BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


A Thread to Challenge Racist Comments?

 
 
Z. deScathach
11:01 / 14.12.04
Just recently Haus and I were having an interchange on the , "So, if we're banning antisemites...." thread, in which ze challenged me to get the ball rolling on a thread to politely challenge racist and similarly hurtful or insensitive comments. It can be found here. Truthfully, I'm not sure that such a thread is a good idea. It may stir up un-necessary arguement and divisiveness,(shoot, I don't think that's a word...). On the other hand, it could contain arguements about such things to a single thread, rather then having them spread out all over the place. Personally, I think it could be a great boon, or a powderkeg...... Also, I am curious to see what Tom thinks of it. So I present the idea for your perusal. The proposal: A thread in which insensitive comments of a group hatred variety can be posted and challenged, hopefully politely. Should we do it? Will it be more trouble than what it's worth? What should be it's parameters? It's limits? Why am I not outright starting it? 1. I think that it's potentially explosive, and as such is deserved of discussion. 2. I'm chicken. But if the consensus seems to be that it would be a good idea, I'll start it, and risk going down in infamy.... Err, just as long as I get a guarantee of immunity for opening Pandora's Box.....
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:19 / 14.12.04
Actually, I was suggesting that you help to contribute to a form of words with which to respond (politely and in-thread) to what could be instances of racism and what could be innocent "slip-ups". I don't *want* all challenges to aparently hateful language to be confined to one place on Barbelith, because I don't want people to have to look long and hard to find out that Barbelith as a board does not condone hate speech. If the unfortunate side-effect of this is that a conversation about whether the Blue Beetle could beat Wolverine is temporarily sidetracked, then c'est la vie.

I did suggest a thread in Policy where peple could draw the attention of moderators and other concerned Barbezens to examples of what they feel to be hateful language, to avoid statements like "gypsies smell of cabbage" or "Hitler had the right idea but the wrong Jews" going unnoticed because in places not generally visited by either group - that is, a place where statements can be flagged and possibly discussed.
 
 
Z. deScathach
20:16 / 14.12.04
Hmmm, sorry abouit the misunderstanding..... a form of words is an interesting idea. I'll start that out, how's about, "I feel you comment was insensitive because *blank*. Please cease and desist with this or I will contact a moderator.."

Still, I have to confess that I'm a little confused as to what you were looking for Haus. You mentioned a new thread, what would that entail exactly? I know I'm being a bit dense here, but please bear with me. Also, as far as a form of words, are you talking about full responses, or single or double word flags? Personally, I think that a thread to call hate speech to the atttention of mods is probably a good idea. Anyone have any ideas about this?
 
 
sleazenation
22:13 / 14.12.04
I think the idea is that altogether too many people on these boards appear unable to grasp why certain expressions/statements are 'offensive' (ie could detrimentally effect attempts to make barbelith, for want of a better phrase, an open, tollerant environment).

Further, when it is pointed out to these people that comments such as 'those stinking foreigners all smell and do weird things' are stupid/ignorant and offensive, many seem unable to step back and exmine their words to see if they could indeed be perceived as offensive, let alone show the maturity to admit that they might have caused offense publically.* Instead there appears an altogether too defend the original statement to the hilt, no matter how indefensible it it, often attemptng to vilify any who saw the statement as offensive into the bargain.

'The form of words' would be inform the original poster that you find his post offensive while, hopefully not needleesly provoking an angry defensive response the original poster.

Now, I can see the wisdom in this, but I also think that if someone is unable to look at their own writing and observe how it might be considered offensive in the event of someone expressing concern, or worse, cannot respond to that concern with anything other than vitriol, then maybe that someone shouldn't be allowed out on their own...

* I am assuming here that all posters are not deliberately seeking to cause offense.
 
 
Ganesh
23:15 / 14.12.04
I think a certain amount of casual racism (and let's call it racism for now) is born of ignorance. People using words like 'nigger' or 'Paki' or 'faggot' or 'bitch' are genuinely unaware of the historical/social/political baggage these terms carry. In that sense, I think Policy threads on the subject are valuable.

They shouldn't necessarily be a witch-hunt. The aim should not merely be ducking the whatever-ist until death, but showing them the context within which they make their comments. If they understand that context and continue to make such comments, then they should be ducked until death.

Says me.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
23:17 / 14.12.04
I think that a thread to call hate speech to the atttention of mods is probably a good idea.

Well, yes. Or threads, as and when it occurs, except we'll probably all end up fighting.

It's how the Policy deals with K******, after all.
 
 
HCE
23:41 / 14.12.04
Why so many typos in this thread, I wonder?

Response to off comments should not by any means be confined to a single thread, but it would be very useful to have such responses collected in one spot for easy reference. Perhaps something as simple as posting a link back to the response in the original thread would suffice. If people wanted to elaborate, that would constitute a useful resource for those moments when one is short-tempered and tempted to tell the offender to fuck off, rather than launching into an explanation that's been given repeatedly. Instead of launching into a hostile volley unlikely to elicit anything but defensiveness, we could point out what others have said previously in cooler moments. A FAQ unto itself.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
08:39 / 15.12.04
but it would be very useful to have such responses collected in one spot for easy reference.

This was my thinking... it was inspired by three incidents:

1) The comment by one of the Greenland Posse that Hitler had the right idea but the wrong Jews, which Tom did not ban him for because it was in the Temple and Tom didn't read the Temple.

2) The Fetch's anti-Semitic conspiracy theorising, again in the Temple, which were allowed to pass unchallenged for a long time because, in the eyes of many of the people who were actually reading it, the conspiracy theory stuff was much more important than the suggestion that the Jews were secretly controlling the world. And who's to say that they weren't? In one of Barbelith's lower moments, this led to a series of spinoffs in which the falsity of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the truth of the Holocaust were both placed under review. FFS, as I believe the young people say.

3) The post about smelly, stupid gypsies that kicked off the latest fight night, which again took place deep into a thread on comics trivia, in which either everyone is far more culturally aware than we are and thus imediately understood not only that the comment was not offensive but that nobody could possibly take offence at it, or that those who were still reading and contributing to the thread felt that "Do Wanda and Pietro Maximoff speak in Eastern European accents" was the important part of the post, it being about comics trivia, rather than "gypsies smell of cabbage and don't know how to use computers".

Oh, and

4) Bed Head pointing out that Cromagnet had, before his spirited defence of PsionicNurse, previously spammed the board with a bunch of pictures of dead foetuses, which I had forgotten.

This all minded me that it would be worth having a single thread in which people could say "I think this (link) by (poster) is offensive - what do you think?" - in order to bring it to the attention of people who might be more objective than those in the thread itself, and also to keep a handy tally of who is saying what when - so, as Nightclub Dwight says above, we can see easily where, say, somebody was not getting the message.

That could be racist, sexist, homophobic, or for that matter trolling or ongoing personal attacks ... we'd have to work out what we would put in there.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
09:01 / 15.12.04
This just reminds me of a situation at the last Bicon where it was proposed that all votes at Bicon's have to be passed twice at successive events in order to become part of the constitution, and Bicon is an annual event, which means it takes two years for changes to come in to force.

It's not quite as severe as that here, but someone posts something someone finds offensive in thread x and we discuss it in thread y. And, we've been doing that in the cases of the Fetch and the 'smelly gypsies', but what then? Do all the people willing to take part in the discussion get to vote on whether it's offensive or not? If we/they vote it is is a note sent to the offending poster? Or are you thinking of it just as an archive for flagging offensive material like the Knodge thread?

I'm wondering if such anecessary threads either need permanent links from the wiki or some kind of archive forum which perhaps only Tom moderates and which only moderators can post to to compile these evidence threads?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:32 / 15.12.04
Well, for example, if somebody posts offensively in two different areas where moderators might not see both, it means that moderators can be made aware that this is not a one-off, for starters. Beyond that - we already have a standard on what constitutes offensive behaviour to the point of de facto harrassment. That shouldn't be impossible to apply, and I don't have a problem with moderators or other concerned Barbezens registering their unhappiness with it in real time - that's independent of a thread which is esentially a thread of record, as opposed to one of debate. If there's a need for debate it can happen elsewhere in the Policy.

The aim is essentially to speed up the rate at which people who are posting offensively stop posting offensively, either because they wise up, they shut up, they storm off or, in extreme cases, they get banned.
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
13:31 / 07.09.05
In light of this, have dug up this thread. Have gone pretty much with 'nesh's approach, I think.

Have requested moderation to replace the term with an asterisked one and pointed out the offensiveness of the term. Awaiting response.

That seemed to me to be most appropriate immediate actionl. But does more need to happen?

I don't think Barbelith should condone the uncritical use of racist terms/practice casual/unknowing racism.

And personally, it's a piece of hate speech that I don't expect to see staring out at me when I click on a random conversation thread.
Thoughts?
 
 
Quantum
13:42 / 07.09.05
Yup. Needs challenging, not acceptable (Aussie or not) and should be asterisked out by a Mod. Although I dislike threadrot, a separate thread about it doesn't seem to have the same impact. 'Don't use that term, look at this link' might prevent the rot but I doubt it, and I don't think it would be enough to stop the usage either. Tricky one.
 
 
Quantum
13:49 / 07.09.05
I don't *want* all challenges to aparently hateful language to be confined to one place on Barbelith, because I don't want people to have to look long and hard to find out that Barbelith as a board does not condone hate speech.

Haus upthread. I think I agree with that, vigorous on-the-spot challenging of hate speech is necessary on the board as much as in real life. A seperate thread would diminish it's importance.
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
13:50 / 07.09.05
Yeah, I think I agree with that. Dug up this thread in lieu of starting a new one for the comment, thought it might be useful for us to see where our discussions had gone before.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:08 / 07.09.05
I'm more than happpy to asterisk-out offensive words (I guess other moderators can judge whether it's PCGM by agreeing or disagreeing) and challenge them in-thread, even if that means a degree of threadrot I think it's worth doing. Actually, GGM's post in the "Cool Quotes' thread seems to me a very good starting point for the kind of thing a moderator might want to say in-thread in the case of a specific word being used that is reasonably unambiguously hate-speech, whether used with hateful intent or not (I don't imagine Mistoffeles had hateful intent, whether or not the creator of the original quote did).

The trickier bit is probably where possible offence is judged to be less important than some other effect. In this case, that effect was comedy, but it was also using a recoognisably offensive term... I'm thinking of something like Psionicnurse on gypsies, where the important thing was a question about Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch, or The Fetch, where the important thing was t3h conspiracy...
 
 
The Falcon
14:57 / 07.09.05
Can we just make a list then? I mean, there's areas that'll be contentious, but I think there's terms can be come to. Start at the top.

It's an open thread, anyone can contribute. And those who err in future can be pointed at this list, and preamble, and told (in whatever terms,) 'this is not acceptable.'

Two strikes/three strikes -> ban.
 
 
Char Aina
15:43 / 07.09.05

I don't think Barbelith should condone the uncritical use of racist terms/practice casual/unknowing racism.

agreed.


vigorous on-the-spot challenging of hate speech is necessary on the board as much as in real life. A seperate thread would diminish it's importance.


agreed.



challenge them in-thread, even if that means a degree of threadrot I think it's worth doing.


agreed.


Can we just make a list then? I mean, there's areas that'll be contentious, but I think there's terms can be come to.

seems fair, but wouldnt you be giving google a long list of racist terminology to find?
i dont know how this would be a problem, but GGM seemed to think it would be.
would you star out the terms deemed offensive here as well?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:47 / 07.09.05
As I said above, Duncan, the words are relatively simple, I think - in many cases, at least, it should be pretty uncontroversiial when a particular word is not acceptable (regardless of the motivation of the writer). Ideologies are trickier...
 
 
Char Aina
15:51 / 07.09.05
would we be excising use by members of the group reffered to by the term?
black men using ni**er, gayers et al using qu**r?
i dont consider myself heterosexual, is it okay to say qu**r without the asterisks?

i reckon there might be more grey areas than you sugest.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:56 / 07.09.05
Mind you, banning people would be another step again - the only time it's been done so far is the Fetch, for anti-Semitism. I've basically been operating a policy where people who are IMHO making racist statements are challenged if I see them, and if they are unapologetic I then feel entitled to make other people aware of their statements and hope that they (the other people) react accordingly. If that ends up with Barbelith beiing a hostile environment for them, then that's not something I'm going to cry about. Banning would be much simpler, but it might leasd to accusations of autocratic behaviour.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
16:17 / 07.09.05
Context is everything Toksik. I don't think we've had any gayers stand up and say they find the use of the term queer offensive. If they did then we'd have to talk about it. The 'n' and 'p' words are different, not least because we're a predominantly white board, and we've had people who have said that they find their use offensive.

Or are you suddenly deciding that you simply can't live on a board where you've been asked not to use two little words?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:47 / 07.09.05
I don't think we've had any gayers stand up and say they find the use of the term queer offensive.

Further, I think that it's pretty easy to tell intent from context. "Those queers are disgusting" is pretty easily distinct from "My queer theory tutor would agree". And, because of the term's reaonably broad acceptance as a word with clear non-derogatory usage patterns, there's no risk of badness finding us through Google, however much of a risk you assess that as.
 
 
Char Aina
17:39 / 07.09.05

Or are you suddenly deciding that you simply can't live on a board where you've been asked not to use two little words?

oh, shit. you got me.
meanwhile, back in this universe...
what?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
18:03 / 07.09.05
Calm down, darlings. We're discussing moderation aproaches to dealing with offensive language and statements. It's an emotive and potentially awkward topic and personal scrapping is not going to make it any easier to make progress. There's the Conversation for that.
 
 
Char Aina
18:34 / 07.09.05
lets moderate my comments off the thread, then.
i dont need to point out how ridiculous the comment i am responding to is; its fairly clear.

i shall move for this to be deleted.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
18:43 / 07.09.05
I've disagreed to your move to delete the post because I thought it was a snarky response to a snarky point and I don't see why you shouldn't defend yourself from someone else's snide points.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
19:41 / 07.09.05
OK. And we are now drawing a line.

So, back to the question. Words I think we can do pretty easily. But is it desirable to put in place a banning mechanism? And should we have a list, or rely on common sense?
 
 
Tryphena Absent
20:10 / 07.09.05
I think a list is a good idea. We can add to it later if we want to and it makes things clearer (we do have a couple of people on the applications database who aren't from English-speaking countries at the moment and it would probably be helpful for them as well).

I wouldn't mind a banning mechanism but I'm not too bothered by not having one. It might be helpful should we have a list to not have a banning mechanism as a kind of measurement?
 
 
The Falcon
22:17 / 07.09.05
Well, it comes around every so often and it's draining, and I personally want a fix. It's clear there are certain terminologies we don't want, need or wish to tolerate, so a list is a help; might as well institutionalise it, whilst being careful to allow discussion on concomitant issues.

Banning would hopefully only remain a threat, but the three strikes thing is just based on the employment model (incidentally, I think one use of hate-speech would constitute gross misconduct & sacking, but I also know it's highly unlikely it'd go reported.)
 
  
Add Your Reply