Discussion on sexism

Apologies – I did promise a response, and it took me longer to get back to this thread in any meaningful form than I expected. A couple of things I'd like to address first:

pwurple wrote: »

I think i've been told to "stop it" here a couple of times now, including by an admin, and even as OP I've contributed fewer words than most.

No. I asked you to stop with the exaggerated hyperbole, which was quantifiable, and had arisen on more than one occasion in the thread. At no point were you asked to curb your opinion, but excellent case in point where meaning can often be inferred by the reader rather than stated by the poster.

Secondly, and maybe it’s a poor choice of wording on the posters’ part, but a line of questioning has developed here of posters effectively demanding a detailed report of site operations from date XX to date YY. I am happy to provide insights into how the site works to the best of my ability, but this is not an oversight committee and I will not be interacting with the thread as if it were.






With respect to the OP’s question:

First off, I do feel that the thread was predicated somewhat on a loaded question, of “what is the justification for tolerance of this standard of posting towards women?” and presenting people with an 'another fine example...' – an example that turned out, somewhat unfortunately for the OP, to be one of the more well managed mod responses to a thread that had gone off the rails somewhat. The example if anything proved that moderators do take such posts seriously, and action them in accordance with Boards’ ethos towards such bigotry.

That’s not feedback – it’s a line of questioning that only limits direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda, and presenting people with the binary choice between "you tolerate sexist comments or you don’t” is disingenuous in that it doesn’t allow for true discussion of the topic without implicitly falling into the camp of “so you tolerate <insert -ism here>” unless you agree wholeheartedly with the OP, and such discussion never ends well for anybody. It also to a degree embodies some of the root causes of the issues the thread wishes to explore, which may become clear later.

To the broader topic at hand, as to whether Boards is blindly tolerant of sexism, misogyny, racism, etc. I am going to plagiarize myself to a large degree here, as I have posted elsewhere on the site regarding this topic, and much what I said there applies here too. I am also going to preface by post by stating that what I am about to say is not going to make everybody happy, particularly those who are demanding protocols and bright line rules that every moderator should know and apply without question, and that every poster should follow.

You are more than aware that Boards endeavours to be an inclusive space, and the core rule of “don’t be a dick” very much applies here. And for what it's worth, I don't think anybody here (or in previous threads for that matter) ever claimed that 'everything's fine'. To a large degree, Boards reflects our society. Today we are in an increasingly tribal, unceasingly warring culture. People don’t discuss or debate in good faith, they decry, they demand, they assault. Marginalised groups often get caught in the crossfire. Much of this is played out on the forums, and it makes for hard going.

And this is where the issue lies – if Boards is a reflection of our society, then the assumption of Boards (or *any* discussion forum) being a “safe space” as a whole is a fallacy – society as it stands is not a safe space where no matter what is said, nobody will be offended, and as such, any discussion forum will mirror that to some degree. There certainly are safe spaces within the site itself where rules are extremely specific, but much of the site is a place where many points of view get discussed, and as such, comes with the same inherent difficulties when it comes to walking the lines between the spectrum of opinions that exist between “acceptable to all”, up to “stupid and/or ignorant” and onwards towards “offensive, regardless of how politely/civilly it’s couched.” The issue then becomes one of where mods draw the line, how bright that line is, and how broad that line is with respect to mod discretion in its interpretation and application.

The ‘policy’ is, and always has been, “don’t be a dick”, and we do assume (in some cases, perhaps erroneously so) that most of you are reasonable human beings who have something meaningful to bring to a conversation and that you will do so within the rules of each forum area, which are not the same from forum to forum. We still hold out hope that we can discuss damn near anything and everything, that has been our intent from day one here.

However, for those of you asking for more granular rules and a bulletpoint list of what is forbidden and what is not, it doesn’t exist, and that is intentional.

Fuzzy rules (embodied by “don’t be a dick”) are a feature, not a bug, and my experience on the site is that bright, well-demarcated lines (and by extension, bright, well-demarcated cards) are most often used by posters to find how close one can come to that line without crossing and will open up a whole new world of rules lawyering. Too many people make a game out of walking the edge of civility or of crossing that line entirely and then arguing technicalities in an effort to justify themselves. I prefer fuzzy lines to encourage posters to not test limits.

That does not mean that there isn’t much that needs adjusting here, or that forum caretakers – Mods, CMods, Admins, Community Managers – have a laissez faire attitude towards prejudices in all its forms, but it’s not a binary problem with a singular solution where, any more than in society itself, all forms of offense have been stamped out with the passing of a new law and a wave of the hand.

There are clearly posters here who delight in misogyny/sexism/racism and who will enjoy finding ways around the rules or dancing right up to any lines that are drawn. Then though, there is a whole other layer of posters who are just oblivious to the bigotry that exists here at times, and I’m sure I can include myself in that group on occasion. There is also a layer of posters who through their lack of personal experience with a particular form of bigotry see humour or display insensitivity where others don’t, another layer of posters who through their own personal experience are acutely attuned to the dogwhistles that others don’t hear. And yet another layer of posters who are seemingly triggered by any allusion to any potentially sensitive topic. This thread in itself proves that point, with posters from all genders, walks of life and points of view interpreting the intent behind certain statements in very different ways.

FWIW, I’m saddened by the existence of true bigots on the site as well, and I have no desire to encounter more of them here than I already do in my daily life. However, if I accept that bigots exist here, I also must accept that posters from all other tiers described above also exist, and acceptance of that leaves us with very little choice but to apply benefit of the doubt and taking the time to sort one from the other unless we really do want to create a virtual gated community.

If a virtual gated community is not what we want, then it begs the question, what is discussion about? Is its purpose to have our individual injuries validated or measured up against each other? Or to better understand each other bidirectionally and have our own understandings challenged and tested? To reduce our own ignorance?

If the former then sure, there is no need for civility, and we will end up only in echo chamber rooms of self-affirmation. If the latter then IMHO civility, and benefit of the doubt, matters. Posters with a poor ability to discuss racist and sexist topics does not make us “the place for sexists and racists.” Neither does it make us “racists and sexists.” And simply responding to the shrillest voice in the room and actioning posts on their say so isn’t conducive with that. Fuzzy rules, and mod discretion, and allowing mods to sometimes let a thread play out a little to see the intent behind it, or even make the wrong call sometimes, are the only ways to ensure that.

Does all of the above mean that everything is fine? Of course not. Society as a whole is not fine and it stands to reason that this is carried into the forums. That’s messed up and we’re all to blame. A set of directives from the office or admin, more bright line rules isn't going to change that. The core rule of 'don't be a dick' still applies, and it's up to us to apply it. We can make things better. It might not be exactly the place you personally envision 100% because we cannot be all things to all people. But we can and should make room for everybody. I'm just not convinced that this thread is an example of how to do it.

Everyone needs to be less judgmental, less aggressive, less inclined to condemn – in this thread and on the site as a whole. There needs to be genuine social discourse. The entire idea about this place to begin with was that this would be a place where we could talk about damn near everything. More and more it’s a place where we can’t talk about anything.

As I mentioned in the beginning, many will likely not be content with that answer. Some will see my post as a passive-aggressive attempt to pass the buck instead of taking a long hard look at what isn’t working and why. I don’t see it as such. But I do think (and this is my personal viewpoint, not site policy) that we can be an echo chamber, or we can be a place for sexists and racists to either become less ignorant or slowly fade away. I feel the latter is what we are doing now. It’s certainly a lengthy process with a lot of pushback and shouting down from posters entrenched on either side of the divide, and both 'sides' can have their fair share of angry, intolerant, entitled people. Is the solution immediate? No. Do we always get it right? Most certainly not. Change comes slowly when it comes to entrenched points of view, but that's an issue as old as society itself, not a construct specific to Boards. I do feel that the site is changing and growing in this direction. I'm not saying for a moment that it's okay for anyone to be harassed or abused, or to feel like they have to hide themselves away - it's not. But I do think there's a failure to recognise that progress is always slow, and trying to rush or force that isn't the right way to go about it either.

What needs to change aren’t the rules, but the culture, and we can’t get there overnight. And we can’t get there unless everyone does their part. Be an active force for better; model the attitudes and behavior you want to see here. I believe good content has the potential to drive out the bad. This change comes from all of us.

Thanks Tokyo, very fair and balanced response that addresses all the issues raised in a non-emotive, non-judgemental manner.

Probably the most comprehensive reply I have seen by a Mod/Admin, taking account of all sides of the debate and the inherent issues.

Thanks Tokyo.

Tokyo wrote: »

Please don't.

While someone quitting the site due to the response they received is certainly not the desired or expected outcome, commentary on the poster's motivations once they have done so serves no positive purpose either. I don't take any pleasure from the fact that the poster quit rather than debate the content of my post.

That's a fairer comment than mine.
But my point through this entire discussion has been to engage, to confront the misanthropes or "wrong" thinkers and to highlight why I believed they are wrong and to try and at least broaden perspective if not change minds.

The poster that left was asked to provide examples of policies and strategies they would like to see put in place, and lied about providing them.
I'm all for debate, it is the cornerstone of any good forum and should be robustly defended.

The point I tried to make in my earlier post was that rather than debate, to raise questions, concerns or objections to your post.
The poster quit and called those not agreeing with their position bigots.
It really was a childish act and does their position zero benefit.