'Death from Above': - Suspensions and Bans on Babble: Should Policy and Practice be Reviewed?

133 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Thu, 2012-01-12 03:47

ottawaobserver

Wilf has laid it out very well, and speaks for me too in this instance. No-one like a bossy "moderator". Why is it that they never have to examine their own language and behaviour, as well?

And, pardon me, what is this crap that if a woman complains she is always right? I think if anyone raises a question about language or attitude or tone, one has a responsibility to truly consider it - and do so in all the many contexts of diversity and inequality we face in our society -- and then either accept it, or disagree with it.

But that's of either gender. And it doesn't mean they're necessarily right, either. It just means we owe them the courtesy of listening, and considering; a duty that is two-way. And of considering that there is more than one way to interpret some things that are written down, and people who have a demonstrated record of anti-racism ought to be given the frigging benefit of the doubt, instead of being given the Sanctimonious Spanish Inquisition.

It's high-time people around here stopped judging what is said based exclusively on the traits and characteristics of its source, and started to judge it more on its content. You won't shake off any of this oppression if you keep taking its existence as a given.

Thu, 2012-01-12 06:09

#103

Slumberjack

Ripple wrote:
General consensus? Of what and by whom? When you say "controversial assessment" do you mean Maysie's or the moderator's decision? Either way, I don't see consensus.

Controversial assessment means Maysie's original call on Malcom's wording...where the controversy began. General consensus means the following reactions from babblers...aka the male, white pile-on. Engaging in this discussion means feeling like shit....which is by no means an exclusive condition I'm sure.

Thu, 2012-01-12 08:03

#104

KenS

It needs to be said that I have not read through the discussion. My intention was really just to look and see who has particpated.

I happened to open to this post by Catchfire, and it says some things I want to call attention to.

Catchfire wrote:

From the women babblers I've had the pleasure of meeting in person--and there have been a handful--they have all told me the same thing: it is really, really hard being a woman on babble. This assertion can easily be supported by the paltry number of female posters who still hang around regularly: a number which grows even smaller on the NDP partisan threads. This problem--and it should be a problem for all babblers, not just women and not just moderators--is why we have a policy statement which aims to protect female voices. It also aims to protect other marginalized voices, which enjoy even less purchase on babble nowadays.

YES. YES.

One of the most vicious and painful attacks someone can suffer on the internet is the pile-on. For anyone who has been subject to one, it's terrible. Please take a moment to consider what it's like to say something you think is true, and then have about a dozen posts scornfully and insultingly invalidating your experience. It really, really sucks....

(As a quick aside, many people have commented on the irony or uncollegiality of Maysie's initial comments. Sarcasm and conforntation are basically babble's bread and butter, but for whatever reason, Maysie (and this happened when she was a mod as well) faces a disproportionate amount of scorn and backlash when she is sarcastic. I have always felt that this was rooted in sexism: Maysie is not a "nice girl".)

Exactly.

Thu, 2012-01-12 08:51

#105

KenS

ottawaobserver wrote:

And, pardon me, what is this crap that if a woman complains she is always right? I think if anyone raises a question about language or attitude or tone, one has a responsibility to truly consider it - and do so in all the many contexts of diversity and inequality we face in our society -- and then either accept it, or disagree with it.

I think that is more than a valid point. At a minimum, it always has to be kept in mind. I'm confident the mods do- whether or not they are successful, people like how, etc.

But that does not remove the point that Maysie gets reactions because she is not nice. Like a lot of people around here.

But she is also expressing points that not only need to be made- people need to HEAR them, whether they agree or not.... and they are points that have an overwhelming tendency to get just snowed under.

Its all well and good to say Maysie should be forced to defend her thoughts like anyone else... but few people have time for that, and when she and other anti-racist voices around here do that it ALWAYS turns into choruses of poor understood me [us], blah, blah.

So naturally, there is a reaction of screw that. I withdraw- as do most people. Maysie gets sarcastic. Big fucking deal about her sarcasm and maybe that she flew off the handle. Not one soul here tried to look beyond the manner of delivery. But Maysie is the one who 'didnt handle it well.' I wonder why that is?

And the moderators try- possibly in the worst possible way- to compell people to not just react to the sarcasm and how it was said. More big deal.

Thu, 2012-01-12 08:55

#106

Caissa

Do you support the two suspensions, KenS that arose out of this brouhaha?

Thu, 2012-01-12 08:58

#107

writer

Quote:

You're going to elaborate upon 'general consensus,'...aren't you?

I want to be in touch with Ripple, who I love. And right now I have no way to be in touch with Ripple, other than publically on this board. She, however, can get in touch with me privately.

Thanks for caring.

Thu, 2012-01-12 09:01

#108

KenS

I think the whole thing that happened with Malcolm is unfortunate. Like A lot of people here, I have sent him a message.

But he knows that at well as thinking it unfortunate, my sympathy for him is limited.

For the purposes of discussion, lets accept the premise that what Maysie orginally said about Malcolm's comment was baseless. And she has just said that was an expression of racism.

Malcolm had the option to not react to that, and to ponder "what is behind this?" Not only did Malcolm like anyone have that opportunity- he's a priest... he has training in looking at the person and the feelings, not just the words.

He chose not to do that. Hence my limited sympathy.

Thu, 2012-01-12 09:45

#109

6079_Smith_W

I have no problem talking generally about policy.

Dissecting incidents like this though is another matter entirely. I think it has the potential to be unfair to everyone involved, including the moderators, and other affected by it, and to compound some of the problems and that led to the incident in the first place.

And given the range of opinion, and the obvious emotions involved, I question whether it's that productive an exercise. After all, the ruling has been made, and it is up in the air as to more understanding or more entrenchment is going to come out of it

As I said, if a moderator makes a call about my behaviour that is between me and them. Getting shut down or suspended are serious enough in themselves I don't think I would feel too comfortable having speculation about my motives being the topic of general conversation in the lunchroom.

If I had something to say about this, I would probably, as I have in the past, do it in a PM.

Thu, 2012-01-12 09:53

#110

KenS

As per the "sudden death" and similar comments about the nature of the suspensions: they are quick and not discussed much, and only after the fact.

Possibly like Smith, I take a largely pragmatic approach to this.

There is NOT time to do this deliberatively. Forget it.

If there are going to be suspensions, the mods have to be able to meet them out with a minimum of fuss.

Look at it like refereeing. There are going to be bad calls.

Now if people think they are consistently deemed bad- that opens a different set of questions. Are the mods visibly taking past history into accounting as they adapt?

But you also have to make allowances for the role in the 'inquiring' that some really dont want suspensions period. Or if they agree 'in principle,' they never agree with any of them. [Unionist is one who comes to mind as the opposite of this. I think he has said he wants to end suspensions, but doesnt give the mods grief over their decisions. A true trade unionist.]

Anyway, that one is kind of sticky to suss where it is figuring in to people's reactions.

But REALLY STICKY: where suspension decisions take in enforcing standards about support for anti-racist principles, environment, and aspirations. And I frankly think we ar not adult enough for that discussion. Which is a segway to another thought...

Thu, 2012-01-12 09:55

#111

Fidel

I was previously accused of expressing racist sentiment when referring to a large group of freedom fighters from about 40 countries, and who are generally headed by violent misogynists and theocratic feudalists propped-up by the West since the 1980s, in what i thought was mildly derogatory reference. The mildly derogatory reference was equated with using the term "gook", which was a US Military term referring to a specific ethnic group in Asia and not a politically motivated group of mercenaries for hire from 40 different countries as was the case with the mujahideen, and which I found to be entirely offensive and innaccurate comparison to say the least. There was no opportunity to defend and no warning just a brief and very condescending note-post from Maysie and then suspension. I don't use the alleged racist term anymore, and it's only because I fear shadow moderation and suspension.

Thu, 2012-01-12 10:03

#112

KenS

After the flare-up between Malcom and Maysie happened, and even after the pile-on was making it certain this would be toxic... I still said something to the effect that there is plenty of good material even in the flare up comments for a good discussion.

But not here [on babble].

I fleetingly considered moving the discussion to the anti-racism forum. VERY fleetingly. Because it is "why would I do that to the Anti-Racism Forum."

And the reason not to do that to the forum, is that it ALWAYS goes badly and ends up with white people behaving appalingly... in the supposedly protected and fostered space of the anti-racism forum. Better it be moribund than that.

White people refusing to deal with racism is at the bottom of this. But I have come to the opinion that on-line discussions are an utterly hopeless forum for doing it. [Speculation: because in person it is always a very challenging discussion prone at the best of times to getting permanently derailed.... and for it not to collapse the cues of physical presence are required.]

Thu, 2012-01-12 10:10

#113

KenS

That said- that it is not feasible to have on-line, and/or for babble specifically, a really fruitful inquiry into racism and privilege that includes the role of the participants....

Even if it were agreed to be true, we dont throw up our hands.

There will be standards. Lots of people are going to understand them, let alone agree.

Get used to it.

Thu, 2012-01-12 10:25

#114

pogge

Catchfire wrote:
Maysie was subject to a pile-on in the last thread for having the temerity to say that something someone said in relation to a FN candidate and in a discussion with minimal emphasis on racial politics was racist.

I went back and looked at the thread where Malcolm's suspension was assessed. At that point there had been nothing I would characterize as a "pile-on." Maybe it came later but I stopped reading at that point.

Whether or not it was calculated to do so, the way Maysie broached the subject of Malcolm's comment was bound to put him on the defensive. So -- entirely predictably -- he reacts defensively and only he gets suspended? Bad moderating.

Thu, 2012-01-12 10:31

#115

ottawaobserver

Stop repeating the inaccuracy that Maysie was "piled-on to by a group of white men". I was amongst the first to raise my hackles, and I'm most assuredly not male.

Maysie lobbed a grenade and was too cowardly to stick around and defend it. There's no threat of physical violence, here. It's a frikkin' bulletin board for goodness sakes.

She was wrong in her assessment, but condescendingly suggested that it was Malcolm who needed to re-examine his words, rather than she needing to re-examine her own completely misplaced characterization of his words.

I am not going to allow either of these points to be lost. If you are going to accuse someone of racism, which is a horrible horrible charge, do not expect them to sit back and take it when it clearly clearly was not.

Thu, 2012-01-12 10:50

#116

Fidel

Yeah right.

Thu, 2012-01-12 10:51

#117

KenS

I didnt say she was piled on by a bunch of white men, and frankly think its irrelevant. There was a pile-on.

That Maysie ran off cowardy is actually ridiculous. The suspension happened pretty quick. I guess you could say she didnt feel like sticking around to discuss it.

And so what? Thats new around here? Its cowardly that people dont feel like responding to a pile-on? Or even looking in to whether people may have a point? What is cowardly or atypical behaviour for babble in that?

The suspension definitely made it ataypical. But that was not Maysie's choice. So again, leaving aside the topic/substance, what is so different about the way Maysie dealt with the situation that she gets called coward and all sorts of other venom tossed in her direction?

Thu, 2012-01-12 10:58

#118

KenS

ottawaobserver wrote:

She was wrong in her assessment, but condescendingly suggested that it was Malcolm who needed to re-examine his words, rather than she needing to re-examine her own completely misplaced characterization of his words.

Since we did not have a discussion, how is it that you know this?

Now I can hardly point the finger at others for stating opinion as fact, and as a rule there is nothing wrong with doing it.

But this is not your topic like hundreds of others on this board- this is a discussion about racism, to which we all ostensibly have a particular commitment to.

So in this case, at a minimum, you should bracket that kind of opinion.

Thu, 2012-01-12 11:00

#119

Fidel

I find that accusations of racism and whatnot tend to come soaring out of the blue whenever I accuse Uncle Sam and friendlies of wrongdoing. Criticism of the very imperialist CIA and Gladio allies seems to be a sore spot with mods for some strange reason.

It's as if Soviet era dissidents were wrong for being critical of the KGB and STASI.

The Glasnost is half-full even on babble from time to time, although rabble is still far more enlightening than lapdog newz media still.

Thu, 2012-01-12 11:06

#120

KenS

pogge wrote:

Whether or not it was calculated to do so, the way Maysie broached the subject of Malcolm's comment was bound to put him on the defensive. So -- entirely predictably -- he reacts defensively and only he gets suspended?

Its not just the manner- it is probably not primarily the manner.

Being told the expression you have just made is racist makes white people defensive. Period. That happens no matter how it is broached.

And that is a fundamental reason why any progressive organization that cares does not allow white people to respond to the way it was "broached." Least of all, when you have so few POC voices.

Without such rules of discourse, the discussion will only be about how it was broached.

Thu, 2012-01-12 11:10

#121

Boom Boom

Jesus, is this conversation still going??? I'm of the opinion that a 24 hour suspension is peanuts in the grand scheme of things, and if it was me instead of Malcolm, I probably would have been pissed as well, but would have taken those 24 hours to have a nice short vacation from this place - which probably would do us all good, once in a while. I think we should have rotating suspensions actually - the Mods can throw all our names in a pot and decide which one of us gets a break and the opportunity to actually get off our asses and actually make good use of our time for 24 hours. Rotating suspensions - hell, it'd be just like winning the Lotto!

Thu, 2012-01-12 11:11

#122

pookie

In fact, the message coming through loud and clear is that if you are accused of making racist statements, the very worst thing you can do is defend yourself. Just put the cotton in your mouth and listen.

As much as I hate having to say this sort of thing, I'm a female POC (can't be many of us left!) and I thought Maysie's method of intervention was...unhelpful.

Thu, 2012-01-12 11:23

#123

KenS

Although I did not deliberately set out to do it- in fact I usually say next to nothing on the subject, and tend not to even read what is on the board...

I am making the case here that people accept the rules whether or not they fully understand them.

I want to make sure that is understand as the main point I would like to make, before I delve into the territory of being snarky, grump, and "I dont care what you think" about racism.

Most of you really do not seem to really grasp how ENORMOUSLY FRUSTRATING it is to deal with white people and their racism in liberal and leftie groups. I'm sure you get that it exists, but you really have no idea of the depths.

You can never win at bringing it up. All the 'losings,' all the things you let go by wordlessly as you stew, all the utterly STUPID things people say that sound so stupid even the umpteenth time you heard them.... it takes a toll, to say the least.

And being human, as we all are, it requires coping strategies. Because it does you no good to refrain from banging your head against the wall in public, if you go and do it in your own head.

And one of the strategies is be grumpy and snarky. It even has a rational benefit to it for the 'collective experience'. I have talked to individuals at great length about racism. I cant always be into it, but I can pick my times and have a reasonable expectation we'll get somehwere, the other person and I. I've never been good at the group situations. And that is true of most people presented with the dilemna- it is very unlikely to go well if you decide to dive in.

Snarky and grumpy is a happy medium of making the best of an impossible situation. You can't do the ideal, but at least you can put a marker out there. And maybe it has a cumulative beneficial effect. It is certainly no worse than doing nothing. Because the chance that it will make people feel bad- more like a certainty- is piffle compared to the damage of just letting it go by. Which is the "I really dont care what you think" part comes in.

Thu, 2012-01-12 11:24

#124

Fidel

KenS wrote:
Being told the expression you have just made is racist makes white people defensive. Period. That happens no matter how it is broached.

And that is a fundamental reason why any progressive organization that cares does not allow white people to respond to the way it was "broached." Least of all, when you have so few POC voices.

Without such rules of discourse, the discussion will only be about how it was broached.

I am white with Anglais, Francophone, Norwegian,Dutch, and Native North American thrown in for good measure. And I don't mind being scolded for using racist terms when, in fact, they are racist terms.

It's the condemnation and suspension followed by running away and chickening out from defending their reasons for accusation and issuing suspension which I find unjustifiable and cowardly. This is not useful. In fact, I think that condemnations by random decree are more typical of white imperialist mentality than anything.

Thu, 2012-01-12 11:26

#125

Fidel

jesus christ youre full of shit.

Thu, 2012-01-12 11:26

#126

Slumberjack

Things have obviously gotten out of hand. Is there anyone left who can shut down this thread.

Thu, 2012-01-12 11:26

#127

Fidel

Thu, 2012-01-12 11:32

#128

pogge

KenS wrote:

...any progressive organization that cares does not allow white people to respond to the way it was "broached."

Unless you're in a position to decide which organizations do or don't qualify as progressive, you're in no position to say that.

And by the way, is Malcolm white? I actually have no idea. If I were a moderator, I would hope I wouldn't care. If you're suggesting that in order to moderate this board you have to know the colour, religion, ethnic background etc., of everyone who posts here and take all of it into consideration with every moderating decision -- congratulations, you've just made the job impossible.

Thu, 2012-01-12 11:36

#129

pogge

Boom Boom wrote:

I'm of the opinion that a 24 hour suspension is peanuts in the grand scheme of things..

Actually, me too. But it might be worth examining since so many others believe it's more serious.

Thu, 2012-01-12 11:36

#130

Fidel

Just don't criticize actually existing racist-imperialist agencies of the mostly white dominated military dictatorship in Warshington and London and Berlin and Paris etc, and youre good to go on babble. That's what I've come to understand from the politically partisan moderation.

Thu, 2012-01-12 11:36

#131

Catchfire

Closing for length. It will take some time to respond to the comments on this thread. I'm not sure that everyone is being heard, mods included, but it doesn't serve much purpose to get a growing index of who disagrees with whom. We are reading this, but I think a break from this discussion would serve everyone.

Thu, 2012-01-12 11:36

#132

KenS

Fidel wrote:

It's the condemnation and suspension followed by running away and chickening out from defending their reasons for accusation and issuing suspension which I find unjustifiable and cowardly.

I already addressed about Maysie being cowardly and running away.

KenS wrote:
Being told the expression you have just made is racist makes white people defensive. And that is a fundamental reason why any progressive organization that cares does not allow white people to respond to the way it was "broached."

KenS wrote:

As per the "sudden death" and similar comments about the nature of the suspensions: they are quick and not discussed much, and only after the fact.

There is NOT time to do this deliberatively. Forget it. If there are going to be suspensions, the mods have to be able to meet them out with a minimum of fuss.

Look at it like refereeing. There are going to be bad calls.

Now if people think they are consistently deemed bad- that opens a different set of questions. Are the mods visibly taking past history into accounting as they adapt?

But you also have to make allowances for the role in the 'inquiring' that some really dont want suspensions period. Or if they agree 'in principle,' they never agree with any of them. Anyway, that one is kind of sticky to suss where it is figuring in to people's reactions.

But REALLY STICKY: where suspension decisions take in enforcing standards about support for anti-racist principles, environment, and aspirations. And I frankly think we ar not adult enough for that discussion. Which is a segway to another thought...

And since I am now repeating what I said before, it must be time to depart this discussion.

Thu, 2012-01-12 11:37

#133

KenS

Fidel wrote:

It's the condemnation and suspension followed by running away and chickening out from defending their reasons for accusation and issuing suspension which I find unjustifiable and cowardly.

I already addressed about Maysie being cowardly and running away.

KenS wrote:
Being told the expression you have just made is racist makes white people defensive. And that is a fundamental reason why any progressive organization that cares does not allow white people to respond to the way it was "broached."

KenS wrote:

As per the "sudden death" and similar comments about the nature of the suspensions: they are quick and not discussed much, and only after the fact.

There is NOT time to do this deliberatively. Forget it. If there are going to be suspensions, the mods have to be able to meet them out with a minimum of fuss.

Look at it like refereeing. There are going to be bad calls.

Now if people think they are consistently deemed bad- that opens a different set of questions. Are the mods visibly taking past history into accounting as they adapt?

But you also have to make allowances for the role in the 'inquiring' that some really dont want suspensions period. Or if they agree 'in principle,' they never agree with any of them. Anyway, that one is kind of sticky to suss where it is figuring in to people's reactions.

But REALLY STICKY: where suspension decisions take in enforcing standards about support for anti-racist principles, environment, and aspirations. And I frankly think we ar not adult enough for that discussion. Which is a segway to another thought...

And since I am now repeating what I said before, it must be time to depart this discussion.

Pages

Topic locked