Is ableism fine in Epiphanies?

13»

Comments

  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    I see everyone’s comments about ridiculous and hateful views taking root and spreading because of the Internet, and I would like to say that I think people are ignoring that most of the liberal ideas generally espoused by people on these boards were promulgated successfully by the free discourse of the Internet.

    The full range of gender identities and sexualities that are now regarded as legitimate by many, many people in the West were fostered by the Internet. Does that mean we get incels and red pill freaks? Yes. But that’s the corollary of enabling some people to have the language and concepts to identify as genderqueer polyamorous (or what have you) people.

    Amti-vaxxers and lizard people conspiracies are insane and dumb, but people my age are overwhelmingly politically left and very serious about climate change and the evils of capitalism. Radical free speech means we get dumb ideas that have to be dealt with, but it also means that good ideas are allowed to flourish to the point where they are regarded as commonplace.
  • ECraigR wrote: »
    I see everyone’s comments about ridiculous and hateful views taking root and spreading because of the Internet, and I would like to say that I think people are ignoring that most of the liberal ideas generally espoused by people on these boards were promulgated successfully by the free discourse of the Internet.

    The full range of gender identities and sexualities that are now regarded as legitimate by many, many people in the West were fostered by the Internet. Does that mean we get incels and red pill freaks? Yes. But that’s the corollary of enabling some people to have the language and concepts to identify as genderqueer polyamorous (or what have you) people.

    Amti-vaxxers and lizard people conspiracies are insane and dumb, but people my age are overwhelmingly politically left and very serious about climate change and the evils of capitalism. Radical free speech means we get dumb ideas that have to be dealt with, but it also means that good ideas are allowed to flourish to the point where they are regarded as commonplace.

    I think you'll that LGBT folk mostly thrive on the internet in spaces they create themselves and from which they systematically exclude bigots.
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    I think it's entirely possible, and reasonable, to have a dispassionate discussion that includes concern for human suffering.

    I fear from long experience that people (in general) kid themselves about this, and that the more privileged the group we are in, the easier that is to do. One person's 'dispassionate discussion' is all too easily for another person 'but why would you object to being spat at in the face when it's done so politely and reasonably? Why do you insist on getting so emotional!' I think if people want to have hard core stuff like holocaust denial and infanticide (which dehumanises from the get-go - there's no non-dehumanising versions of these topics) then they probably need to go in Hell only, which is a board where 'people who don't want to be exposed to that don't have to go there'
  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Circus Host, 8th Day Host
    Louise wrote: »
    For over a decade Dead Horses was for most of its existence 'hosting lite' and so very maximally free speech and as a result led to people being subjected to episodes of what we might dub the 'Colin Smith Effect' over and over again - though in those days it was usually horrible views about gay people.

    True, but it had the benefit that that stuff was corralled in DH, and people who didn't want to be exposed to that didn't have to go there.

    Epiphanies is avoidable as well if one feels so inclined. I generally tread very carefully around abortion threads because they have the potential to trigger me up the wazoo and I haven't been reading the one in question because I am fairly sure it would upset me. In the unlikely event that I was invited to host Epiphanies, I would decline, precisely because I wouldn't put myself in a position where I had no choice but to read those threads.
  • ECraigR wrote: »
    I see everyone’s comments about ridiculous and hateful views taking root and spreading because of the Internet, and I would like to say that I think people are ignoring that most of the liberal ideas generally espoused by people on these boards were promulgated successfully by the free discourse of the Internet.

    The full range of gender identities and sexualities that are now regarded as legitimate by many, many people in the West were fostered by the Internet. Does that mean we get incels and red pill freaks? Yes. But that’s the corollary of enabling some people to have the language and concepts to identify as genderqueer polyamorous (or what have you) people.

    Amti-vaxxers and lizard people conspiracies are insane and dumb, but people my age are overwhelmingly politically left and very serious about climate change and the evils of capitalism. Radical free speech means we get dumb ideas that have to be dealt with, but it also means that good ideas are allowed to flourish to the point where they are regarded as commonplace.
    What Arethosemyfeet said. There is a difference between things existing on the internet and allowing them into our spaces.
  • Epiphanies is avoidable as well if one feels so inclined.

    It is, of course, but the intent of Epiphanies was to provide a more equitable framework, where people who were the object of such discussions wouldn't feel pilloried and piled on in the way that happened in some of the DH threads. IOW, if people in general from group X feel they have to avoid Epiphanies discussions about group X, then Epiphanies isn't really doing its job.
  • ECraigR wrote: »
    Right. Well this is the third or fourth time since the Epiphanies boards were created that some sort of big snaffoo has erupted. I vote on packing up Epiphanies as a failed experiment and moving on.

    You imply any new thing must get it right quickly and suffer no difficulties and require no adjustments to be deemed good. I say poppycock.
    ECraigR wrote: »
    I agree that certain ideas have no intellectual standing, and I sympathize with your position on holocaust deniers. However, denying holocaust deniers and similar ideas of worthless provenance the ability to express their ideas feed that the narrative they subscribe to, which holds that they, holocaust deniers and their ilk, are seeing clearly whilst all of us who deny the validity of such an idea are not seeing clearly. It's a clever rhetorical and belief-status trick, but it's one I think should be confronted head-on and full-throatedly. It will not die if it is simply relegated to the dustbin by shadowy powers deciding right and wrong ideas.

    Holocaust denialism is not made stronger by winning arguments and not made weaker by losing arguments. It is made stronger by exposure. The less exposure it, and its various component ideas, receives, the less cancerous will be its growth. We may not be able to stop or reverse it, but let us please not hasten its enlargement.
  • I am hearing people talk as if we on the Ship we're in immediate and ongoing critical danger of turning into the cesspools that Youtube or op ed comment pools are. I do not see this at all. We have one poster whose views are ... well, simply dreadful. But that's one,who is already receiving major blowback for his views (and shows not the least sign of gaining converts). We've had twenty years of success at not turning into a cesspool, using the various forms of resistance and censure presently available. What has changed that we no longer think those methods and resources are adequate? Do you really expect to visit this forum tomorrow and suddenly the place is crammed stem to stern with Nazis, incels, the KKK, child molesters and the like? Louise refers to people taking daily shits on our tables, but I'm not seeing that at all. In fact, if anything, I'd say we are having difficulty getting perfectly ordinary new people to consider taking a seat at our normally clean tables at all. Anyone know what our new member stats look like?

    I feel like I'm watching a cytokine storm, where the Ship's immune system has gotten so hair-trigger and overreactive in response to a single poster that we're in danger of losing the life of the Ship itself.
  • I don't generally agree with Lamb Chopped, but I think she has the right of it this time. Do we really want the ship to have a list of subjects that may not be discussed?
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    edited August 2020
    I was talking about what happens on boards that aren't like ours but where the thinking prevails that 'intellectual no holds barred' discourse is all one needs to see off the list of examples including Holocaust denial which Goperryrevs gave. I absolutely don't share that opinion, (which was how I read ECraigR). I think the rules here, the board structure and the moderation are essential to avoiding the kind of problems I've seen elsewhere. Hence my question to other people in that post as to what about the current system they saw as not working?
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    (Missed the edit window- the advent of big social media probably has more to do with footfall on the boards than anything we're posting or not posting. Boards like this are a bit of internet history these days even if some of us still love them)
  • Louise wrote: »
    (Missed the edit window- the advent of big social media probably has more to do with footfall on the boards than anything we're posting or not posting. Boards like this are a bit of internet history these days even if some of us still love them)

    Yes and no. There are still some very large sites with strong moderation (stronger than the ship's in some cases) that use a forum structure. Ravelry and RPGnet spring to mind. I suspect that the threshold for visibility and hence sustainability is higher than it once was, so smaller sites like the ship get squeezed.
  • goperryrevsgoperryrevs Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    @Lamb Chopped, I understand and respect that, and agree in principle that free debate and discussion are really important aspects of the Ship that I don’t want to see lost - I too don’t want moderation that is too heavy.

    However, in this specific case, it’s a simple case of consistency on the -isms. We don’t tolerate sexism, racism or homophobia. It’s our first commandment here. Why should ableism be any different?*

    Advocating that people can be killed just because they are disabled is one of the most extreme examples of ableism around, and much less subtle than what often gets through society’s filters.

    * @Doublethink’s mention of the Overton window got me thinking about this. Sadly, ableism is acceptable in society in all sorts of ways. The question then is, do we as the Ship want to follow the curve or be ahead of it in terms of progressive equality. As in, society has its Overton window, and the Ship has its own different one. How closely aligned do we think they should be? The creation of Epiphanies is great, in that it suggests that we as a community want to be more progressive than the world at large.
  • @goperryrevs
    Except that I never advocated that people can be killed just because they are disabled or even got close to that. Your twisting what I said to make it sound like I approve of murdering everyone in a wheelchair.

    I know this thread is about how to organise boards on the ship rather than rehashing the argument that started but don't distort the argument out of all recognition.
  • @Colin Smith, I've responded in the Hell thread, as there are times that it's hard to separate argument from policy discussion, and although part of my post deals with policy, the bulk deals with the argument.
  • @Colin Smith, I've responded in the Hell thread, as there are times that it's hard to separate argument from policy discussion, and although part of my post deals with policy, the bulk deals with the argument.

    That is sensible.
  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    Louise wrote: »
    I was talking about what happens on boards that aren't like ours but where the thinking prevails that 'intellectual no holds barred' discourse is all one needs to see off the list of examples including Holocaust denial which Goperryrevs gave. I absolutely don't share that opinion, (which was how I read ECraigR). I think the rules here, the board structure and the moderation are essential to avoiding the kind of problems I've seen elsewhere. Hence my question to other people in that post as to what about the current system they saw as not working?


    My comments were initially meant within the context of this website, which has good and appropriate methods for ensuring good debate and I don't believe needs any others. We did move into a more abstract terrain, and I understand both mousethief's and lilbuddha's comments, but disagree. I also think that arethosemyfeet's comment misses what I meant, which is just that the presence of the free exchange of ideas on the internet allowed for lgbtq people to carve out space for themselves after helping to establish the legitimacy, both morally and psychologically, of lgbtq people.

    I am quite cognizant of the dangers of misinformation and what Louise described as a libertarian approach to free speech. (That's also the only time I, a person who is far-left politically but far-right religiously, have been described as a libertarian. I got a tickle out of that.) My comments, though, were ultimately intended for an environment of the sort on this website, as I really have no idea what to do with the Internet as a whole. I'm quite torn about that problem. Suffice it to say, as a librarian I'm required to supply the best quality information available to people who are seeking it, regardless of partisan differences. In that instance, I act as a kind of moderator, so some moderation is clearly required. I think the moderation and mechanisms in place currently here are sufficient.
  • admin announcement/

    In the light of comments on this thread, and other discussions backstage, we're giving some additional powers to Epiphanies hosts: they can now instruct posters whose contributions are deemed to be persistently unhelpful or dehumanizing to cease and desist from posting on a given topic.

    If needs be, admins may enforce this instruction by removing a poster's ability to post in Epiphanies.

    To make sure this is clear to everyone going forward, we've amended Epiphanies Guideline 3, which now reads as follows (new text in bold):
    3. This forum will be more closely hosted than the rest of the Ship. For example: Some phrases or sources may be ruled off limits on a particular thread if they are seen as unhelpful or dehumanizing. Circular discussions may be closed. Tangents redirected. Hosts here may instruct persistently offensive posters to cease and desist; admins may revoke posting privileges for Epiphanies.

    Note that Guideline 2, which states that Epiphanies "will be allowed to reflect all widely held views, even if they are considered offensive by some", remains unchanged, however.

    We're trying to strike a balance here; hopefully we won't have recourse to these new powers too often, but they are now in place.

    /admin announcement
  • I think it's really excellent the way the Ship deals with such tricky issues and flexes and adapts and the Hosts and Admins do a hugely responsible and difficult job. I've read this thread with interest but all I can add is my gratitude for those dealing with such difficult stuff.
  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    What constitutes widespread views? Colin Smith’s views are widespread, even if most people wouldn’t talk about them as such. His views have also been practiced since ancient times, with the Ancient Greeks engaging in what they called exposure to eliminate children deemed insufficient.

    Furthermore, if you arrive at views deemed offensive because of life experienced, are you just supposed to keep that shit to yourself? And what’s deemed offensive? Leaving it to ad hoc judgment seems too vague.
  • ECraigR wrote: »
    What constitutes widespread views? Colin Smith’s views are widespread, even if most people wouldn’t talk about them as such. His views have also been practiced since ancient times, with the Ancient Greeks engaging in what they called exposure to eliminate children deemed insufficient.

    Furthermore, if you arrive at views deemed offensive because of life experienced, are you just supposed to keep that shit to yourself? And what’s deemed offensive? Leaving it to ad hoc judgment seems too vague.

    The vagueness is a feature, not a bug. It allows us to decide on a case-by-case basis, which may rule in some of the views that might otherwise be ruled out, as opposed to vice versa.

    (Discussions as to what the Ancient Greeks did are unhelpful. They're not here, neither are Moloch worshippers or devotees of the Aztec Sun god.)
  • I still don’t see how advocating for the freedom to kill someone, on the basis of a protected characteristic (as defined by the 2010 Equality Act), is not hate speech. Also, if it is hate speech, is that not a legal risk to the ship as a publisher ?
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    I agree. I can't imagine how this could be allowed. Is this now open season on the Ship to advocate the death of members of any defined group?
  • In particular: https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/file/7226/download?token=enEuxZxq

    Page 17:

    “Freedom of expression applies to online media in much the same way as it does to print media. In particular, website owners are free to decide for themselves which material they wish to publish and it is not a breach of freedom of expression for a website to moderate comments in order to remove material which might prove offensive. However, care should be taken not to do this in a discriminatory manner (for example, by removing racist language except when it relates to Gypsies and Travellers).”
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    ...advocating for the freedom to kill someone...

    The point being that such discussion you point to will be dehumanizing by its very nature, and is not considered appropriate for Epiphanies in general. The need to explore the bleeding edge of such concepts would need to be wrangled elsewhere - if at all.
  • I am arguing, that for the reasons identified in my last two posts - it is a problem on *any* board on SoF.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    That would seem to me to be a separate discussion.

    On this thread we are facing the immediate need for establishing modal boundaries in Epiphanies. This is due to the newness of Epiphanies, and the modulation it may need for optimization for both Hosting and participation.

    Generalized legal considerations for the entire board seem to me too big of an ask to annex to this discussion. Especially considering that they are not new, and remain contentious. Please create a new thread if you want to hash it out - in the Styx if official board response is desired, in Purgatory if you want to explore the philosophical extrapolations, or in Hell if someone's metaphorical goat has been gotten.

    Thanks,
    -RooK
    Styx Host
  • Way back on page 1 in relation to whether specific topics would be banned, this was said
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    We don't have a specific policy on every contentious issue that might come up, so this might take some time - how other shipmates might feel in discussing these matters in the general, in the specific, and whether there are legal lines we absolutely must not cross (UK law - both England and Wales, and Scottish).
    We are aware that discussing some issues would be potential legal minefields, and therefore not possible to discuss anywhere on the Ship without very careful thought about how to do so avoiding the legal problems.
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    I think even if you want to be dismissive of Doublethink's argument that it should be Ship wide his arguments should have some weight in relation to Epiphanies. Frankly, I think the few words that the powers that be are adding to the Epiphanies' guidelines is in reality no change at all.
  • I don't think RooK was dismissive of Doublethink's argument. He said that a thread specifically about Epiphanies isn't the right place for a discussion of ship-wide policies, and invited DT to start another. That's not dismissive, that's just explicating the way that Styx threads work.
  • I have started another thread in Styx
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Caissa wrote: »
    I think even if you want to be dismissive of Doublethink's argument that it should be Ship wide his arguments should have some weight in relation to Epiphanies.

    As RooK said: "The point being that such discussion you point to will be dehumanizing by its very nature, and is not considered appropriate for Epiphanies in general."
    Frankly, I think the few words that the powers that be are adding to the Epiphanies' guidelines is in reality no change at all.

    Why is that?
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    Because it only leads to action against "persistently offensive posters". By calling the advocacy of infanticide simple "offensive", it legitimizes the dehumanization of a group of individuals. We all know that dehumanization is a textbook step on the road to genocide.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Caissa wrote: »
    Because it only leads to action against "persistently offensive posters". By calling the advocacy of infanticide simple "offensive", it legitimizes the dehumanization of a group of individuals. We all know that dehumanization is a textbook step on the road to genocide.

    Then you should be relieved to hear that the updated remit for Epiphanies Hosts empowers them to immediately forestall any dehumanizing posting. An additional potential tool is to revoke some poster's ability to participate in Epiphanies if they demonstrate an inability to stay within the rules.
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    Yes, but no penalty is imposed unless the behaviour is "persistent".
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Caissa wrote: »
    Because it only leads to action against "persistently offensive posters".
    I doubt the hosts are going to let offensive posters persist for very long.
    By calling the advocacy of infanticide simple "offensive", it legitimizes the dehumanization of a group of individuals. We all know that dehumanization is a textbook step on the road to genocide.
    Guideline 3 doesn't mention infanticide. It rules out dehumanization altogether.
  • Caissa wrote: »
    Yes, but no penalty is imposed unless the behaviour is "persistent".

    If a poster is told "don't do that here" and says "sorry, OK", what sanction do you think appropriate?
Sign In or Register to comment.