to when she uses the term "case by case moderation".
Why now? I want to thank this blog and the community. Six months ago, I had never heard of asexuality. Now, I identify as asexual. I don't remember where the first link to AVEN was that I followed. Perhaps it was here; even if not, the discussions certainly helped me on my way to coming out.
I first saw this post after the exchange between Melissa and Quinara. Thank you for that as well. Being acknowledged matters, both for those of us who have already claimed the identity and those still unaware.
"So I think that's a point worth consideration: we should all, generally, try to avoid attacking or insulting people we're interacting with."
This. That is my point exactly. And thank you Pizza for your awesome demonstration of ownership.
@ Scott -
"However, criticism of their ideas and statements, even harsh criticism, should virtually never be off limits"
This is true and that is why I was trying to make the distinction between what counts as criticism of statements and ideas vs. criticism and debasement of the individual regardless of said statements and ideas.
No one resides so firmly in any perceived "inner circle" that they are above criticism at this blog -- and longtime Shakers who are active in the comments threads will almost certainly attest that there is not a single contributor to this blog who I have not had to ask to address a violation of the safe space (and/or has done so before I needed to, after it was pointed out by commenters). When I say we have all made mistakes, that is literally true.
Some have departed the blog after a confrontation of this type, others have stayed.
And some have been asked to leave after being repeatedly called out.
"I probably wouldn't intervene in a store, because I am crunchy and good with ketchup. IRL interactions always run the risk of someone deciding to punch one's lights out.
But on the Internet? Where I'm risking similar harsh words, but nobody can reach through the screen and paste me one? I'm more likely to call out that sort of rudeness."
example fail on my part. As I realize we are all crunchy and tasty with ketchup (lol). What i was hoping to accomplish with that analogy is the discomfort we feel when confronting blatant rudeness and to understand exactly where we draw those lines of respect and compassion and how they relate to our conduct on web communities.
can't say I'd always advocate for hurtling yourself into the middle as a human shield (but as PD pointed out - depending on the case I may ask for store security or something to do it)
One of the things I've learned at Shakesville is how to find a comfort level calling out some of the more hurtful or wrongheaded things I hear people saying, sometimes FTF as well as on the internet. I'll probably still be learning for a while, maybe for the rest of my life, but Liss and the mods have set such a good example of how to object to something that I've been inspired to do it in other places as well. And that's one of the reasons I love Shakesville. It gives me a good example, and, by doing that, gives me courage.
From one hopeless idealist to another: right the fuck on.
I can personally attest to that. :-)
It is very easy for those of us who've been interacting online for many years (nearly two decades for me now) to forget how nerve-wracking putting yourself out there can be for those who are not so used to it (which appears to be the case for you, by my reading). I've now screwed up often enough and been called on it often enough that these days I just take a second look at what happened and own my mistakes rather than being intimidated, but I remember when it was a much scarier proposition to just put my own words out in a forum.
I hope you stick around.
Yes, I figured that you likely had. I tried to phrase it as politely and cautiously as possible, quite honestly out of fear of being seen as rude or presumptuous, knowing all the while it was a bit of minefield!
"Because of that, it could be seen as rude to ask me to consider something in a way that (unintentionally, I'm sure) implicitly suggests I've never previously considered it."
I do not believe my question implicitly suggested that at all - "Would you consider this point" in no way entails a suggestion that you haven't done so before with someone else or somewhere else. I was painfully aware of trying to say this in as polite a way as possible.
"That's just how easy it is to do something easily perceived as rude that is not in violation of the safe space, and how rudeness can frequently be an issue of perception. Your perception is that I've not considered your point."
No, that is not my perception at all. That is you assuming what my perception is.
I only meant what I *actually said* - e.g., would it be possible to consider some additional rules regarding general rudeness and disrespect from some commenters to others at this point, because rudeness and disrespect is hurtful and silencing no matter whom it is directed at, and you don't seem to want to hurt people in your vision of how the world should be.
You answered my question, and the answer was 'no'. Thank you.
Later in that thread, Melissa apparently understood me to be unable to "discern the subtle nuances, ahem, that separate a film like Magnolia from a film like Don't Mess With the Zohan." That interpretation depended on deliberately misreading what I was saying in order to make me look stupid and shut me up. That's bullying. And I could be wrong, but I think that's the kind of thing that other people are talking about here.
That wasn't my first comment; this won't be my last. I've been reading the site for at least a year and I've learned a lot here; the media criticism here (and at TigerBeatDown, which is awesome) has already helped in my own writing. And I've learned a great deal from my interactions with commenters who didn't assume I was writing in bad faith (SKM and Wiggles come immediately to mind, although there are others).
But at the same time, I've been told that my comments had the "whiff of 'if you'd only be more rational' here," (talk about impossible to substantiate, that "whiff"), that I was a wife-stabbing apologist, that I'd poorly absorbed the tenets of evolutionary psychology, and, most bizarrely, that I was literally proposing that the word "dipshit" be substituted for "MRA" in all further discussion. And that's just in one thread.
As a result, I find (and it sounds like I'm not the only one) that I end up editing, re-editing, and rereading anything I post here, for fear of saying something in a way that could be uncharitably construed. That isn't because I'm worried about violating safe space for others, or looking for triggering comments. It's because if I want to have a real discussion or learn more about why someone feels the way they do about something, I need to be absolutely sure there's no misplaced word, no phrase, no tone, that commenters can seize on and criticize me for. I don't particularly mind it, and I get too much from this place to be bullied away, but if Melissa and the contributors think they've created a community that is easy to join, I think the other comments here show that isn't true. I understand you get countless visits from concern trolls here. But if you're the kind of person who usually only bothers to post if you disagree, or are confused, or feel like you have something to add, it can be very difficult to demonstrate that you're here in good faith.
I don't have a solution for this, except "if you get something out of being here, be a persistent asshole, and don't let people call you names." This isn't my blog; the tone can be whatever Melissa and the other contributors and commenters would like it to be. If you guys would prefer that I go away, or just lurk, I will. But since other people seem to be talking about this, I thought I would too. And I've edited and re-edited this enough, so if people are going to call me an asshole for something I've said here, go right ahead.
Glad to see that other people have experienced the same pre-comment anxiety.
Or, not glad. It kinda sucks, actually. But I'm glad that the other people who have also experienced this are saying so.
Just to clarify -- my lollol was at Melissa's response, not to your comment. I believe, in reading the thread, that this was what Deeky and Llen were laughing at, too. ETA: Because she can't hear me laughing from my office in the Pacific NW.
Perhaps not, but it sure seems, well, delicate. I'd be hesitant to comment here just because of this 'triggering' stuff; *everything* is triggering to someone.
Is there a link to a post about what you find objectionable about 'lame' and what usages you disapprove of? I searched the blog for it and the word came up many times but none that I saw saying anything negative about it. I'm assuming, perhaps mistakenly, that it has something to do with the fact that 'lame' means 'crippled' or 'disabled', among other entirely valid definitions of course.
No, you're not mistaken; that's the source of the objection, and is part of the "ableist language" category, along with stuff like "psychotic" and "retarded." I personally feel a mild pang of regret over having to give up "retarded," since I perceive it as a treasured regionalism, especially in the formulation "wicked retahded," but I've come to realize that it's more important and also kinder to avoid upsetting people who have developmentally challenged family and friends by insulting them than for me to cling to a speech pattern from my childhood.
Melissa, this conflict-averse/too-dang-busy/inarticulate lurker really appreciates your comment (lo so far above) about understanding the multitude of reasons for people to choose not to comment. I am endlessly grateful for all I’ve learned from you, the other contributors, and the many thoughtful discussions I’ve followed in the comments. I’ve felt guilty for not contributing my 2 cents. Perversely enough, now that I feel OK about not commenting, it suddenly occurred to me that I could submit some recipes to Shaker Gourmet… I think I previously felt that I couldn’t do that because I wasn’t a regular, a proper Shaker if you will.
I am All In, and even if I return to lurkerdom I will be out there teaspooning. Thank you for the lessons in wielding it.
I don't think any of us are under the impression that this is an easy community to join. And the reason we aren't is because, despite the fact this is rarely acknowledged, every one of us is under hell and gone more scrutiny, and held to much higher expectations, than anyone who leaves a comment.
It is incredibly difficult to write for this community for that reason, and I'm not asking for sympathy; I am, however, pointing out unapologetically it's a little absurd to ignore that whatever pressure someone might feel to not fuck it up as a commenter, that pressure is magnified a thousandfold on the main page.
We know. Trust that.
No, my answer to your request I consider your point was not no. You asked me to consider a point you made and I did, across several comments. That I did not come to the same conclusion you did does not mean I did not consider it.
Edited for clarity.
With regard to finding commenting scary, I'll admit I felt that way before I started commenting and sometimes still do. But for me it's a function of being incredibly shy and finding it hard to get past internal walls and speak up. At one point I just made the decision that I wanted to add to the conversation that takes place here and so I started commenting. And as I commented more it got easier to comment and it wasn't so scary anymore. I don't know if that helps anyone who has felt that commenting is scary, but all I can say is take the jump and get involved, it's not as scary as it may seem.
That's not true.
Is there a link to a post about what you find objectionable about 'lame' and what usages you disapprove of?
Here is the most recent one.
It's intimidating as a writer, because there are (and have been but no longer are) some amazing writers here. People who open up my brain and mess with it, and I'm good with that. There are a lot of ways I need to get messed with, and the people here will do that.
It's intimidating as a progressive, because you don't want to fuck up. You don't want to be the one who posts something that turns into a fustercluck of the first order, because you didn't think your shit through.
It's intimidating for the same reason a lot of folk (not all!) find it hard to make comments: I don't wanna get yelled at! And there are a lot of ways to fuck up. The trick I've found is, be willing to keep your ears open, and keep the word "sorry" close by, in case of need. And mean it.
It's intimidating because I know that some really amazing writers have found they couldn't, for whatever good and valid reasons, continue contributing here. That just makes the first one above so much more scary: I know really good writers who aren't here anymore. Please note this is no criticism of either Shakesville, Melissa or those former contributors: I didn't know the reasons, and I don't need to. I just know that good writers have come and gone.
It's intimidating for me because this place gets noticed. Which means I'm making more of a public stand about who I am (as an intersexed person, who also accepts the label of trans) than I've ever done before. Given that people like me not infrequently get killed for being known to be ourselves, yes, that's intimidating.
But it's also deeply rewarding. To get those comments that say, "Hey, I get this. Thanks, I didn't before." That really makes riding over those fears worth it, for me. To see comments from other contributors, writers whose work I admire greatly, saying, "Hey, good job, rookie!" That's a big, big good feeling for me.
To know you've made another teaspoonful of change. That's why.
I would also like to say that this discussion of being rude is actually making me slightly uncomfortable. I feel like it's too close to the tone argument for me. Are we really expected to be kind when we're hurt or angry? I understand not marginalizing a person through the use of slurs and not using violent imagery, but to not be rude at all seems to be way too focused on the minutiae. Will we no longer be allowed to call dudebros douches or Republicans assholes because they're human beings like ourselves? This whole discussion seems like a derailing and severely missing the point.
Or I may be the one missing the point. I'm honestly not sure.
I, too, was once just a lurker and then a newbie and now a regular. I'm glad I made the leap from lurker to participant. At times, I got things wrong and, at times, I was out of line. But I came back again and again because I have learned more from this blog than I could have imagined.
Melissa, just thank you. For all that you do and for all that you give and for what you believe in. You inspire me. And, btw, I totes missed you.
Hey -- me, too! :-)
And, btw, I totes missed you.
I totes missed you, too.
And @Melissa, thank you for being strong and brave and honorable, as well as for your eloquence.
"Are we really expected to be kind when we're hurt or angry?"
Yes. you really are expected to be kind even when you are hurt or angry. Because we are adults trying to form a community that is safe for discussion and growth. Because as adults it is expected that we do not revert to denigrating others to show our frustration.
"but to not be rude at all seems to be way too focused on the minutiae"
Details are important. How can we expect to be taken seriously as activists and progressives if we can't even start by treating members of our own community with respect when disagreeing.
I really do not understand the need to hold onto permission to purposefully hurt other people (except for the few that it's socially incorrect to hurt).
As PizzaDiviola said:
I tend to fall back on snark that can cross the line into personally-aimed scorn, and although it's great for self-defense and venting frustration, it can be hurtful. Is meant to be hurtful, honestly. [emphasis mine]
"You answered my question, and the answer was 'no'. Thank you.
No, my answer to your request I consider your point was not no. You asked me to consider a point you made and I did, across several comments. That I did not come to the same conclusion you did does not mean I did not consider it."
______________
No, this is not what I meant by the 'answer was no' - I meant that your answer to my question about whether rules against rudeness, personal insults, and mockery would be possible to institute here was 'no'. I think that is still the correct interpretation of what you've said. I do realize that you did consider what I said.
I conclude that what I've learned during this thread is that namecalling, mockery, insults, etc. are allowed here so long as they do not contain violent, potentially triggering, imagery or gendered terms.
Then I asked for possible consideration that this could be changed since namecalling, mockery, insults, etc. are hurtful and disrespectful and unnecessary, and they often end up being used as weapons by some here against those they disagree with. The answer, if I'm not mistaken, was 'no' (because, I infer, it is too difficult to police what some perceive as insulting and others don't).
I do think I understand it all now.
I do not agree with it in the slightest, but I do think I now clearly understand the rules.
Just to add more perspective: Or to people who have developmental delays, or who merely struggled in school, and were actually called retarded, etc. My spouse being one of them (for the record, developmentally "normal", although he landed in special ed for 8 years before getting out, and he'll never be a quick reader.)
Also, wrt your spouse's history, in all sympathy: that's pretty fucked up right there. I hope that teachers and school systems have gotten better at figuring these things out since then. I know that kids haven't gotten much better about how they treat special ed or other marginalized students, despite the lauded anti-bullying initiatives. I'd conclude my wish for that to change with a wish for a pony, too, but that's maybe a little cynical when Liss wants us to expect more.
(Although, maybe expecting more covers the pony TOO!)
(swoons and blushes)
breadf, here's how I interpret the parts of the discussion you're referring to:
Using creative, non '-ist', non-violent/triggering profanity (like "fuckneck" or "asshat") to express anger is a basic part of this blog's culture. A few commenters have expressed legitimate concern that name-calling is hostile -- too hostile for them -- and they have been listened to respectfully. A few other regular commenters have agreed to watch their own language in this regard. But, if I interpret what Liss has said correctly, the comment policy on the blog will continue to allow for calling .... oh, Randall Terry, for example -- a retrograde fuckneck.
It took a while for me to feel comfortable commenting here. I felt like an outsider for a long time (due as much to my own social background as anything else). Hell, sometimes, I still do. I can be pretty damn insecure. I've had to learn the hard way that you never know when your friends are going to, painfully and very completely, let you down.
And internet spaces are iffy that way, anyhow. They require their own brand of my wonted shy caution... I've had two occasions in two different forums I used to frequent where I was hardcore, pile-on flamed even though I had been a regular commenter and figured at that point we were starting to be pals. Both times it had as much or more to do with people not understanding what I'd said in the first place and being too angry to listen to the explanation as it did the fact that they disagreed with my ideology. Both times it hurt, especially because I didn't feel any support from the community at large and felt like I'd been left to take the bites of hungry sharks more or less alone.
So I tend to tread as though I'm walking on spiked eggshells in some ways. I'm getting very bold in others, which I think is a credit to the atmosphere here, as it takes a great deal to make this little coward brave.
As far as the rest... I was a little upset and alarmed over the past few days. Not gonna lie. Did something pretty normal for me (unfortunately)-- felt responsible and awful and apologized my guts out before I'd even stopped to wonder if I was as at fault as I immediately jumped to the conclusion that I was. Here's the difference-- nobody acted like I was the world's biggest jerk-stupid-head-slash-attention-whore for doing that. A couple people even said, "hey relax, it's okay, you don't need to beat yourself up," which brought me back down and reminded me "Sugar, you're doing that thing again," and that helped. Read more comments, read some linked material, thought things through more thoroughly, came to conclusions, felt better.
So, I dunno, I guess my response to the upset is just... it just seems as though Shakes is worth a little drama. Any time an entire community gets to the point where it has a discussion to reaffirm what's going on and what things are all about, it is going to be dramatic. Things that are important to people have the effect of being dramatic. That's how it works. It's like a town meeting, and I got reminded of the rules and said the pledge of allegiance and then we argued about the crops and some people were mad and others happy but we all went home feeling like a community. If that's a price I am asked to pay for a space where I am, at least much of the time, free of the hideous burden of waiting for that other shoe to drop, the one where any second now I'm going to be firmly reminded of my place which is on the outside of the circle, over there somewhere, now shoo... well hell, sure, I can afford THAT. Easily.
The answer was not, in fact, a flat no. I quite carefully explained that, despite the fact I will not expand the policy to include a general ban on "rudeness" and namecalling (because I seriously don't have a problem with commenters calling Newt Gingrich an asshole, and I doubt I ever will), I am receptive to concerns of any commenter who feels they are being bullied, either by contributors or other commenters, in accordance with our long-standing case-by-case moderation policy.
To reduce my response to your concern as an unqualified no is, IMO, an unfair representation.
And if that's really your takeaway from our conversation, I don't think you do understand the rules. Because one of the rules is, and always has been, that the right to keep commenting here is at my discretion, which leaves a fuckload of room for me to boot someone who's routinely disruptive or bullying, even if they're not in specific violation of the guidelines.
What I think is failing to be understood here is that a vaguer, less rigidly defined policy works in favor of the commentariat at Shakesville.
Yes, that's absolutely right.
Because language is a tool, and it's a matter of picking the right tool for the right job.
Am I making any sense?
OK - sorry I've had such difficulty following this and completely understanding. I genuinely thought that I had finally arrived at the actual site rules, but see that I still didn't understand completely.
By the way, I also don't have a problem with commenters calling Newt Gingrich an asshole, but of course, that was not what I'd been referring to. What I'd been referring to was commenters namecalling, insulting, mocking, etc. other commenters here and thereby contributing to what can be a pretty difficult environment for some.
Anyway, more than enough said now by me. Good night now, and thanks for the dialogue.
I really do not understand the need to hold onto permission to purposefully hurt other people (except for the few that it's socially incorrect to hurt).
I don't disagree with you that details are important. What I think I disagree on is that there is a monolithic reason for being rude. There isn't. It isn't always about hurting the other person. This is why it feels way too much like the tone argument to me.
Using creative, non '-ist', non-violent/triggering profanity (like "fuckneck" or "asshat") to express anger is a basic part of this blog's culture. A few commenters have expressed legitimate concern that name-calling is hostile -- too hostile for them -- and they have been listened to respectfully. A few other regular commenters have agreed to watch their own language in this regard. But, if I interpret what Liss has said correctly, the comment policy on the blog will continue to allow for calling .... oh, Randall Terry, for example -- a retrograde fuckneck.
Thanks for the clarification, RedEmma, and for the reassurance, Melissa.
Actually, it's exactly the same, and it has nothing to do with gay having once had a negative connotation or lame not having had one. Using gay or lame as a synonym for "stupid" (or some other negative) necessarily implies there's something wrong with being gay or disabled.
I won't argue this point further. This is the position of this blog, and it is not up for debate, particularly not in this thread.
More than one Shaker has reported that they find the use of the word "lame" in slang -- even in the usage you describe -- as personally offensive.
There is a difference between you, aoxomoxoa, not finding something offensive, and asserting that there is nothing offensive at all about that thing.
If you wish (although I'm not sure why you would want to), you are free to use the word "lame" in an ableist way in real life, and in many, many other places on the Internetz. Just not here. Please have enough respect for your fellow Shakers for that.
Yes, hearing the word "lame" used to describe something which the speaker feels contempt for, that hurts me. I'm old enough to know the word in its previous meaning, long before it became the latest way to say "that's crap". And being a person living with a disability, yes, it does sting, every time I hear someone use it that way, just exactly the same as it hurts me as a trans person to hear Ann Coulter being called a tranny, or as it hurts me to hear a soccer coach call one of his players a girl to make him feel bad (something else I've done: I was a referee for a number of years). These are all pretty much equally equivalent.
That's why it's not okay here: because there are people who are demonstrably harmed by it.
I hope that helps, some. :)
(Edit to fix sentence fragment - time for bed for this old girl. Night all. :) )
@Melissa, I certainly did not mean to imply that the people running the site have it easy, or don't have to consider what they say, or don't have everything they write get nitpicked. I wasn't writing to minimize what you or the contributors do; I was providing specific examples of the things earlier commenters were talking about. I do appreciate what you and the other contributers do here, and I tried to make that clear in my post by talking about how much I'd learned. I apologize if that wasn't clear enough.
@Tobermory: See, that's kind of what I'm talking about. I certainly wasn't posting as Phoebus, and I made fun of Phoebus in my first post on that thread. Reading what Phoebus wrote, I'm frankly insulted you'd think I wrote that, because I don't think he's a very good writer. He uses "pad" when he means "pat," for one thing.
And that was not my first post on the site. And I'd been reading the site for a long time. And I'd read the guidelines and the Feminism 101 pages. Why would you assume that I had a different name on Disquus to troll the site, then ducked into a phone booth, changed identities, and came back out to concern troll again with a clean slate? I'll grant that people's concern troll alerts were on high because of Phoebus, but really? You really think that was me? Are you waiting for me to take my mask off and reveal that in real life I'm Bill Donohue? Because you know what? I think *YOU* are Phoebus! On just as convincing evidence! This assumption of bad faith is incredibly frustrating.
You seem to be assuming that people's appreciation of a good snarky zinger was personally aimed at you. I suggest that this really wasn't very likely to be the case, given the community mores here.
Snarky zingers have their own fan club no matter who they are aimed at, and if the comment that sparks the zinger reads as being contrarian purely for the sake of contrarianism, there really will be very little sympathy. I honestly have very little sympathy now, as considering that you were posting what reads to me as a largely irrelevant defence of Apatow ("other films are worse!")on a blog which has repeatedly noted that Apatow's films are full of objectionably misogynist tropes, a snarky zinger is the least you had coming and I'm sure it's actually exactly what you expected.
Avoiding insults and slurs based on intrinsic characteristics is an aim to make people feel safe here from a particularly nasty and dismissive style of ad hominem argument. It's not a guarantee that any arsehat behaviours will never be mocked. When someone acts like an arsehat (as you confessed you did upthread) and is then treated as an arsehat by other commentors, I honestly think that most people have the perspicacity to see how that is a fair consequence.
What you're then asking me to do is institute a policy in which it's okay to use mockery and namecalling against some people -- namely, people who aren't here to respond -- but not against others. Forgive me, but I don't see how there's any consistency in that position.
And I can't imagine how on earth I would police that. If I write a post critical of someone who's engaging in sexism, am I meant for it to be okay to call hir an asshole unless and until zie appears in the comments threads here (which has happened a bunch of times, including quite recently when David Sirota stopped by after I criticized a post of his), at which point I'm then meant to forbid commenters from calling zie an asshole to hir (virtual) face?
Sometimes people show up here and act like assholes. There have been people who literally left death and rape threats against me, and, although we try to delete that shit ASAP, sometimes people see it before we do, and if people doing that shit get called assholes, I don't care.
I also understand that people occasionally get treated unfairly, which is your concern. And, as I have said several times now, that can be addressed on an individual basis. No additional rules are really necessary for that to happen.
The issues raised here aren't always my issues, but I've kind of been using blogs to experiment with stepping out of my comfort zones and out of my privilege. At it's best, this site has been particularly good at calling out these issues and providing thought-provoking analysis.
I got burned pretty bad on an online community once, by getting too invested in drama and nonsense. I won't get involved like that again. It eats up too much energy that I need to invest in my actual life. I try not to engage in the high drama threads as a result. It isn't part of the thought experiment. It doesn't help me grow. I don't think too much drama helps anyone grow.
I've read some brilliant things here. I hope to read more along those lines. Thank you Melissa. I hope you feel better soon. I'm sure everyone wants to revel in the wonderful writing, but if you continue I hope you do it primarily because it brings you joy. If it makes you unhappy it isn't worth it.
You make sense to me. :-)
My impression is that -- as far as Shakesville's guidelines are concerned -- it's up to each individual commenter. I tend towards the approach you're suggesting; others may not. There's no hard-and-fast rule about it.
It all goes towards the idea that this is a community we're all building together; we're all responsible for it. There's no nanny here. Each of us is responsible for the face zie puts out there for the other commenters to see.
Given that, I think what you have said makes very much sense indeed.
"What I think I disagree on is that there is a monolithic reason for being rude."
I'm sorry, I quite literally don't understand what you mean by this sentence. Can you explain?
Also, what other reason is there for being personally disparaging to another person other than to "cut them down to size" or "put them in their place". I'm saying you can express frustration, anger or what have you without launching into a PERSONAL attack on the person.
And while in the land of bunnies and fairies and pixie dust it would be great if we took that respectful tone toward all of the people we dissagree with or anger us, I don't have any delusions that we can snap our collective Shakes fingers and make it happen. But what myself (and others) were lobbying for was to at least start within our own community. How do you foster healthy dialouge about issues when the conversation is reduced to:
"You're and asshole"
" NU-UH!"
" UH-HUH!"
"fuckneck!" etc etc...
as Melissa says - I expect more.
"You're and asshole"
" NU-UH!"
" UH-HUH!"
"fuckneck!" etc etc...
Without minimizing the concerns being raised during this conversation, I want to point out that the dialogue on any thread rarely gets reduced to that kind of exchange here.
Yes, it happens, but it happens very occasionally. There have been more than 20,000 threads at Shakesville over nearly 5 years. And the vast majority of them, even when they've gotten contentious, never devolved into nothing but namecalling. And when they have, I've typically stepped in and told everyone to grow the fuck up, and, most of the time, that has resulted in a decent conversation emerging in the end, anyway.