White Supremacy thread

I strongly disagree that the White Supremacy thread has run its course simply because one poster is being disingenuous in his posting.
«1

Comments

  • Sometimes an individual sours a thread to the point where it's not easy to resurrect. That a thread has run it's course doesn't mean the subject has been talked out.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    My only additional thought is that the Admin ruling in total is subject to further Styx discussion and it seems prudent to leave the thread closed at least until that process is clearly complete.
  • TubbsTubbs Admin
    edited September 30
    Sometimes an individual sours a thread to the point where it's not easy to resurrect. That a thread has run it's course doesn't mean the subject has been talked out.

    Start a new thread and carry on the conversation.
  • None of that is immediately obvious, given the wording and past SOF hosting practice of closing respawning of threads that had been recently closed.
    If these comments are official, then we are good. Though I’ve still reservations about letting one bad apple ruin the batch
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    Hi,
    Epiphanies is a new board and we've never done the 'no respawning of closed thread' thing, neither was it done on the predecessor board Dead Horses, except in rare cases of spammers or crusaders who were posting multiple unwanted threads. In Epiphanies we encourage PM enquiries if people are unsure about anything. If you or any other poster is in doubt as to what a thread closure means - it's absolutely fine and welcome to ask. In this case, go ahead and start a new thread on the board if you'd like. You can use the same title -if you want, if you could maybe add on some -'part 2' or 'new thread' and feel free to link to any good posts on the closed thread or to quote them, just avoid the stuff the hosts have ruled out/ruled on adversely.
    Thanks.



  • RussRuss Shipmate
    I'm happy to leave things there if others are.

    But if anyone feels that they've been accused of something and been denied the chance to respond, it's only fair to give them that chance.

    Seems to me that the last few pages haven't added anything to our understanding of white supremacy, but have been about race issues in general.

    The discussion about what racism is and whether it's a thing at all ought to happen somewhere.

    But I understand if y'all think that Epiphanies isn't the right place.

    Could it be that the Hosts made a mistake in moving a discussion-in-progress to a different board and expecting the character of discussion to instantly change ? Moving the thread back to Purgatory is an option. But as I say I'm happy enough to let this one go and take up the underlying issue at a later date.

    Given wider concerns about polarisation and the internet being an echo-chamber, having a separate board where shared assumptions go unchallenged does not seem to me a positive move. But that's the Admins' call to make.

    I apologise if I was going on at too great a length. I'm arguing from a position that's very much in the minority. I'm kind of used to getting six different people disagree with me in six different ways, and it's tempting to try to respond to them all...


  • Russ wrote: »

    Given wider concerns about polarisation and the internet being an echo-chamber, having a separate board where shared assumptions go unchallenged does not seem to me a positive move.


    That's what it seems like to me, too, but I admit I not only don't fully understand what "Epiphanies," is trying to do, I also didn't quite understand what the original Purgatory thread was about. At first I thought it was inteneded to discuss groups like the KKK and Neo-Nazis, but it was --er -- something else.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    I won't answer for the Epiphanies hosts, but it wasn't that shared assumptions were going unchallenged. We ended up bogged down in the minutia of what racism might or might not be, rather than how best to challenge racism and racists, and confront white supremacy. Certainly for me, that was the opposite of useful, and against what I understand Epiphanies is for.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    The bog was one person. ONE. When walking, if one sees what looks like a bog, smells like a bog and feels like a bog; one can choose to enter, but risks getting stuck and muddy. There's heather, yes, this one to cover a bit, but it is thin enough to smell what's underneath.
    Bloody hell, we are giving bogs a bad name.
  • admin mode/

    @Russ for the avoidance of doubt, the warning you received in Epiphanies covers jerkish behaviour on all our forums.

    Including this one.

    In it, you were reminded that you could use the Styx to seek clarification of the ruling about you - not invited to deflect and waffle on here about the closure of the thread.

    Our message to you is that you are now very high on the admins' watchlist, and the above post is moving you up it.

    Everyone else, as a general reminder: do not feed the troll.

    /admin mode
  • This thread has been one of the most infuriating and difficult to approach because the topic is not only so important for this forum, but because it involves degrees of self-disclosure and self-awareness in what resisting racism and white white supremacist attitudes might mean and a steady sincere focus on understanding how white supremacist thinking is embedded in and supported by everyday casual racism.

    The natural development of such a thread should be moving towards what Doc Tor said: 'how best to challenge racism and racists, and confront white supremacy' -- but if certain assumptions are not shared, this isn't going to happen and I don't think Russ is the only poster who thinks 'if it's not the Klu Klux Klan, I don't know why it matters'.

  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    edited October 1
    Two thing is clear. Firstly a pattern of racism in posts makes anyone a Commandment 1 offender and will get any Shipmate warned, suspended or planked. And secondly, Admin are responsible for C1 judgements and disciplinary action.

    It follows from that standard that any discussion re racism here will not allow racist defences. It does not follow that there will be no need to clarify terms. But the recent ruling makes it clear that we will not allow such purported clarifications to obfuscate or derail discussions. As we believe happened on the Epiphanies thread.

    And certainly my aim as a Host in any future threads will be to help discussions go down the constructive road, while allowing vigorous discussion about how constructive various ideas may be.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    ... Two things are clear .... (sorry)
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited October 1
    How would people feel about me starting a new thread, with an amended list of starting assumptions ?
  • EutychusEutychus Admin
    edited October 1
    I think this and this answers that.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    MaryLouise wrote: »

    The natural development of such a thread should be moving towards what Doc Tor said: 'how best to challenge racism and racists, and confront white supremacy' -- but if certain assumptions are not shared, this isn't going to happen and I don't think Russ is the only poster who thinks 'if it's not the Klu Klux Klan, I don't know why it matters'.
    IMO, Russ is the only one who doesn’t appear to be engaging honestly. That said, one does need to be able to listen to progress and I do think there are people in the discussion that are capable of hearing better.

  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume that we are all people that are capable of hearing better. Again, kind of the point of the board.
  • If one poster is posting in undesired and inappropriate ways on the thread, is there a procedure to have that person not contribute to that thread? Not saying there should or shouldn't be in asking.
  • EutychusEutychus Admin
    edited October 1
    There is no such procedure as yet, but my personal takeaway is that Epiphanies tends to reveal more general jerkish behaviour that was previously below, or further below, the Crew radar.

    This finding may be based on identifying such behaviour in more than one individual, by the way.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume that we are all people that are capable of hearing better. Again, kind of the point of the board.
    Then what is the point of the trolling rules?
    At some point, behaviour trumps the remote possibility that particular people might actually hear.
  • And when the Crew deem that point has been reached, they intervene.
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    There is no such procedure as yet, but my personal takeaway is that Epiphanies tends to reveal more general jerkish behaviour that was previously below, or further below, the Crew radar.

    This finding may be based on identifying such behaviour in more than one individual, by the way.

    If that is their epiphany, then so be it.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume that we are all people that are capable of hearing better. Again, kind of the point of the board.
    Then what is the point of the trolling rules?
    At some point, behaviour trumps the remote possibility that particular people might actually hear.

    Speaking plainly, then. It's beholden on all contributors of good will to hear each other better. That includes me, and you.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    And when the Crew deem that point has been reached, they intervene.
    My earlier point was that it took very, very long. And part of that is to be expected. The "questions" Russ asks might seem more innocuous if one shares them or is not as affected by them.
    As I've mentioned, I am very short. Some of my friends are very, very tall. We tease each other,* but I do try to be aware that they have been bullied for their height and try to not exceed their boundaries of comfort. But sometimes I fail, because I do not see through their eyes. I want to be sensitive, I make the effort to do so, but it is human to miss the target sometimes.

    However, whilst I understand why the Crew has taken longer than I think they should, I am no less frustrated by it. Roman Lion was less harmful because he was more obvious. And that has been much of the point of the thread Russ killed.

    *Mostly, I poke fun at my size, using their size to do it.
  • I made a thread, I hope it captures the frame within which we'd like to discuss these issues. But the OP could be edited if not.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    I think the history of this website is that Admin generally take a long time to judge that someone is incorrigible. Personally, I think that is a good thing. YMMV.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    [you could use the Styx to seek clarification of the ruling about you - not invited to deflect and waffle on here about the closure of the thread.

    Some clarification would be helpful, thank you. I have no wish to disrupt the smooth running of the Ship.

    (Being "unrestful" in terms of challenging the coherence of narratives that are prevalent in the world today is something else. That's part of the Ship's mission. I'm sure you get the difference. I try to be co-operative in the running of our voyage here, and personally polite to those on board. There are people with whom that's harder - you're not usually one of them).

    So in the interest of avoiding future recurrence of present friction, let's clarify.

    At the point where the thread closed, I thought I was putting forward three beliefs:

    - a belief in objective reality; that facts aren't any more or less true because of what we feel about them.

    - a belief that the term "racism" has multiple related meanings and does not refer to a single concept that a scientifically-minded person would recognise as having explanatory power

    - a belief that condemning white supremacism is easy and uncontroversial but doing anything effective requires understanding of causes and effects.

    I understand that this isn't the place to argue for or against these points. I'm asking, as a point of clarification, whether your objection is to the content of these beliefs ?

    Or is it that you think I'm expressing them badly or aggressively or pedantically or some other matter of style ?

    Or just on the wrong board ?


  • EutychusEutychus Admin
    edited October 1
    The practice of sealioning has been mentioned. You could start by summarising what you understand by it in the light of that link, and offer your assessment of whether your posts qualify and why (or why not). Including the one above this one.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    I think the history of this website is that Admin generally take a long time to judge that someone is incorrigible. Personally, I think that is a good thing. YMMV.
    Not being hasty is a good thing.
    Despite my apprehensions about Epiphanies at its outset, if it brings to light how such behaviour is more damaging than unrestful, it is a good thing.
    My point about Russ' posting history is more about not seeing this as a first offence, even though it might be a first official infraction.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    My point about Russ' posting history is more about not seeing this as a first offence, even though it might be a first official infraction.

    If you think the Crew view this as Russ' first questionable action, you must think us all saintly in our interpretations.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    RooK wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    My point about Russ' posting history is more about not seeing this as a first offence, even though it might be a first official infraction.

    If you think the Crew view this as Russ' first questionable action, you must think us all saintly in our interpretations.
    I think Russ' behaviour should have had him banned and long ago at that. I also think Roman Lion got waaaaaay more time than he deserved and I don't think there is even one member of the crew who failed realise he was deliberately stirring the pot.
    So, some of this is going to be different levels of tolerance, to be sure.
    Given the discussion surrounding the Transphobia thread that initiated Epiphanies, it is not an unfair assumption to think that awareness mightn't have always been at its peak on certain issues.
    But, fair enough, perhaps I am wrong and you all have Russ' dialled in and now that everyone is getting up to speed on sealioning and is aware that he does it, all will good.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    @Louise
    Not contemptuous, frustrated. At least in that last post to Eliab. I am curious as to 'the temperature-raising pattern of posting' as the only person on that thread for whom I feel contempt, is Russ.* And I have mostly ignored his posts.
    In fairness, you cannot see my intent, so phrasing matters. As I have not been posting with contempt on that thread or the White Supremacy thread to my recollection, I am curious as to what it is you see.

    *I was also dismissive of SirPalomides comment.
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    Swearing often works as an intensifier, so if a post is taking no prisoners already and it gets added swearwords, it comes across as more hostile or as showing contempt for the poster being addressed, making the thread a more hostile environment for other people to contribute - and not necessarily just the person that post was aimed at.

    It also makes people more likely to reply heatedly and so ratchets up...

    I saw examples of this both on both the new White supremacy thread and the old one and on the Evangelicals and non binary thread. Having the opportunity of a new thread on an important subject, I'd like it to be a better space for people to share personal things like lived experience.

    It's also not a good precedent to set - we had a previous poster who simply could not discuss anything to do with gay rights without treating us all to his pet obscene description of anal sex which was designed to be reductive and contemptuous. I don't want someone sharing on a sensitive subject like racism or sexual orientation or personal faith and then getting sworn to because swearing's always allowed, right? I don't want someone who is maybe working up the courage to share on something raw and personal thinking 'Ooh er... is that what goes on here? If I share is someone else going to come along and flame me like that?' It's a difficult balance to get, and being sweary at people is a fairly obvious thing to dial down.

    Just dial it back a wee bit and remember if you really find someone to be an irritant and get frustrated then there's the Hell board for a good cathartic vent.


  • @lilbuddha the Epiphanies guidelines apply to everyone, not just those you see as the Russes of this world, or all those you believe to be bigots.

    The thread that you complained about being closed was restarted with the Crew's encouragement and authorisation, to try and get things going again on a more reasoned basis, and you are the very first respondent. In your very next post, your very first word is "Bullshit". In its own way, and as @Louise has explained, this is also disruptive, and especially so in Epiphanies. You don't seem to see that.

    You are also fully entitled to disagree and complain, but that entitlement doesn't extend to a free pass to relentlessly trash the Crew for that decision thereafter just because we don't have the same yardstick as you, or to be exempt from our rules.

    Simply put, it's not just @Russ whose behaviour needs to adjust to be acceptable.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    I've typed and retyped, thought and rethought my response. And I am still a little nonplussed
    It is not that I do not understand the idea of setting a tone. But it is a tad ironic to get told off for swearing to the straight, white men. It is both amusing and frustrating.
    So I'm still thinking it through.

    Did manage at least this much coherence:
    Just dial it back a wee bit and remember if you really find someone to be an irritant and get frustrated then there's the Hell board for a good cathartic vent.
    I'm all for a square go or, hell, even me against the world. But a fight isn't what I'm after.
    And I'm learning that a fight isn't catharsis for anger, so much as reinforcement of it. I've a heavy bag that weighs more than me that I bought for that very purpose, all to find out it feeds the anger instead of dissipating it. So it is still a workout for me, but just a workout.

    Not foreswearing Hell, but it is not for everything.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    it is a tad ironic to get told off for swearing to the straight, white men

    I think I hear you comprehending how "fighting the good fight" is more about the fighting than doing any good. Maybe we could all try becoming the change that we say we want to see, and treat each other as just people first and foremost and not stereotypical generalizations.
  • EliabEliab Shipmate, Purgatory Host
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    @Louise
    Not contemptuous, frustrated. At least in that last post to Eliab

    I generally appreciate your engagement with my posts. I’m often challenged by it, and where I still end up disagreeing, I have a much clearer idea what the other side thinks, why they think it, and why I disagree.

    You are quite welcome to express frustration at me (in your view) not getting it, or showing a personal bias or agenda, or whatever. I don’t mind that. But I am a bit odd.


    If that style of engagement is out of place in Epiphanies, I’d be happy to respond to frustrated, sweary and (hopefully) constructive comments in Hell. I won’t take it personally and I’ll still like you.

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    But it is a tad ironic to get told off for swearing to the straight, white men.

    You're not being told off for swearing to straight white men. Your attention is being drawn to how swearing and extreme language unproductively raises the temperature, irrespective of the object of that language.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    But it is a tad ironic to get told off for swearing to the straight, white men.

    You're not being told off for swearing to straight white men. Your attention is being drawn to how swearing and extreme language unproductively raises the temperature, irrespective of the object of that language.

    Just because someone says they're something doesn't make it true. As we're online, no one knows who they're talking too (or swearing at).
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    But it is a tad ironic to get told off for swearing to the straight, white men.

    It is a tad ironic that I am not white. And everything you post about this screams "white savior complex."

  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    But it is a tad ironic to get told off for swearing to the straight, white men.

    You're not being told off for swearing to straight white men. Your attention is being drawn to how swearing and extreme language unproductively raises the temperature, irrespective of the object of that language.
    You missed the part where I said I get that. It is still an ironic thing.
  • And we all live with that kind of irony, in different areas of our lives, every day. It's no excuse for not following the rules here.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    RooK wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    it is a tad ironic to get told off for swearing to the straight, white men

    I think I hear you comprehending how "fighting the good fight" is more about the fighting than doing any good.
    I do not think it is, not even for me. What I am saying is that
    RooK wrote: »
    Maybe we could all try becoming the change that we say we want to see, and treat each other as just people first and foremost and not stereotypical generalizations.

  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    And we all live with that kind of irony, in different areas of our lives, every day. It's no excuse for not following the rules here.
    There is no rule against swearing in Epiphanies. I accept Louise' guidance, but following the rules I was indeed.
  • The Guidelines for Epiphanies state that amongst other things, it is not intended to "be a pillory". That covers inflammatory language.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    The Guidelines for Epiphanies state that amongst other things, it is not intended to "be a pillory". That covers inflammatory language.
    Pillory is a pretty wild interpretation there, lad and it is not part of Louise' post.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    But it is a tad ironic to get told off for swearing to the straight, white men.

    It is a tad ironic that I am not white.
    It is a bit. Your comment to which I replied with naughty words is no less wrong for that.
    And everything you post about this screams "white savior complex."
    This is hilarious.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    edited October 2
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    What I am saying is that
    RooK wrote: »
    Maybe we could all try becoming the change that we say we want to see, and treat each other as just people first and foremost and not stereotypical generalizations.

    What an excellent idea. Why don't you try that?
  • lilbuddha, if I was warned that I sounded as though I had a "white saviour complex", especially by a person of colour, I would take that warning seriously. Over the years I have had comments like that; I don't think they were all correct, but I took them seriously as I don't always know how I come across to others.
Sign In or Register to comment.