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

Underground > Policy & Help >

A suggestion.

Page: (1)2 3 4

10:30 / 28.01.06

Given that the question of political (in)correctness seems to be something of a perennial issue for Barbelith (having been at the wrong end of a political correctness lambasting about three or four months ago), I was wondering whether it would be worth stipulating in the Wiki that free speech does not extend to racist/sexist/insert-noun-here-ist comments, even in jest.

I have to admit, much of my initial hiccup had to do with the fact that it was not stipulated explicitly in the Wiki. Chalk it up to shitty reading comprehension, but I completely misread the Posting Etiquette as being far more liberal concerning comments that could be misconstrued as offensive than is actually the case.

Were such a change made, then comments like this -

Does Magneto and his children speak with thick East European brogues? Do Pietro and Wanda over-pronouce certain letters in words and do they smell of cabbage like all gypsies inherently do (I can be derogatory to gypsies because none of them know how to use a computer)?

- would no longer be accepted at all, no matter how hilarious it is (and I think it is hilarious, speaking as someone who is related both to carnies and people of a similar ethno-geographical stock as the Rroma [gypsies], despite my ferociously Anglo-Saxon surname).

(Dear Lord, what an ugly sentence).

I understand that many of you are more than happy with the way it is, but I personally found the modality of the Posting Etiquette rather misleading, having had to find out the hard way that even comments made in jest (such as the one above) are jumped on and kicked repeatedly by the more senior and almost painfully socially aware forum members. However, if the Wiki was edited to give a more realistic representation of what is actually expected, posters such as myself would have no excuse for acting surprised when, after posting a comment like the above, hordes of highly irate forum members jump down their throats and beat them with cudgels.

11:01 / 28.01.06

Clue, clue, who's got the clue? Hm. No sign of a clue here...

Is it necessarily to explicitly outline all behaviors that might get you in trouble in a given setting or context? Or can't some things be left to common sense?

For instance: Your local cinema has a sign up that says NO SMOKING, and maybe one that says TURN OFF YOUR CELL PHONES. Should it also have signs saying NO LOUD TALKING? How about KINDLY REFRAIN FROM SEXUALLY ASSAULTING OTHER PATRONS? Or MURDER IS PROHIBITED IN THIS THEATRE?

In other words: In what social circles do you move in which crude, hateful jackass-behavior is not met with anger and scorn? Not many, I'd wager. So why on earth did you expect it to be any different here?

You're still blaming society for something that is patently your own error. Stop being a weasel. Accept the responsibility for your own screw-up, grow, learn, and move on.

It really saddens me that we're even having this conversation. Again.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

12:02 / 28.01.06

and I think it is hilarious, speaking as someone who is related both to carnies and people of a similar ethno-geographical stock as the Rroma [gypsies]

Okay. You think it's hilarious. What about other readers who're "related to carnies" or of "similar ethno-geographical stock as the Roma"? Are they going find it hilarious too?

What about your "carny" relatives? I presume, since you bring them up, that this is a fairly close family relationship--that you at least exchange Christmas cards, the odd phonecall, have them over for Sunday lunch now and again and so forth. I know I like to share a good joke with my family, so have you run the above quote by them to see if they found it funny as well?

Would you still find it "hilarious" if you were actually Roma? Or a member of the travelling community? If your home was at risk, if you were turned away from shops and hospitals? If your kids were getting beaten up? Still funny?

The above, of course, assumes that you are telling the truth about your rich ethno-geographic heritage and ties within the travelling community--not a given, since we don't know you. I could claim to be Roma, or an old Dutch woman, or a beauoootiful bisexual model ect. How would you verify my claim?

Not good enough, hiccups/punctuation. How about accepting that yeah, your prejudices need work and going from there?

Less searchable M0rd4nt

12:17 / 28.01.06

PS:-- unexamined use of the phrase "political correctness" is a really, really good way to get yourself crispy-fried around here. You may want to check out this thread on the subject, and decide if that particular word-pair is really going to convey what you mean.

13:06 / 28.01.06

Seconded the recco for that thread. One proviso, however: please, please please read the whoel thing before posting. A skim will do: just be sure that your questions have not already been answered, or your concerns not already addressed.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

15:20 / 28.01.06

Actually, Jack, you're fourthing the recommendation. (punctuation) has already been referred to that thread by at least two posters. But hope springs eternal, as they say.

Tryphena Absent

17:05 / 28.01.06

This is what the wiki says: aggressive statements about types of people who might be represented on the board may be considered direct harrassment of the individuals concerned. We genuinely do not care if you think this is 'political correctness gone mad' - if you feel that someone has misinterpreted something you've said to be homophobic or racist or whatever, the best thing you can do is apologise quickly for your poor choice of words, apologise to anyone you might have offended and try and restate the question again in clearer language.

I think that's pretty clear. What do you think lacks clarity in that statement?

18:44 / 28.01.06

while a i agree with jack regarding accepting the responsibility for your own screw-up[s], i think that perhaps the issue is that ze doesnt consider what ze said to be aggresive.
something said in jest might not be said with aggresion, even if it is hate speech.
if being called on a poor choice of words, a bad taste joke, etc. being told that you are being aggresive might, i can imagine, make no sense.

aggresion suggests intent to me.
not for you?

22:12 / 28.01.06

If it were me, I'd have avoided repeating the offending remarks, emboldened, with such an air of entitlement, at the head of this thread.

ONLY NICE THINGS

22:50 / 28.01.06

Hold on, hold on...

Could somebody post a link to where hiccups feels he was criticised for a lack of this political correctness we seem to esteem so highly around here? I'd like to see what we're talking about...

23:06 / 28.01.06

Starts here, I think. I’m not sure hiccups’ first post to this thread has anything new; it looks more like he’s nursed his wounds and is now just angling for another go at the same fight.

23:09 / 28.01.06

I think that Jack's point about the cinema signs is fairly crucial here. You don't see such signs in the cinema, yet you still know that knifing the man in the seat next to you just because there wasn't a sign telling you not to is a very stupid plan.

Nobody tells you to hold on until you get to a toilet if you need to pee on the bus, but I bet you do it.

It's clearly a case of using your common sense.

ONLY NICE THINGS

23:09 / 28.01.06

Ah, yes. Is there some sort of passive-aggressive poison in the water at the moment?

Still and all: Hiccups, what would you propose we say?

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

23:21 / 28.01.06

It certainly seems a bit much to ask the rest of us to provide a comprehensive list of stupid shit people may or may not do in the future just so we can tell them not to in advance.

Venn diagrams, people. Stupid shit overlaps with offensive shit. Can't we just add an extra circle covering the entirety of the "offensive" one and a large part of the "stupid" one, with an arrow saying "don't do this"?

23:23 / 28.01.06

The one time I said something outside of Barbelith which someone then pointed out was unacceptable, I was so upset that I started a thread about it. I have to admit to feeling absolutely mortified and very embarrassed, but I like to think that if I'd made the same mistake in a post here I would have accepted that it was my mistake and not blamed it on the Wiki.

23:24 / 28.01.06

I agree with Stoatie. Venn diagrams rock.

23:30 / 28.01.06

Could somebody post a link to where hiccups feels he was criticised for a lack of this political correctness we seem to esteem so highly around here? I'd like to see what we're talking about...

I'm not trying to resurrect that beast - I fully accept that I was being an asshole. I had assumed that what I had said would be taken ironically (that being my intention), when it obviously wasn't. For that I apologise.

But that's neither here nor there.

Lots of boards have a no-harrassment policy, but I have never seen such a reactionary militia as on this board. This is not a bad thing, but if the Wiki was more explicit, people such as myself (whether you want to define these people as ironic parvenus or racist, sexist pricks is your choice) would know to cut the shit instead of fighting back.

Barbelith is about open borders, but with opening these borders, no doubt unsavoury elements will hop the border as well. Since you can't change what people think, a clear and absolute policy (which is already effectively enforced) would be represented in the Posting Etiquette to prevent the vast majority of these forest fires from breaking out. It would have helped me, for one.

I also know that there are threads on what is deemed PC and non-PC (one of which I was represented in), but I hardly think that most new members are not going to dredge through the archives to double-check the board's policy of political correctness. If the conclusions of those threads were posted on the Wiki in highly modal language, then new members (like me) would have no excuse when surprised that they've caused a ruckus with a statement which (to them) was largely innocuous.

This thread is not about me. I fully accept that I acted like an asshole, and I'm suggesting a minor change to the Etiquette Policy to more accurately represent this board's stance towards bigotry, for the benefit of new members.

On a personal note, I would like to stay at Barbelith, and (to my knowledge) I haven't posted anything which could be misconstrued as misogynistic since the debacle of a few months ago, and I would like to keep it that way.

ONLY NICE THINGS

23:41 / 28.01.06

Hiccups, have you looked at that thread on political correctness people have now been suggesting you look at for three months or so? It might be quite useful.

Elsewhere:

Lots of boards have a no-harrassment policy, but I have never seen such a reactionary militia as on this board. This is not a bad thing

Clearly you think it is. Your language throughout has been inflammatory and disrespectful of those who do not agree with you. However, that is also not really relevant.

I ask again: What exactly do you think it would be useful to say? What wording would have been useful for you?

Tryphena Absent

23:50 / 28.01.06

Right I don't often do this but I think this thread has gone off-track quite severely I would like to request that everyone step away from the critique and focus on the actual, stated purpose of this thread.

(punctuation) can you please respond to my question and explain what else you would like us to say in the wiki. Either write it or lay out what you think would be clearer, post it here and then we'll debate the proposed changes. At the moment my perception is that you've not read the etiquette section properly. I would like to know what you feel has not been said in distinct language in this thread. Nothing airy and loose, start with what's there and fill in what you think the gaps are.

I like to think that we do have a vaguely positive approach to people's suggestions about the FAQ, I think that's what you're trying to do but you can't complain and ask someone else to do the work when you're the one who feels there are gaps. You have to explain, in the context of what is there right now, what you want added about the board's approach.

23:54 / 28.01.06

As per Stoatie's reference, perhaps we should just post this to the wiki?:

In relation to posting on Barbelith and the rules behind what should and shouldn't appear, see the following diagram:

ONLY NICE THINGS

00:05 / 29.01.06

I kind of heart Olulabelle.

Maybe we could say something to the effect that on the Internet, nobody knows that what you have just said is not racist, sexist, homophobic etc. for the very good reasons you believe people ought to know and understand already. That something was a hilarious joke and as such not possibly offensive, that some of your best friends belong to the group you are using terminology generally defined as hate speech to describe, that you yourself are member of the group etc, and so on. Therefore, if something looks like it might be offensive if posted on a message board to be read by total strangers, don't be too surprised if when total strangers read it on a message board they get offended.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

00:12 / 29.01.06

(Apologies for the threadrot, but I'm hotfooting it to the Barbecrush thread, because Lula is clearly ACE).

00:14 / 29.01.06

[Barrymore] Coffee, anyone? [/Barrymore]

(Crushing Olulavenn big time, though.)

Tryphena Absent

00:52 / 29.01.06

Okay, I think we should just put that on the wiki. Right now.

Tryphena Absent

01:03 / 29.01.06

Also I'd like a cup of tea please. Sorrythnxbye.

01:17 / 29.01.06

Right I don't often do this but I think this thread has gone off-track quite severely I would like to request that everyone step away from the critique and focus on the actual, stated purpose of this thread.

Thank you, Nina. I was doing my best not to start a fight in this thread.

(punctuation) can you please respond to my question and explain what else you would like us to say in the wiki. Either write it or lay out what you think would be clearer, post it here and then we'll debate the proposed changes. At the moment my perception is that you've not read the etiquette section properly. I would like to know what you feel has not been said in distinct language in this thread. Nothing airy and loose, start with what's there and fill in what you think the gaps are.

Hypothetically (edits in bold):

Our rule of thumb is that other members shouldn't feel harrassed, and aggressive statements about types of people who might be represented on the board may be considered direct harrassment of the individuals concerned; as a result, any comments which can be interpreted as bigotry (with or without malicious intent) are strongly frowned upon by the forum at large and will be dealt with accordingly. We genuinely do not care if you think this is 'political correctness gone mad' - if you feel that someone has misinterpreted something you've said to be homophobic or racist or whatever, the best thing you can do is apologise quickly for your poor choice of words, apologise to anyone you might have offended and try and restate the question again in clearer language.

In a nutshell:

* Do not troll on the board (See What is a Troll?)
* Do not harass other board members
* Do not make sexist/racist comments, even in jest.
* Don't rot threads
* Don't post angry
* Don't mistake inquiry for insult.

Obviously feel free to play around with my rather shoddy attempt at Etiquette clarification, but it's a starting point.

I like to think that we do have a vaguely positive approach to people's suggestions about the FAQ, I think that's what you're trying to do but you can't complain and ask someone else to do the work when you're the one who feels there are gaps. You have to explain, in the context of what is there right now, what you want added about the board's approach.

Righto. My apologies.

05:49 / 29.01.06

I also know that there are threads on what is deemed PC and non-PC

could you tell me where they are?
links would be especially helpful, as i seem to have completely missed them.

06:18 / 29.01.06

If the conclusions of those threads were posted on the Wiki in highly modal language, then new members (like me) would have no excuse when surprised that they've caused a ruckus with a statement which (to them) was largely innocuous.

could you share with us what you feel your excuse was?
do you feel that it did in fact excuse?

ONLY NICE THINGS

11:02 / 29.01.06

Calm, toksik. The excuse is pretty clearly "in other social environments in which I operate, the same expectations about watching my behaviour do not exist, because those inthe environment have decided as a group that, since we are obviously not racist, anything we say that might appear so is a funny joke. I believed that the results of these negotations can also be applied to Barbelith."

This process of small-unit negotiation is by no means uncommon: for reference, see Pingles' post here, or paranoidwriter's:

I have a friend who is a very dry, intelligent, witty, and funny man, and the other week a few of us were watching something on TV which he didn't like. His response:

"This is hippy shit. When's the Fuhrer on?"

Those of us that knew him laughed, as we knew of his particular interest in WW2, Nazi Germany, and Totalitarianism (etc), as well as the fact that virtually everyday Adolf Hitler seems to get free airtime on British television. However, one person who was in our company seemed to take offence at my friend's comment, pulling a face and saying something acerbic (which I forget).

I think a problem is that, although we can change the wiki for people who have not worked out that "it was a joke! None of my friends would think it was offensive - why should you?" is not a convincing argument - and there may be a case for doing so - the sort of people who have not worked this out, and who are often prone to shitting their pants explosively as a brilliant riposte to any criticism - see Psionicnurse above - are unlikely to read the FAQ, and are likely to demand that their own words get special treatment, as extra clever and extra funny. Still, changing the wiki wouldn't hurt... anyone want to have a crack at it?

12:34 / 29.01.06

I'm quite ambivilent on the idea of amending the wiki to explicitly state that which should be obvious to all reasonably intelligent people.

Tryphena Absent

13:18 / 29.01.06

Humans are social animals and if you haven't grown up with certain expectations and if no one has questioned you about using certain forms of language then why should you simply be bright enough to know that they might offend? Some people on this board have probably never lived in an area populated by anyone who was non-white. We expect people to show a sensitivity that they might not have ever encountered or needed to exercise and I don't see why we shouldn't be clear about what we expect from our members.

Those amendments are representative of barbelith's expectations of its community and are a positive step. If people haven't read them then we can refer to them.

ONLY NICE THINGS

13:25 / 29.01.06

I think the phrasing needs a bit more work, but in principle I don't see the problem. Anyone mind if I have a go?

Tryphena Absent

13:32 / 29.01.06

Go for it but don't confuse it too much, it's quite clear at the moment. The "in jest" part probably needs some cleaning. Also there's a "may" in the present text that could probably do with changing to "will".

ONLY NICE THINGS

13:45 / 29.01.06

No mention of homophobia at present, either.

13:54 / 29.01.06

Yeah an explicit reference to The Barb's stance on homophobia wouldn't go amiss either. A stance which afaik has been established with the case of Hawksmoor.

Page: (1)2 3 4