Suggestions

[sd_admin]

First an announcement: While modbot seemed like a good idea at the time, it's proved to be unpopular with members. From now on we'll be using it only for admin posts, so that they can be edited by all members of the mod team.


We know that some members have had issues with the community and the mod team, and felt like they couldn't bring them to our attention. Here is your chance. If you've got a question, concern or suggestion about Scans Daily, here's where you can post it.

This post will be linked to in our profile, and checked regularly by the mods. Comments won't be screened, so you can suggest amongst yourselves.

Comments

[recognitions]

Oh, a hypothetical! Because, as people above have pointed out, it's not at all offensive to ignore actual incidents of people saying offensive, bigoted, hurtful things to concentrate on something that's never happened. Also:

"Might I point out that you've used that little asterisk to negate more even-handed moderation in a lot of unfortunate incidents since the move?"

That doesn't sound like a hypothetical to me. That sounds like a direct accusation. I don't suppose you'd be at all interested in providing any kind of evidence for it.

Ok, you know what, we'll let that go. I'll be a sport. Let's try this: for one thing, it's almost impossible to be in a privileged group without some kind of prejudice towards non-privileged ones. We're all affected by the culture we grow up in and the institutions that shape us as individuals. And those institutions are, without exception, racist, sexist, homophobic and transphobic. We've all got that in us. Yes, you too. You're not a special snowflake. This is why I find it baffling when people flip the fuck out over being called out on making bigoted comments. It happens. It doesn't mean you're a terrible person. It may mean that you hurt someone, in which case you apologize and try not to do it again. What you don't do is get on the defensive and rage against the person you just hurt in an effort to preserve your sense of your own speshulness.

Finally, what the hell are you babbling about? When have I ever said anyone on here was oppressing me? And oh give me a break. Of course the community is about comics. But part of making it GLBT-friendly or friendly for anyone else is doing what can be done to keep people from dealing with hurtful or offensive statements. I'm not sure who made you the arbiter on what is a valid discussion and what isn't, but I have every confidence that the community will be able to continue on its merry way with or without your blessing.

[moneyless_jew]

No one made me the arbiter and I sincerely doubt anyone here ever will. They made certain posters the arbiters by letting them attack anyone over any comment, no matter how slight or innocent, until the rage passes, because apparently that's the only way to be a safe space without oppressing somebody. Nice utopian idea. Not practical in reality. In reality we have to make allowances for each other, because that's the only way anyone learns anything.

You say we all have our bullshit thanks to how we were raised. In this instance, I think you are absolutely right. Here's my question. What's your bigotry? What's your prejudice? What is your privilege? How do you exercise it?

And again, how are these flamewars we get legitimate, friendly discussions of oppression and bigotry? Because we get more of those than huge threads educating people.

[recognitions]

Oh, I get it! It's a game. You make a baseless accusation, I ask you for evidence to back it up, you ignore my request and just restate said baseless accusation. How to succeed on the internet without really trying!

Ahahaha wtf is this craptastic derailing tactic.

If you'll notice, the flamewars usually start because someone says something objectionable, gets called out on it, and then spends thirty-odd comments defending himself and finding ways to discredit the people who were offended or hurt. If they'd cut down on that and just owned up to saying stupid shit, life would be a lot easier for everyone involved.

[moneyless_jew]

My point about the modding was very clear. You're choosing to ignore it so you can focus on how I am supposedly some chaos-bringing troll.

And you're not answering me. We all have this baggage because of societal prejudices, yes? So what is yours? What's your bigotry, your prejudice and privilege?

[kingrockwell]

You don't have the right to demand another poster to out aspects of their identity.

[moneyless_jew]

Oh, come on. Is this The Prisoner? Where is Patrick McGoohan? Is a giant white bouncy ball forthcoming?

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. Let me see if I've got this, because I am truly and honestly trying to engage you in a way so that I understand your perspective. We all have societal baggage, yes? We all have prejudices and privilege, yes? No? Maybe so? And from what I have seen, some of the posters get to call out what they perceive as the ignorance and privilege of anyone who crosses them, or in my case, simply disagrees with the mod policy. And you and the mods also imply that anyone who disagrees with this laissez-faire approach is ignorant and privileged. So in doing that, you are attaching presumptions of my identity to me. But I'm not allowed to ask anyone else or assume about theirs, because that would be telling.

I don't buy that excuse. I think you're more afraid of the possibility that one of these people is going to put their foot right in their mouth and declare that because of their particular race, creed, orientation, whatever, that they do not have ANY prejudice or privilege, and are thus qualified to berate the rest of us. Because we all know that is simply not true. But that is the implication these discussions often skirt.

You tell me. I was a poster here for a reasonable amount of time back in the day. Do you really think I and others suddenly developed an allergy to feminism, queer themes, slash and minorities?

[kingrockwell]

A person's identity is their own right, you aren't entitled to it. If they reveal it, that's up to them, but you have no right to demand it. That's that.

The important thing when calling out oppressive statements is that oppressive statements have been made, it doesn't matter who's made them or where they may lie on various lines of privilege. Even when someone makes a statement against a group they are a part of they can be called out on it. When oppression surrounds you in society, it is entirely possible to internalize it.

[moneyless_jew]

And the person who decides what is or is not an oppressive statement is - not you or any moderator, then? It's just anybody who feels like it?

If I have no right to identify someone else, why does this moderation team have a right to identify people who disagree with the current moderation policy as ignorant, privileged and against feminism, GLBT issues and anti-oppression? You do this every time you post another Rules Update in which the rules have not changed because they are perfect. "Anybody who can't handle these things should find somewhere else," or whatever. What else is this supposed to imply other than that those who disagree with the modding technique are by definition ignorant? Why do you get to blanket-identify people in this way?

You got submerged entirely in your own ego when you suggested that I have internalized oppression and bigotry by committing the sin of not agreeing with you about a lax moderation style. What astounding condescension. You are right and I am wrong and therefore I have internalized oppression. A perfect circle. I suggest that you have internalized oppression more than anyone else in this thread. After all, you are OBVIOUSLY anti-oppression - it's just that everyone who disagrees with you on these issues is wrong and has turned to the dark side. You can't possibly be this tone deaf.

[kingrockwell]

No. When I brought up internalized oppression it was not directed at you, but to address this point.

I think you're more afraid of the possibility that one of these people is going to put their foot right in their mouth and declare that because of their particular race, creed, orientation, whatever, that they do not have ANY prejudice or privilege, and are thus qualified to berate the rest of us.

We aren't afraid of that of that because it is entirely possible that they could contribute to someone's oppression from that position. Everyone has some degree of privilege in some area and can use it against other disprivileged groups, as lisaquestions addressed when she talked about intersectionality here.

[moneyless_jew]

I'm aware of what she wrote, but I feel she failed to follow it to a proper conclusion vis a vis the complaints the comm is currently receiving. Yes, people who say ignorant things should be corrected and educated in some way. But I fail to see why that measure is incompatible with s_d re-acquiring some basic uniform rules of civil conduct while still being safe and educational.

The rules of civil conduct only cover when everything is running smoothly about comics - once somebody says something out of turn, or simply rubs someone the wrong way about any kind of personal issue, even if that particular comment or opinion can be argued as subjective and inoffensive, then, from what I have seen, your rules of conduct completely dissolve. Then, the aggrieved party, whose word we must take as valid above all else simply on the basis of their personal subjectivity, can tear it up as much as they want until the anger passes. That's how I perceive this moderation or lack thereof. That's what I feel I have witnessed; that is my subjectivity, which according to what I have seen you guys say about others, cannot possibly be totally wrong, as it is my genuine experience.

If s_d continues to follow that track, things will not end well. I can go and others who you feel Just Don't Get It can as well, but the most ardent defenders of the moderation policy are eventually only going to be left with each other. And sooner or later, I fear this policy will begin to become a problem amongst yourselves - after all, nobody is 100% on the same wavelength, and the current climate is not exactly promoting a policy of time outs and thinking before we rage - and then the comm will be torn asunder for good, all because the mods insisted nothing was really wrong with not having firmer rules of conduct that had to apply to everyone, all the time. In my opinion that's what makes a space truly safe for free expression, which clearly it is not now for the people of all types who are frightened or ill at ease and haven't done jack. Untempered anger is not the only outlet, and while it may help on a 1-to-1 basis, it does not work with a large community.

[lisaquestions]

My point was (among many other things) that people are terrified of the possibility of being called out and can't imagine the possibility of being the target of oppressive hostility, despite the fact that many of the members of this comm could easily end up in that position.

Your alarmist scenario has not happened. You haven't even tried to present a way you could use a false accusation of oppression to manipulate the mods into defending you and warning someone else.

Wouldn't it be necessary, to take your post-apocalyptic scenario seriously, for even the first step down that path to be apparent? You haven't witnessed that happen. Every incident that I have seen or heard of involved S_D members making sexist, racist, homophobic, or transphobic comments. Perhaps you know of some incidents that haven't been mentioned in this thread?

I'm not sure what you mean by a system of time outs and thinking before anyone rages. How about a system of time outs and thinking before posting oppressive bullshit?

Fucking consequences! How do they work?

[kingrockwell]

I'm not sure what you mean by a system of time outs and thinking before anyone rages. How about a system of time outs and thinking before posting oppressive bullshit?

Seriously.

[lisaquestions]

Make that "You haven't presented a plausible scenario." The comm rules don't even cover the situation in your "this is my subjective experience!" claim.

[buttler]

OK, now I'm confused. Because when I was asked "are you even queer or are you just a gail simone sycophant?," I was told I didn't have the right to object to any of that.

[angelophile]

Because shemale didn't demand you out aspects of your identity. You did not raise that as an issue, but what you did do was attempt to police another member on her tone and miscategorised her comment as a personal attack. These are the reasons that you were Mod Noted. You didn't even raise the issue of outing your identity at the time.

[buttler]

"Sycophant" is a personal attack.

The reason I didn't raise the issue of shemale's demand for my queer qualifactions at the time was because in context (that is, the context of being told that I wasn't allowed to question the way a transwoman spoke to me or to anyone else), it seemed like it might be a valid question of whether or not I was in the same protected class of people who could toss insults around like that.

[angelophile]

No, sycophant is not an insult or personal attack. It's not a nice word to be labeled with, perhaps, but it would not fall under our definition of a personal attack.

[buttler]

For clarity, does that apply to all personality-based not-nice-words-to-be-labeled-with, like idiot, asshole, crybaby, loser, etc.? They're all not insults?

[angelophile]

Those words would fall under the definition of insults, as I'm sure you are aware. None have the legitimacy of a word like sycophant, which merely means you are being obsequious.

[buttler]

The problem is that I'm aware of all of them as insults and none of them as legitimate, but that's where subjectivity comes in. You could just as easily say that idiot merely means you're being stupid or crybaby merely means you're being overly sensitive. They're all lazy ways of labeling people when you dislike how they're coming across.

It's certainly true that you can't avoid a certain level of subjectivity in these matters, and different people are going draw the line in different places. I'm always going to avoid anything that smacks of an ad hominem attack and address what people are actually saying rather than call them names, but it's useful to know what words can object to and which ones I just have to shut up and take.

Anyway, asked and answered, and added to the lexicon of freebies. Thanks for the clarification.

[kingrockwell]

or crybaby merely means you're being overly sensitive

Just want to note that telling someone they're being "overly sensitive" is usually a bad idea to begin with, especially in a calling-out situation.

[buttler]

As for "demanding," shemale asked me in the same way that moneyless_jew asked above, as a way of saying that I should put my cards on the table. Either both cases are demanding or neither are.

[freddylloyd]

I agree. I don't see how Shemale wasn't demanding Buttler reveal aspects of identity.

Shemale's question may have been a rhetorical tactic, but any equivalent question—e.g., in a political forum, "Are you even black, or are you just on the Tea Party payroll?"—would be immediately recognized as a demand that someone state personal information.

In the current community rules, there's no exception in rule #3 about protecting "our members' rights to privacy and control over their online identities." Since the moderators have said that they see no need to change that rule, I hope it will be applied.

[recognitions]

Oh yes, you've made your point very clear. You've just totally failed to give evidence to support it.

I'm not answering you because it's an absurd question, and completely misses my point.

[moneyless_jew]

I am Jack's utter lack of surprise.