| |
|
I vote to ban because ShadowSax replied to this thread before I finished the post I began writing last night…
No, seriously, there were a few things I wanted to bring up in terms of how Barbelith deals with this sort of interaction in the future and with Shadowsax in particular. For the record, my encounters with ShadowSax on the board have been fairly limited, I read the Switchboard threads he has been involved in uneasily, but didn’t post criticism because the threads / issues were already well underway, I posted with regards to the “chicks like you” comment because I thought it was deeply insensitive and maybe more pertinently I was “there” in real-time, and after that there seemed to be a space where I thought he had gone quiet and when he did pop up he was writing with greater clarity and, to a degree, being mis-read because of his previous contributions. To go way back to Flyboy’s original post, ShadowSax is able to accrue power on the basis of his reputation, which means that some members will avoid threads he is present in, or indeed the entire board, while members who don’t know his reputation or who choose to ignore him when he’s not being actively offensive could, through proximity to the miasma of pestilent ideas he surrounds himself with, be tainted by assumptions of complicity. More recently I posted in the Music forum in a thread that ShadowSax had also posted on, because I felt I had a small contribution worth making, rather than a desire to interact with his own odious self, and reflecting on that I think I’m able to do that as part of the unconscious privilege inherent in not feeling my opinions are likely to challenged or dismissed by him on the basis of my gender (while believing others might be far more aware of that).
On a personal note I’m still fairly new to the constant party that is Barbelith, I’m still pretty much sticking to small-talk, trying to get a feel for the people and the geography of the discussion, wary of spilling my drink and a bit paranoid about whether people are willing to talk to a newcomer and if they’re whispering in corners about the long-winded bore crashing about the place. This I’m sure will pass. My own perspective on ShadowSax as he affects me is one of less importance than others, but it’s not perhaps insignificant that I, or any other new member, would find ShadowSax’s presence dangerous in the sense that we could be seen to be condoning his views by entertaining his company (which isn’t necessarily the case), re: the Barbelith party: “oh my god can you see who he’s talking to? Doesn’t he know who that is?”.
With regards to: “the relative worth of the posters” Mattvara, p1. How would you ever quantify that? It doesn’t seem feasible that you could reduce (throwing names in the air) Blake Head, Ganesh, Lurid Archive and ShadowSax holding position A, Qalyn, Mattvara, Haus, Nina and Mordant Carnival holding the opposed position B, to a neat equation, on this subject or any other. I was uncomfortable with the ideas of more influential posters having more “worth” than any member, as I do think that each member should have an equal right to express their views, and have it be considered on an equal footing with those of any other member, (including ShadowSax, I should say, up until such a time that the board feels he has abused his rights and withdraws his membership), and wary of head-counting in general, and thankfully that seems to be a methodology we’re shying away from.
I mentioned unconscious privilege above in the sense that I can far easier ignore Shadowsax than someone who feels they are likely to have their views attacked or dismissed on the basis of their gender identification. As such I think priority should be given (as part of the decision making progress) to those members most directly affected and, perhaps to a lesser degree, who have chosen to get involved. So my own thoughts are just that, those of a concerned, relatively new member, who would like to see the best possible dissemination of information and enjoyment within Barbelith, which means, for me, attempting to raise just that issue with a member that other members find an obstruction (a clot basically), and if they can’t willingly stop being an obstruction then we have to, ahem, operate.
While there may be a larger argument on how the community prioritises certain forms of hatespeech, in ShadowSax’s case I’d like to concentrate on his posting style rather than content, as in this case I think it’s more pertinent, and there does seem to be a core group of posters (that I agree with) that don’t see sexism as any less relevant than the other ‘isms. That said I’m still not entirely convinced that in terms of either explicitly offensive material or unconstructive posting Shadowsax has demonstrated that he should be immediately banned on the basis of a single example. About the closest I get is that his unpleasant nature, his willingness to generalise and his sustained inability to recognise the way he diminishes the importance of certain issues while paying lip service to them, have all contributed to a feeling that his further contributions will only ever have a negative force.
To address some of the points in the thread:
Ibis p3
It seems to me that ShadowSax's misogyny, though often oblique, is fairly uncomplicated and unexamined.
That may be the case, but I think the problem as such is that while his views might be uncomplicated, his expression is, as you put it, oblique. While being really offensive in its own right, and one of his more revealing posts, “Chicks like you bore me” is nevertheless different from “bitches like you bore me”, and “all chicks are like you: boring”. And ShadowSax didn’t use the last two. If he did, I’d like to think that the response to his behaviour would have been swifter and more definitive, but as it wasn’t we now seem to be in a position of making a case for constructive dismissal based on a series of statements that suggest his views on women are offensive, and that they negatively impact how he chooses to express himself and on what topics, and with what priorities. I mean, I entirely agree that he’s demonstrated contempt for the board, but he’s done so with just enough complexity and … would passive aggressive be a good term to describe his fashion for disassociating his language from the “truth” of his views, and retreating to that position when challenged? to avoid more immediate action.
On reflection, though, being stupid with offensive views probably *is* reason enough to ban someone. Lurid, p2.
Seconded, though more with the sense that, by themselves not grounds for banning (at least to the degrees exhibited here perhaps), these qualities do not become worthy of action because of their addition to one another, but because they seem to actively work upon one another and exacerbate the undesirability of each eg ShadowSax’ posting style doesn’t allow him to contribute much to the board, the fact that he has persistently allowed his political views to further limit his contributions probably makes him actively unwelcome unless he’s truly willing to change that dynamic.
Would a cultural conservative, with mainstream conservative views on homosexuality, women, immigration and war, say, be banned for expressing those views on Barbelith? Lurid: p2
I’d like to say no, but that’s very dependent on their ability to rise to the significant level of questioning such a position would be likely to bring, and while I wouldn’t expect a conversion on either side I think it could potentially be a fruitful discussion. Also at issue would be their ability to engage with and respectfully address other posters who were queer, anti-war or whatever.
To turn to Shadowsax himself, and any redeeming features he might have, well, I think he means well… As Ibis said (hoping my link works, I’m new at this):
he has made an utter fool of himself and discredited even the small kernel of truth that could be presented as a worthwhile argument.
I think in a number of places he has advanced views that are worthwhile and I have some sympathy towards, defending important rights which can be overlooked under the pressure of other issues. I’m sure Shadowsax would see himself this way; as resisting, for example, the dehumanisation of former rapists, and as such our objections to his manner of expressing this clearly demonstrate to him that we are neither as progressive or compassionate as he is. However, what I think is not acceptable is his inability to locate such arguments within a larger context and to restrict them to the appropriate discussions. All of which argues, as Haus has been at pains to point out several times, that he’s far more interested in the advocacy of his own position and issues than any real discussion.
His priorities are such that he devalues the negative experience of women, and concentrates on the (typically, relatively smaller in scale) consequences for others, to such a degree that the validity or otherwise of his points in no ways excuses the omission on his part of any substantial sympathy or even understanding of issues at hand when they have no relation to those issues he is concerned with. Certainly what I felt was that, initially, in both the “Should pro-choice extend to men as well?” and “Duke” threads ShadowSax attempted to engage with other posters and was reasonably coherent. However, it’s his blindness to the significance of the crime of rape, his wilful avoidance of addressing questions apropos the standards of the team members accused, the intensity of his language - which suggests his expectations are that it’s a false claim - and his vitriol regarding such false claims, that are really the point. Were it proved that the woman in question was attention-seeking, ShadowSax’s comment still suggests an unhealthy level of misogynistic (and racist) colouring to his description of an admittedly negative action, and again within his past experience suggests that he’s willing to comment displaying highly visible prejudices without actually laying claim to their authorship.
I do think his “bias” is based at least more on erroneous political beliefs “feminists are a political group” that he has no way of substantiating and no willingness to have questioned, than an actual declared hatred of women. He clearly feels that he is being misrepresented: “rape is a very big deal and i think it's appropriate that rape victims are granted latitude and the benefit of the doubt (as i've already stated), and it's also appropriate that rape is treated as seriously as the legal system treats it.”
[Shadowsax has now of course quoted this in his own defence]
But I don’t believe that the board feels insincere feeling apologies or misleading statements outweigh the serious distortion of several discussions by ShadowSax expression of his views.
...
I don’t think the idea of a formal warning is by itself helpful. I think perhaps primarily because it focuses on the formal aspects of the case, which can usually be surmounted easily, which is also a reason why I wouldn’t favour punitive seeming actions like suit freezing. What I would have originally proposed before ShadowSax replied is below, with the suggestion that it be considered in contributing to the more general discussion of how we address, as a community, individual members who have harmed other members:
“Ask them to leave voluntarily or definitively acknowledge the concerns of the board, and if people are worried about that leaving a dubious poster on the board for longer than necessary then ask the concerned to refrain from posting until the issue is settled (apart from posting to explain themselves obviously). Making it conditional rather than an invitation to a thread already underway discussing them, and if possible requesting that they respond in a structured way in one post rather than being included in an ongoing discussion, and posting further to give clarifications / requested additional information only. Then the board (and Tom) could have another short period of time to discuss whether they thought the post was satisfactory or not (and there is a somewhat unstructured precedent in the case of Sensitive.) If it does prove to be satisfactory then all freedoms returned, with the understanding that if similar concerns become apparent for post-warning contributions, then there will be a summary discussion of whether that poster should be banned without the feeling that they’ve not been given every opportunity to recant or explain, and presumably a swift expulsion if it’s clear they are unrepentant. Obviously the ideas of “a short time” are quite fluid, it obviously taking longer to achieve a consensus to a considered response than to an obvious “noodleheads” response, although a week in each case sounds good as a maximum limit. It should be understood that if a poster declines to comment they are tacitly acknowledging the concerns of members as valid and as such they are going to be shown the door. I think this approach that, in this particular case, while Shadowsax is evidently capable of constructing a seemingly coherent argument, he has thus far proven incapable of displaying a substantial understanding of his effect on the board, which is what I think any “trial” should focus on, rather than re-arguing the issues. And, just so we’re clear, in the instance of an unsatisfactory response I would have no problem with SS being swiftly banned, nor in the instance that we come to a consensus in this thread that Shadowsax’s misogyny is overtly offensive in terms of explicit incitement of hatred of women (which so far I don’t believe has been proved) and thus doesn’t actually require any further investigation.”
This could take the quite informal format below:
“Look. We’re sorry, but it’s just not working out. It doesn’t need to be melodramatic or judgemental, but your interaction with the community is disruptive, several members have registered their concerns regarding your posting style, and have discussed why they are deeply uncomfortable with you remaining on the board. As such, it’s time for both parties in this dialogue to consider their position on whether there is a net benefit, to either side, in you’re remaining a member of the board. As such we are asking, not that you provoke or demand a ban, but that you reflect on whether it would be best for you to voluntarily leave the board, given the possibility that any future attempts to interact with the board are likely to continue to meet a painful resistance if the content and style of your contributions do not change. If you have respect for other members of the board, we as a community would ask you to demonstrate an understanding of why your posts have been seen not to meet the standards Barbelith expects, and without making yourself beholden to anyone make clear either why you feel entitled to make such disruptive posts, or how, understanding the offence you have caused, in the future will avoid repeating your mistakes. The community will discuss whether your justification of your actions is satisfactory in terms of whether you’re continued membership would be beneficial to the board within a prescribed time-limit, at which point we’ll let you know.”
Which is a less concise sample of what miss wonderstarr said on p1:
Has anyone said to Shadowsax, "sorry but your attitudes and contributions on here are making a significant number of people distressed, angry and uncomfortable, and it would be best if you didn't post on Barbelith anymore"?
As it is, ShadowSax has effectively responded to more disparate calls for the same thing, but in a fashion in which he doesn’t seem to understand the implications or the seriousness of his effect on the community (which I’ll cover below). I’d like to ask him how he feels about how he has met the responsibilities of contributing to Barbelith alongside his right to post there, although I suspect at this point we’re not going to get anywhere.
He responded to Ganesh’s eventually very patient line of questioning thusly:
1.)Do you understand that– intentionally or not- multiple posts you have made on this board have offended several members and have caused them to look at your unfavorably?
obviously.
Which continues his pattern of giving the right answer without, well, either showing his working or expressing any concern. He also didn’t really reply to miss wonderstarr’s question regarding if he wanted to stay, at least, not directly, so I personally feel I have very little understanding of what it is about his experience here that he wants to continue, and rather than demonstrate an understanding of what it means to be in a community he displays a casual disregard for anyone who takes offence at his presence. Again, I’d maybe just like to emphasise some of the more informal aspects, and with any proposed method for dealing with “problem members” I’m trying to imagine (and hopefully it will stay in my imagination) how I’d like to be treated in such a situation. I feel that if we are able to address ShadowSax as a community that he belongs to, not as individuals that he can separate from his idea of Barbelith, we should feel able to ask him not to post for a week, or to address a community that feels damaged, rather than employ force to constrict his engagement with the board. But fundamentally I don’t feel that we could ask him.
I thought this, again from Ganesh, was crucial:
Additionally, the fact that every time I ask you to comment on potential areas of improvement in your own posting style you highlight other people's perceived faults makes me wonder whether swift attack is your only (or most developed) mode of resolving conflict.
In the model I proposed, however useful or not that is, I was trying to create an option for dealing with conflict that wasn’t aggressive, but got to the heart of what we’re doing here ie it’s discursive. If ShadowSax isn’t able to resolve conflict without reference to other people’s issues, or substantively demonstrating some actual self-awareness rather than just claiming possession of it, then I can’t see how he can stay.
Essentially I saw nothing new in his most recent replies. And I think his contributions could still be characterised as evasive, or even dissembling, and while he’s replied here in a restrained fashion he has not effectively demonstrated that he wished to be part of the community or that he respects members of the community, and as such I am uncomfortable with his continued, unmodified presence on the board. If no further options are made available I, regrettably, vote to ban. |
|
|
